Still don't believe he's a muslim?

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

BTW, Old-THUMPER, it wasn't JD who pointed out that Stalin's time table for invading Manchuria was based on knowing about the bomb. "August Storm" began when it did because of Hiroshima, and the U.S. didn't publicly yield on the emperor until after the Japanese had surrendered, Old-THUMPER.

Now you are telling me I cannot agree with JD when he is right?

But to your other point, what does the issue of "publicly" yeilding have to do with anything? Do you truly believe there were no PRIVATE discussions leading up to the surrender? This is one of the differences between you and me: I acknowledged JD's point when he is correct. You have to did and try to find a reason to discredit anything I say.

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Don't be "Afraid" Old-Thunderbird... Your Ozombies friends will always love you.

Deep, man. Really deep.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

A successful outcome that screwed a lot of legitimate investors to provide benefits to Obama's cronies in the unions. The companies would not have failed. They would be in a much better position than what they are now, and the taxpayers would not have had to foot the bill for more election payoffs to Obama's pals.

It is not a lot of "what ifs" or conjecture. We have decades of bankruptcy law to rely on. We know EXACTLY what would have happened. ShamWow and Over Compensation, please don't take this as an insult. I mean solely as friendly constructive criticism. You're fucking idiots.

You can't say any of the highlighted portion with any high degree of certainty. And exactly how did your taxes go up? Did you get stuck with an extra bill for this propping up that occurred? People always complain about their taxes paying for this or paying for that, but the truth is you don't have an itemized list of what your taxes pay for.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Most interesting. What Christian would demand this ??

Obama White House ordered coverup of religious symbols for Georgetown speech

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...eorgetown.html

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Most interesting. What Christian would demand this ??

Obama White House ordered coverup of religious symbols for Georgetown speech

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...eorgetown.html

So? Ever heard of the separation clause? I guess you only like the constitution when it HELPS your cause.

What christian? Any nutbag fundamentalist or evangelical. That's who.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Now you are telling me I cannot agree with JD when he is right?

But to your other point, what does the issue of "publicly" yeilding have to do with anything? Do you truly believe there were no PRIVATE discussions leading up to the surrender? This is one of the differences between you and me: I acknowledged JD's point when he is correct. You have to did and try to find a reason to discredit anything I say.

There were no "private" discussions between the Japanese and the U.S. wherein the U.S. would accept anything other than unconditional surrender, Old-THUMPER, and the "point" you said you "agreed with" and attribute to JD was not JD's "point", Old-THUMPER.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

So? Ever heard of the separation clause? I guess you only like the constitution when it HELPS your cause.

What christian? Any nutbag fundamentalist or evangelical. That's who.

So .. show me ONE instance of Obama visiting an Islamic institution and doing the same thing.

You CAN'T.

and finally .. to equate Constitutional separation of Church and State in Government to demanding that an institution's main religious tenants be hidden is the height of your stupidity. Congratulations. You have nowhere else to go but downhill sport.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Now you are telling me I cannot agree with JD when he is right?

But to your other point, what does the issue of "publicly" yeilding have to do with anything? Do you truly believe there were no PRIVATE discussions leading up to the surrender? This is one of the differences between you and me: I acknowledged JD's point when he is correct. You have to did and try to find a reason to discredit anything I say.


Deep, man. Really deep.

You are really trying to reason with him? Im relatively new here, but even I already know he is devoid of any rationality.

Besides, didnt you hear? IB Wanker and his trusty sidekick were already defeated in this argument. Yes, after trying to "Gruber" their way through facts and change history, they were left alone to ramble on incoherently and fight with each other over who gets to say the last word! Its interesting to watch, ill say that!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by shanm

I B a Wanker

It's true, U B a wanker, shamman. You must be Old-THUMPER's protégé because he's a quite accustomed to having his ass handed to him -- just like you, shamman. BTW, shamman, you do recall that after putting all of your ignorance on display in the face of substantive evidence stacked against your argument, it was you who stupidly cited the survey that ultimately proved to you -- to your great consternation -- that you're full of shit, shamman. Hence, it was YOUR lame ass misinterpretation of history that was found wanting, shamman.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

There were no "private" discussions between the Japanese and the U.S. wherein the U.S. would accept anything other than unconditional surrender, Old-THUMPER, and the "point" you said you "agreed with" and attribute to JD was not JD's "point", Old-THUMPER.

