• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

DNC Live Commentary

RJKarl said:
Ryan has two choices. He can change his entire plan or have Biden mop the floor with it.
Click to expand...

Oh, dream on. First of all, Ryan has taken ideas from Democrats and improved them. He has a Democrat signing on to his Medicare reform. Wyden. Second, Biden has no plan, which, of course, means Obama has no plan. Good luck with that.
 
GO you clearly believe that having republicans in charge is the right way to go, and stand strong in your convictions. As a young republican how do you convince yourself to just go with it when the party is so fucked up when it comes to pretty much every social issue, gay marriage, science, woman etc... They say a lot of good things but its impossible to even come close to ignoring those views. Im sure you don't walk lock step with those points, so what do you do just ignore it and say fuck it and hope they just forget to cut funding for science, and make woman their slaves, hope that the dems block those points but can't the fiscal points. Im curious because its probably the biggest hold up, letting some of this group even near certain issues.
 
RJKarl said:
Ryan has two choices. He can change his entire plan or have Biden mop the floor with it.
Click to expand...

Nope, he'll actually have the floor to explain Romney's plan which incorporates his ideas and take Biden to task for having no ideas but to put HC in the gov'ts hands.
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
GO you clearly believe that having republicans in charge is the right way to go, and stand strong in your convictions. As a young republican how do you convince yourself to just go with it when the party is so fucked up when it comes to pretty much every social issue, gay marriage, science, woman etc... They say a lot of good things but its impossible to even come close to ignoring those views. Im sure you don't walk lock step with those points, so what do you do just ignore it and say fuck it and hope they just forget to cut funding for science, and make woman their slaves, hope that the dems block those points but can't the fiscal points. Im curious because its probably the biggest hold up, letting some of this group even near certain issues.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree w/ a lot of the Religious Right but at least I think its highly selfish to be a one social issue voter.

I don't hope the Dems block the crazies, I know that a majority of Americans including many R's will block them. Also a ton of this shit is made up by the Dems to scare women and minorities.

The SC had decided the abortion issue, with albeit a crappy ruling. That's the law of the land and Romney will respect it. The Birth Control issue is a red herring, BC is legal and will always be legal and hopefully cheaper than ever. I even think we should put it in school milk and water, but that's me.

Do I wish we'd moderate some, sure. But that the great part of the GOP, its a big tent. Lots of various views on stuff and let me tell you, these homeschooled kids do a great job volunteering for our candidates.

But I'm not about to vote for a big government Democrat just because he and I agree on Evolution.

I also think the homophobia on the right is a lot of the older people in the party. At Young Republican functions, there are a ton of GOProud and Log Cabin folks and everyone gets along. Gay rights aren't my priority in life but the idea of giving them rights is fine with me, I wouldn't stand in the way if I was ever in leadership and I highly doubt you'll see anti-gay ideas in the Republican party in 20-30 years because quite frankly young people just don't care about this stuff. If people are gay, they're gay, that's the end of it for me at least.

Some Republicans may be homophobic but I also think the loudest voices in the gay community are a huge turnoff to the regular Joe and Jane Six Pack. There should be commercials about how gay people are our neighbors, our friends, the parents of Bobby down the street and how its unfair to keep them out of hospital rooms. Instead, we have them protesting popular restaurants in middle America, etc. If I was in charge of the gay lobby, they'd have everything they want in 4 years. Most folks aren't as worldly as we are on this board, think about it, only 4k graduate from Wake a year. There's more NC State grads in Forsyth County for gosh sakes than there are Wake grads in all of North Carolina (or the South prob).
 
Last edited:
DirkTheDeac said:
This is so dead wrong it's absurd. They filed chapter 11. Obama pounced on it to deliver the company to the UAW and screw the bond holders.
Click to expand...

GM and Chrysler could only sustain their operations during a chapter 11 restructuring with bailout funds, because there was no commercial lending available to float the business during bankruptcy. Without government intervention, neither have survived to effectuate a bankruptcy. There is no debate about these fact outside of "political" circles.

Here: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/busines...-judge-bailout-was-only-way-to-save-chrysler/
 
Last edited:
After watching the God vote, I have concluded that Democrats want religion to be like abortion: safe, legal and rare.
 
DirkTheDeac said:
This is so dead wrong it's absurd. They filed chapter 11. Obama pounced on it to deliver the company to the UAW and screw the bond holders.
Click to expand...

