Still don't believe he's a muslim?

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by shanm

Figures you'd be the only shithead to take it literally.

More Spahm anyone ?

[shanm]

Originally Posted by rioseco

More Spahm anyone ?

K

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by shanm

You obviously have no idea how it works do you? Its almost laughable you said that. NOTHING in this entire world is free. Chrysler sold an equity stake to the government and the govt. provided them with a LOAN. A loan is something that you eventually have to pay back, which is exactly why ford refused to take it. Chrysler is permanently under the government's thumb from now on.

Wrong and wrong again, you ignorant fuck.

Ford was lucky enough to have raised billions in private loans just prior to the 2008/09 credit crunch. That's what allowed it to get through the crisis without borrowing from TARP.

Chrysler came out of bankruptcy in 2009 largely owned by Fiat, the UAW, and the US Treasury. The Treasury unloaded all of its shares within 2 years. Today Chrysler is 100% owned by Fiat.

The details of the auto bailout were a shocking example of politically driven crony capitalism at its worst. Obama and his corrupt coterie of democrats bent the normal rules of bankruptcy in order to reward their UAW hacks and political donors at US taxpayers' expense.


Listen scammy shammy - You're an arrogant noob. The auto bailout and other topics about which you wallow in ignorance were already thoroughly discussed here long before you flew in to drop your pigeonshit all over this forum. I really don't have the patience to correct all of your factual errors (notwithstanding the above two corrections) and repetitive displays of stupidity, so stop spamming and hijacking threads with your nonsensical spewings and spoutings. You need to do everyone a favor and STFU while you go back and study up on the last 2 years of threads. Then if you're lucky we'll let you return. You can start here, noobshit:

http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=924522

.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Wrong and wrong again, you ignorant fuck.

Ford was lucky enough to have raised billions in private loans just prior to the 2008/09 credit crunch. That's what allowed it to get through the crisis without borrowing from TARP.

Chrysler came out of bankruptcy in 2009 largely owned by Fiat, the UAW, and the US Treasury. The Treasury unloaded all of its shares within 2 years. Today Chrysler is 100% owned by Fiat.

The details of the auto bailout were a shocking example of politically driven crony capitalism at its worst. Obama and his corrupt coterie of democrats bent the normal rules of bankruptcy in order to reward their UAW hacks and political donors at US taxpayers' expense.


Listen scammy shammy - You're an arrogant noob. The auto bailout and other topics about which you wallow in ignorance were already thoroughly discussed here long before you flew in to drop your pigeonshit all over this forum. I really don't have the patience to correct all of your factual errors (notwithstanding the above two corrections) and repetitive displays of stupidity, so stop spamming and hijacking threads with your nonsensical spewings and spoutings. You need to do everyone a favor and STFU while you go back and study up on the last 2 years of threads. Then if you're lucky we'll let you return. You can start here, noobshit:

http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=924522

.

Do you have a reading problem or are you mentally handicapped?

Show me one time where I said anything counter-factual to what you just posted.
When I said that Chrysler was "under the government's thumb" I did not say that it still owes the government money. Everyone knows that that debt was settled back in 2010 and 2011 when chrysler paid back part of its loan and the rest was written off. I meant that it is figuratively under the governments thumb, as it now has to do whatever the government says, because, like it or not, it still figuratively owes the government for saving its ass when it was going bankrupt.
No one was even talking to you, chicken shit, so read the entire argument before you start mouthing off and start showing us how big your fucking cunt of a mouth is. JD said that Ford was given an uneven playing field. I replied, saying no it wasn't, because it was already offered the same amount of aid, but Ford refused to take all of it. I suppose you don't know that Ford was also given a 6 Billion dollar loan back in 2009. However, it wasn't given a complete bailout from the government and the loan was instead given as a green-energy initiative loan. Which was funny because Nissan and Tesla both received only $2 billion under the same initiative. This is why Ford is the only company that still owes the government money. It refused bailouts, still got loans from the government and therefore did not have its debt written off.