Of course there were no private communications. That never happens.

Sure. Just like there are no anonymous sources.

You are so clueless.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Of course there were no private communications. That never happens.

Sure. Just like there are no anonymous sources.

You are so clueless.

The "secrets" have, for the most part, all been published, Old-THUMPER. There's not a single, solitary, substantively valid source you can cite that claims Truman, et al, demanded anything other than unconditional surrender, Old-THUMPER. In fact, the extant evidence shows the opposite is true, Old-THUMPER. "Dugout" Doug criticized Truman for not compromising on that point before Japan surrendered, Old-THUMPER. Pony up, if you imagine that your "clueless" ass has something substantive to the contrary, Old-THUMPER.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by shanm

Sure bud, whatever you say. I'm sure you know better than the economic analysts who worked on the situation, considered both positives and negatives, highs and lows and ultimately supported Obama in making the decision.

And considering that 90% of the investment was recovered, I wouldn't say the taxpayers had to fund a useless investment. You know, like another middle-east war yall are "Hankering" for.

You think this was an economic decision? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Seriously? This was brokered by politicians. They used this to reward the UAW for their help in stealing elections. Economics had nothing to do with it.


And yes, we know for certain what would have happened had they followed the bankruptcy code. They would have reorganized, and come out on a sure footing. With reasonable pensions and union contracts. If that wasn't possible, they would have been sold to someone who could do the job. And maybe they'd start building cars that don't suck. No automotive jobs would have been lost, since the demand for cars would stay relatively constant.


This was blatant cronyism, pure and simple. If you think otherwise, you're impure and simple.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You think this was an economic decision? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Seriously? This was brokered by politicians. They used this to reward the UAW for their help in stealing elections. Economics had nothing to do with it.


And yes, we know for certain what would have happened had they followed the bankruptcy code. They would have reorganized, and come out on a sure footing. With reasonable pensions and union contracts. If that wasn't possible, they would have been sold to someone who could do the job. And maybe they'd start building cars that don't suck. No automotive jobs would have been lost, since the demand for cars would stay relatively constant.


This was blatant cronyism, pure and simple. If you think otherwise, you're impure and simple.

You're just as hard headed as your buddies however.

ALL you're stating is absolutely YOU pulling stuff out of your ass. We would have done this, we would have done that. You can argue stuff about the unions getting lucrative contracts all day long, but the fact is you have about as much proof as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. So far the only verifiable and relevant case study that we have is the case of the Lehman Brothers, and NO they did not "reorganize". Therefore,

hard evidence: 1

Bullshit argument with a bunch of conspiracy theory mixed in: 0

[shanm]

Going back to JD's original question, he said, and I quote:
Maybe you'd better ask Ford how they felt about having to compete with a car company being backed by the full credit of the US government.

Now take into account the fact that Ford itself testified in front of the Senate Committee in SUPPORT of Chrysler and GM receiving the government bailouts. That's FORD, their COMPETITOR. And Ford CEO said that the bailouts helped their own company as well. Now explain to me, why would Ford support the government's bailout of its competitors if it didn't realize the overall benefit to the car industry as a whole? (Just so you know, its a rhetorical question. If you actually try to explain the rationale behind Ford's decision, then you are a fucktard)

Should we take all of this into consideration? or should just chalk it up as part of inexplicable hoax that you continuously claim the auto bail out was?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by shanm

Besides, didnt you hear? IB Wanker and his trusty sidekick were already defeated in this argument....

You mean the argument over whether you are a queer or a tranny? So which is it, shammylicker?

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by shanm

You're just as hard headed as your buddies however.

ALL you're stating is absolutely YOU pulling stuff out of your ass. We would have done this, we would have done that. You can argue stuff about the unions getting lucrative contracts all day long, but the fact is you have about as much proof as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. So far the only verifiable and relevant case study that we have is the case of the Lehman Brothers, and NO they did not "reorganize". Therefore,

hard evidence: 1

Bullshit argument with a bunch of conspiracy theory mixed in: 0

How is it bullshit? Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it a "conspiracy theory". It's a fact. Deal with it, ShamWow.


Btw, DID YOU TAKE CJOHNNY MONEY FOR DZUG?