This might help you understand what actually happened, and why the bailout was indispensable. This new Romney-GOP narrative that a simple chapter 11 process was an option is the finest of self-serving, revisionist history.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...ama_wanted_a_bailout_for_chrysler_and_gm.html

In case you don't want to hit the link, here is the pertinent part:

Randal O'Toole, who does transportation policy for Cato, for example has a piece where he says the companies should have just gone through the regular bankruptcy process. In his telling the only reason not to do that was to allocate the losses in a different way. Bondholders took a bigger haircut than they would have in a normal bailout, and the Auto Workers' Union took a somewhat smaller haircut than it would have in a normal bailout. So there's Obama trampling on the rule of law for the sake of his union buddies.

What this story misses is the actual reason for the bailouts, to wit the financial crisis of 2008.

You probably remember that one? Bear Stears got a quasi-bailout, Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, small banks were entering FDIC conservatorship (i.e., going bust) left and right, big banks needed a huge capital infusion from the federal government to stay solvent, and generally everyone was freaking out. Now in order to organize the kind of bankruptcy reorganization that O'Toole is talking about, you need to arrange some financing. The point of the bankruptcy process is to renegotiate contracts and debts such that your enterprise is solvent. But that means that by definition your enterprise isn't solvent. Someone has to lend it money to tide you over while doing the rearranging. And these are big companies, so it would need to be a lot of money.

That kind of debtor-in-possession financing is impossible to organize during a financial crisis, which is why the companies' executives came to the government in the first place.

The executives had no desire to put unions ahead of bondholders or bolster the re-election of a president who hadn't even been inaugurated yet. If they could have organized a Chapter 11 bankruptcy they would have. But they couldn't. Given the financial crisis they were going to be forced into a Chapter 7 liquidation. That's what happened to Borders a little while back. They literally sold everything in the stores—including the lamps and the shelves—and then gave whatever money that raised to the bondholders. But liquidating an ongoing manufacturing enterprise is much uglier than liquidating a bookstore. Nobody really needs half a car factory.

Does that help?
 
Last edited:
They had two of my dream babes on tonight. Rosario Dawson is amazing. Then the champ, Ashley Judd or Yeti. We've always been told there is a beautiful, smart woman who loves sports out there. Just like we've been told Yeti exists. Well Ashley is that woman.

Sounds like she might be running for Senate from TN.
 
bobknightfan said:
The next 60 days are going to be loads of fun, judging by the comments by Romney supporters already on this board tonight. As the polling numbers get worse, the inevitability of defeat become clear and the desperation settles in, we are going to be seeing some doozies from them.
Click to expand...

I'm still holding out hope for a Senate flip...
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
This is so dead wrong it's absurd. GM didn't have the cash flow to survive a chapter 11 restructure. Without a bailout they were done.
Click to expand...

Hold two - isn't that the point of restructuring? Some obligations would be eliminated, others adjusted to fit the business model, etc. In any event, I don't agree with your conclusion that they needed a bailout 'else they were done' - given GM's 'know how firepower', global supply chain and distribution network, and brand(s) equity, Chevy/Cadillac/GMC would have survived in some form.
 
GM did go bankrupt. And it was handed a check from the Federal government (read, the U.S. taxpayer). And, unless GM makes some serious changes, it will probably eventually go bankrupt - again.

Lost in all the joy about bailing out a union is the fact GM still makes products that are not perceived as quality relative to their competition and has consistently lost marketshare. It is trend that has gone on for more than 40 years. That has to change - and not just with a product here or a product there.

GM's stock has declined 49% relative to the Dow since the public offering in 2010. Draw your own conclusions about what the market thinks of GM's prospects. We are short about 50 billion right now in our investment relative to the IPO price. And we're short even more relative to the Dow.

We'll never know for sure if GM could have emerged from a "managed" bankruptcy able to compete in the middle of a recession. So maybe the bailout was smart in the short term. But it will only be smart in the long term if GM really fixes its cost structure (something a managed bankruptcy would have permitted to a significant degree) and builds products that allow it to hold marketshare. No bailout is going to answer the second part of that equation.
 
It wasn't just a recession; it was the tail end of a financial crisis when investors were unwilling to refinance relatively safe commercial paper and other money market instruments. I can respect the opinion that GM should have been allowed to fail, but it's disingenious to pretend like private financing could have saved it.
 
beatrix said:
I'm still holding out hope for a Senate flip...
Click to expand...

Well you can file Mass. under the GOP. Warren is abysmal. You have to be extra special bad to lose Teddy K's seat to the GOP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top