You are way out of your depth here, you piece of chicken shit. Next time try to weigh in the entire argument before you start nitpicking sentences like a fucking twat.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Lets put this all together that way we can save a few pixels.

Tampon, I asked the question first. You have to prove to me that Obama is a christian.

As for the polling, there is nothing in my response that says anything about domestic polling. You assumed and you know what that means.

What you misremembered is that it was Warren Buffet who paid a lower rate than his secretary. Of course, Buffet and Romney both have different revenue streams which are taxed at lower rates thanks to Congress.

Do you really think that socializing education is going to make it better as opposed to more available? Lets play with some numbers; Harvard (for example) has openings for 40,000 students every semester and every semester 60,000 people apply. Most of them are eliminated because they just don't have the money to pay for the tuition. You can hate it but that is the current system. Now you want to do what? Allow all 60,000 people into a school with only room for 40,000? The education will decline because the classrooms will be too crowded. So what would you do then. Take another school, call it Harvard, and put all 60,000 students in it. If you think that is a good, workable idea then why not make all schools part of the Harvard system. That way everyone can matriculate at Harvard. It just won't work.
Now I will make this suggestion, set aside 20 to 30 percent of the seats for people who have the intellect but not the money to go to Harvard (or Princeton, Yale, or KU)

What do you mean that Ford did not have to compete unfairly? Ford had to worry about the bottom line and GM could lose money and let the government make up the difference.

Part of it was a loan.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Let me ask you this, is Barack Obama a Christian? If you say that he is, how do you know?

JDIdiot, let me ask you this. Is Barack Obama a Muslim? If you say that he is, how do you know?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by shanm

Show me one time where I said anything counter-factual to what you just posted.

You can't be serious. I already did. Are you a fucking masochist? Trying to embarrass yourself all over again? Here is what you said:

Originally Posted by shanm

Chrysler sold an equity stake to the government and the govt. provided them with a LOAN.... Chrysler is permanently under the government's thumb from now on.

Then you try to “clarify” and cover up your stupidity with this whopper:

Originally Posted by shanm

When I said that Chrysler was "under the government's thumb" I did not say that it still owes the government money.... I meant that it is figuratively under the governments thumb, as it now has to do whatever the government says, because, like it or not, it still figuratively owes the government for saving its ass when it was going bankrupt.

Now we get it! You were just arguing “figuratively” and everyone misread and misunderstood the plain meaning of your words! Hey shammytard, do you have a mortgage on that trashy trailer home you live in? If so, I hope you read the fine print. It says even after you pay it off in full, you agree to be “permanently under the lender's thumb from now on”. Hey but don't fret – we're only talking figuratively here. You know, you would look a lot less stupid if you just admitted you were wrong in the first place, you colossally fucked-up dipshit.

.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You can't be serious. I already did. Are you a fucking masochist? Trying to embarrass yourself all over again? Here is what you said:



Then you try to “clarify” and cover up your stupidity with this whopper




Now we get it! You were just arguing “figuratively” and everyone misread and misunderstood the plain meaning of your words! Hey shammytard, do you have a mortgage on that trashy trailer home you live in? If so, I hope you read the fine print. It says even after you pay it off in full, you agree to be “permanently under the lender's thumb from now on”. Hey but don't fret – we're only talking figuratively here. You know, you would look a lot less stupid if you just admitted you were wrong in the first place, you colossally fucked-up dipshit.

.

It was a discussion with JD and he asked a question which I answered. It had absolutely nothing to do with you but you decided you had to shove your dick in there anyway. I explained to you exactly why I said what I said but I guess you lack the intellect or the ability to read properly. It seems your obsession with having the last word is essential for you to compensate for your lack of intelligence (or manners). so its like, eh, whatever. You ain't worth the time anyway.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by shanm

Seems like you can stretch the truth to the size of your giant asshole sometime, LustyFAG.

