I...just...couldn't...resist...this...political...thread...

[f.sciarrillo]

I am going to answer the long post by Bill - Whatever you think it is, it is. Especially since what you think it is is one sided and nothing that is said or brought to your attention of the opposite will change your mind, or give a remote chance that it is false rhetoric. Things are blurry when the only source you have is Chris Mathews and MSNBC. Once again I tried to watch him last week, and like always he did nothing but assassinate character and bring no real reasons why he is not in agreement with anything. The guys face was red from all the yelling he was doing. With watching that, I can see why only five or six people watch that station.

[Hawk]

I am going to answer the long post by Bill - Whatever you think it is, it is. Especially since what you think it is is one sided and nothing that is said or brought to your attention of the opposite will change your mind, or give a remote chance that it is false rhetoric. Things are blurry when the only source you have is Chris Mathews and MSNBC. Once again I tried to watch him last week, and like always he did nothing but assassinate character and bring no real reasons why he is not in agreement with anything. The guys face was red from all the yelling he was doing. With watching that, I can see why only five or six people watch that station.

Damn, I only told Joe that I had heard of F and F contributions to Democrats from Chris Matthews. So how in hell do you assume from that, that he is my ONLY source.

Chris Matthews is not my only source. I listen to Rush Limbaugh every day. Not in it's entirety, but as much as time permits.

I also watch Glen Beck and other Fox Network news and shows.

I know and easily recognize that MSNBC is one sided. Do you recognize that in Fox ? A simple yes or no will suffice, if you can handle it. I know answering questions is NOT your strong point. Any thinking beyond what you learn from right wing propaganda seems to stymie you.

The scary thing is, You are my prime example to others of the typical Fox, Limbaugh, Beck, Palin listner who is sucked in by the propaganda. And you NEVER fail to prove me right.

I was hoping to enlighten you with some of Geoblles list so you could have an ability to recognise propaganda when you saw it. The very sad thing is, I failed miserably. That's bad for both of us.

I don't want to change your mind if your reasons are valid. If they are valid, you should be able to defend them with reasoning, not catch phrases.

So while I spelled out in detail Goebbels methods and how Fox and friends of Fox use them and your response is...none. Could it be because you only know how to talk in the "catch phrases" you've been taught? And you can't think and talk for yourself ? Seriously.

If you cannot defend your position, why do you hold that position ?

BTW this thread is about recognizing propaganda techniques. I recognise them from both sides. Do you recognize any from Fox ?

I would be delighted for you to point out any and ALL false rhetoric that you think I missed ! As long as it's verifiable facts. PLEASE DO...

[Hawk]

The deregulation allowing banks to sell bad loans, and insurance companies then being allowed to buy into these packaged loans is what caused the collapse.

What deregulation was that?

The deregulation that allowed AIG to buy into mortgages. The deregulation that allowed banks to package bad loans with good ones and sell them, thus absolving themselves of any responsibility to making bad loans.

[Hawk]

Joe, please explain to me how we would be better off if we left the auto industry collapse AND all the smaller companies that serve them ? Increasing unemployment to maybe 25 % would be a good thing ?

Explain to me how we would be better off if we left the banking industry collapse ? Everyone who had any money in the banks would be GONE is a good thing ?

Explain to me how letting wall street collapse would be good ? Every penny people had invested, including retirement money GONE! How is that a good thing ?

Bill, you are obviously uninformed about publicly traded corporations and bankruptcy proceedings. In all cases, allowing the aforementioned businesses go into chapter 11 would have resulted in better conditions than we have now:

1. The companies' debts would have been wiped off the books, instead, they are still paying off debt, mostly to us, the taxpayers, through their new masters, the federal government.

2. The management who caused these problems, along with the common shares would be gone, gone, gone and the senior debt would be the new asset owners. Instead, either the same management or a puppet management is in place and the government became the new shareholders.

The assets should have moved from weak hands to strong hands, become debt-free and continue operations. Unfortunately, the typical uninformed citizen hears "bankruptcy" and equates that to "out of business." Its so easy to snow the public on these kinds of things. Speaking of snow jobs (you know, propaganda) I love this "too big to fail" mythology. Politicians are glad the public believes this bullshit, but in reality, the assets just move to safer, stronger hands.

3. By undermining #2, the government has established a precedent where senior debt obligations can be trumped by government interference. In normal reorganization proceedings, the senior debt assumes the new equity structure of the company as a condition of their bond purchase. Instead, the government came in and flipped the table on the bondholders. Now, investors can no longer count on that asset guarantee and are much less inclined to buy company senior debt, or will demand a higher interest rate because of the higher risk caused by the government.

The only time there should have been any government "interference" was during the actual crisis in the fall of 2008. When the money system froze they took the right step of supplying liquidity during the crisis. Once the real crisis was over, they should have gotten their nose out of it and allowed bankruptcies to proceed in an orderly manner.

I have some idea of what chapter 11 is, likely not as much as you do. I thought that the money the company owes to it's creditors is greatly reduced. That reduced amount would be payed back IF reorganization works. And I think the creditors can vote on whether the reduced amount is acceptable, or ask for the company to be closed and the assets sold off and they devide the money ?

I believe that the reduced payments to creditors would hurt our economy and I'm guessing the total owed is very high.

However the most important thing is that NO ONE would buy a car from a company that is bankrupt, therefore one might conclude that bankruptcy would be the final nail in the coffin. And the domino effect on unemployment could prove disastrous in the unemployment percentage.

I believe (strictly opinion) that by the federal government bailout, people felt a little more secure in buying a GM or Chrysler. I do realize that the propaganda of GM recently paying off it's debt is actually only a portion of what was given to them. But I am happy they are getting back on their feet. Of course the Toyota debacle contributed to increased domestic sales, GM has also become more competitive.

[f.sciarrillo]

I am going to answer the long post by Bill - Whatever you think it is, it is. Especially since what you think it is is one sided and nothing that is said or brought to your attention of the opposite will change your mind, or give a remote chance that it is false rhetoric. Things are blurry when the only source you have is Chris Mathews and MSNBC. Once again I tried to watch him last week, and like always he did nothing but assassinate character and bring no real reasons why he is not in agreement with anything. The guys face was red from all the yelling he was doing. With watching that, I can see why only five or six people watch that station.

Damn, I only told Joe that I had heard of F and F contributions to Democrats from Chris Matthews. So how in hell do you assume from that, that he is my ONLY source.

Chris Matthews is not my only source. I listen to Rush Limbaugh every day. Not in it's entirety, but as much as time permits.

I also watch Glen Beck and other Fox Network news and shows.

I know and easily recognize that MSNBC is one sided. Do you recognize that in Fox ? A simple yes or no will suffice, if you can handle it. I know answering questions is NOT your strong point. Any thinking beyond what you learn from right wing propaganda seems to stymie you.

The scary thing is, You are my prime example to others of the typical Fox, Limbaugh, Beck, Palin listner who is sucked in by the propaganda. And you NEVER fail to prove me right.

I was hoping to enlighten you with some of Geoblles list so you could have an ability to recognise propaganda when you saw it. The very sad thing is, I failed miserably. That's bad for both of us.

I don't want to change your mind if your reasons are valid. If they are valid, you should be able to defend them with reasoning, not catch phrases.

So while I spelled out in detail Goebbels methods and how Fox and friends of Fox use them and your response is...none. Could it be because you only know how to talk in the "catch phrases" you've been taught? And you can't think and talk for yourself ? Seriously.

If you cannot defend your position, why do you hold that position ?

BTW this thread is about recognizing propaganda techniques. I recognise them from both sides. Do you recognize any from Fox ?

I would be delighted for you to point out any and ALL false rhetoric that you think I missed ! As long as it's verifiable facts. PLEASE DO...