Same wikipedia article states, by your definition, Deaths (12000) +wounded (38000), comes out to 50,000. Lets forget that you choose to blatantly disregard the fact that it is ALLIED deaths and not AMERICAN deaths like the grubered odumbo minion stated earlier, (WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE ARGUING). Then consider the fact that you regard a battle that lasted closer to 12 weeks (1April- 22 June 1945) and not 10 weeks like you suggest, as a shorter amount to suit your purpose. The death count per week comes out to 4100, almost half the original amount posted by your wanker friend. You have stretched the truth so much that I think even your moms dildo might fit in there. You are digging yourself into a hole that you wont be able to climb out of, so just stop

I've caught you lying so many times I went back to my wikipedia link for the Battle of Okinawa and lo and behold - your numbers were nowhere to be found. Here is what I did find, you lying fucktard:

“U.S. manpower losses amounted to over 82,000 casualties, including non-battle casualties (psychiatric, injuries, illnesses) of whom over 12,500 were killed or missing.”

That's a direct quote from the wiki link under “US losses”. As for duration, the same source says “the 82-day battle lasted from early April until mid-June 1945.” So let's do the math again, scumbag. 82,000/82 days=1,000 US casualties a day=7,000 casualties a week. That was IB's original number, wasn't it? The one you and undercunt were high-fiving about being unsubstantiated? So it looks like IB if anything under-estimated the overall US Pacific casualty rate late in the war since we suffered that loss rate in the Battle of Okinawa alone.

You owe IB an apology. You are too much of a slimy jellyfish to give it, but you owe him an apology.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by shanm

It was a discussion with JD and he asked a question which I answered. It had absolutely nothing to do with you but you decided you had to shove your dick in there anyway. I explained to you exactly why I said what I said but I guess you lack the intellect or the ability to read properly. It seems your obsession with having the last word is essential for you to compensate for your lack of intelligence (or manners). so its like, eh, whatever. You ain't worth the time anyway.

You're the wasting our time, ShamWow. How would the auto industry been destroyed if they had gone through bankruptcy like any other business, instead of getting the bailout from Eashington?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by shanm

It was a discussion with JD and he asked a question which I answered. It had absolutely nothing to do with you but you decided you had to shove your dick in there anyway....

Get used to it, you POS. I will dick-slap you anytime you post nonsense on this board whether you like it or not. And when you get your ass handed to you, which is already a daily occurrence here, if you have any street smarts you will learn to slink away quietly and not double down on stupid all the time.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by lustylad

I've caught you lying so many times I went back to my wikipedia link for the Battle of Okinawa and lo and behold - your numbers were nowhere to be found. Here is what I did find, you lying fucktard:

“U.S. manpower losses amounted to over 82,000 casualties, including non-battle casualties (psychiatric, injuries, illnesses) of whom over 12,500 were killed or missing.”

That's a direct quote from the wiki link under “US losses”. As for duration, the same source says “the 82-day battle lasted from early April until mid-June 1945.” So let's do the math again, scumbag. 82,000/82 days=1,000 US casualties a day=7,000 casualties a week. That was IB's original number, wasn't it? The one you and undercunt were high-fiving about being unsubstantiated? So it looks like IB if anything under-estimated the overall US Pacific casualty rate late in the war since we suffered that loss rate in the Battle of Okinawa alone.

You owe IB an apology. You are too much of a slimy jellyfish to give it, but you owe him an apology.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

.

Wow. I can't even right now.

Firstly, you blatantly roll over the fact that you deliberately manipulated the number of days the war lasted to fit your claims. I'm wondering, who is the liar now?

Secondly, your original number was 65,000. now it magically expanded to 82,000? wow, you must be a magician.

Go back and read your own comment. Your VERY OWN comment states that casualties mean Deaths+Wounded

Now go back to the Wiki page YOU cited and look to the right:
Allies
Killed 12000
Wounded 38000

Go read the source if you don't believe it.
Now I don't know if they taught you how to count in school, but that comes out to a total of 50,000. 82 days divided by 7 comes out to 11.8~almost 12 weeks. Now divide 50k with 12 and you get-----4167. *GASP* its magical how math works isn't it?

I think the biggest apology and the only apology that is owed is by you and your wanker friend, for wasting everyone's time AND for stretching the truth to encompass whatever "fact" you randomly pull out of your ass.

And again, you won't rest and you won't stop. I stopped arguing about that topic when I realized exactly how devoid of any rationality you are and obviously I was wasting my time. But you? You will reply to this, and you will have the last word, no doubt. So you know what? go ahead, LustyLad. take it. I only feel sorry for you.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You're the wasting our time, ShamWow. How would the auto industry been destroyed if they had gone through bankruptcy like any other business, instead of getting the bailout from Eashington?

Is this english? I don't even know what the fuck you are asking honestly.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by shanm

Wow. I can't even right now.

Firstly, you blatantly roll over the fact that you deliberately manipulated the number of days the war lasted to fit your claims. I'm wondering, who is the liar now?

Secondly, your original number was 65,000. now it magically expanded to 82,000? wow, you must be a magician.

Go back and read your own comment. Your VERY OWN comment states that casualties mean Deaths+Wounded

Now go back to the Wiki page YOU cited and look to the right:
Allies
Killed 12000
Wounded 38000

Go read the source if you don't believe it.
Now I don't know if they taught you how to count in school, but that comes out to a total of 50,000. 82 days divided by 7 comes out to 11.8~almost 12 weeks. Now divide 50k with 12 and you get-----4167. *GASP* its magical how math works isn't it?

I think the biggest apology and the only apology that is owed is by you and your wanker friend, for wasting everyone's time AND for stretching the truth to encompass whatever "fact" you randomly pull out of your ass.

And again, you won't rest and you won't stop. I stopped arguing about that topic when I realized exactly how devoid of any rationality you are and obviously I was wasting my time. But you? You will reply to this, and you will have the last word, no doubt. So you know what? go ahead, LustyLad. take it. I only feel sorry for you.

I don't give a fuck about having the last word, you insecure SOB. The reason you knew I would reply is because you know exactly where my numbers came from. There was no manipulation, no magic, no changing definitions. They all came from the same wiki link on the Battle of Okinawa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

If you want to nitpick, I will beat your ass to a fucking pulp and we'll add you to the casualty total. For battle duration, I estimated ten weeks because “early April to mid-June” is 2-1/2 months. When you nitpicked about it, I went back and saw 82 days. The 65,000 casualty figure is cited in the second paragraph. How could you possibly miss that, dickhead? I even cut and pasted it into my post #579. Then when you questioned it, I went back and noticed the higher number of 82,000. And you know exactly where I found that one, dipshit, because I told you up above in post #654. It is the number we want to go with because it is for US casualties only. That means you can STFU with your nitpicking about allied versus US. Why is it higher? There's no “magic” involved there either, dicksucker. The wiki link specifically says “including non-battle casualties (psychiatric, injuries, illnesses)”. If you want to nitpick about that, I suggest you tell every US veteran with a non-battle injury they're not casualties of war. Go ahead shammytard, show everyone just how much you libtards truly care about our veterans.

That puts us right back at the 7000/week casualty number. The one you and undercunt snickered at. So you can take your phony math and shove it up your giant stretched-out butthole. But before you do that, let's step back and look at the big picture. Why in God's name are you arguing this? Think about that, shammyfag. It's because you want to downplay and minimize and pooh-pooh and denigrate all the blood and guts spilled by our daddies and grand-daddies who fought their way across the Pacific between 1941 and 1945 so that treasonous jackasses like you and undercunt can breathe our free air today.

So putting things into full and proper perspective, you owe an apology to more than just IB. You owe an apology to every dead and wounded US sailor and soldier and marine and airman from WW2 for being a treasonous self-centered POS who is unworthy of (and unwilling even to acknowledge the full extent of) the enormous sacrifices they made on behalf of the rest of us.

.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You owe an apology to every dead and wounded US sailor and soldier and marine and airman from WW2 for being a treasonous self-centered POS who is unworthy of (and unwilling even to acknowledge the full extent of) the enormous sacrifices they made on behalf of the rest of us.

.

+1

Were it not for them and the sacrifices they made, today's lingua franca wouldn't be English: it would be German or Russian.