As far as the propaganda, yes I do see it from both sides. I see it from all sides whether it be the print, internet, tv, radio, etc. It is how it is and how it will be. That is the reason I am an independent and will always be one. As stated before, there is nothing that either side has done, or will do, to make the situation better. I will make a rebuttal to the posts here in a while when I have time to think about them ..

[f.sciarrillo]

Joe, please explain to me how we would be better off if we left the auto industry collapse AND all the smaller companies that serve them ? Increasing unemployment to maybe 25 % would be a good thing ?

Explain to me how we would be better off if we left the banking industry collapse ? Everyone who had any money in the banks would be GONE is a good thing ?

Explain to me how letting wall street collapse would be good ? Every penny people had invested, including retirement money GONE! How is that a good thing ?

Bill, you are obviously uninformed about publicly traded corporations and bankruptcy proceedings. In all cases, allowing the aforementioned businesses go into chapter 11 would have resulted in better conditions than we have now:

1. The companies' debts would have been wiped off the books, instead, they are still paying off debt, mostly to us, the taxpayers, through their new masters, the federal government.

2. The management who caused these problems, along with the common shares would be gone, gone, gone and the senior debt would be the new asset owners. Instead, either the same management or a puppet management is in place and the government became the new shareholders.

The assets should have moved from weak hands to strong hands, become debt-free and continue operations. Unfortunately, the typical uninformed citizen hears "bankruptcy" and equates that to "out of business." Its so easy to snow the public on these kinds of things. Speaking of snow jobs (you know, propaganda) I love this "too big to fail" mythology. Politicians are glad the public believes this bullshit, but in reality, the assets just move to safer, stronger hands.

3. By undermining #2, the government has established a precedent where senior debt obligations can be trumped by government interference. In normal reorganization proceedings, the senior debt assumes the new equity structure of the company as a condition of their bond purchase. Instead, the government came in and flipped the table on the bondholders. Now, investors can no longer count on that asset guarantee and are much less inclined to buy company senior debt, or will demand a higher interest rate because of the higher risk caused by the government.

The only time there should have been any government "interference" was during the actual crisis in the fall of 2008. When the money system froze they took the right step of supplying liquidity during the crisis. Once the real crisis was over, they should have gotten their nose out of it and allowed bankruptcies to proceed in an orderly manner.

I have some idea of what chapter 11 is, likely not as much as you do. I thought that the money the company owes to it's creditors is greatly reduced. That reduced amount would be payed back IF reorganization works. And I think the creditors can vote on whether the reduced amount is acceptable, or ask for the company to be closed and the assets sold off and they devide the money ?

I believe that the reduced payments to creditors would hurt our economy and I'm guessing the total owed is very high.

However the most important thing is that NO ONE would buy a car from a company that is bankrupt, therefore one might conclude that bankruptcy would be the final nail in the coffin. And the domino effect on unemployment could prove disastrous in the unemployment percentage.

I believe (strictly opinion) that by the federal government bailout, people felt a little more secure in buying a GM or Chrysler. I do realize that the propaganda of GM recently paying off it's debt is actually only a portion of what was given to them. But I am happy they are getting back on their feet. Of course the Toyota debacle contributed to increased domestic sales, GM has also become more competitive.

Chrysler filed for bankruptcy, twice? and people still bought cars from them. The reason people would have a issue with buying gm cars is because of the quality of them, which for a while there they lacked. Now that they are a quality car, Filing for bankruptcy would have, in my opinion, helped them. Especially since the biggest reason they have to pay so much out is because of the unions - Who want more and more and more. Frankly, if they didn't have a union they would be a lot better off.

[lonewolf]

However the most important thing is that NO ONE would buy a car from a company that is bankrupt, therefore one might conclude that bankruptcy would be the final nail in the coffin. And the domino effect on unemployment could prove disastrous in the unemployment percentage.

Oh really? That's funny because

GM went bankrupt anyway and is still in reorganization.

It trades on the pinksheets as MTLQQ.PK under the name "Motors Liquidation."

I always have fun trading penny stocks, but never mess with the Q's...

[f.sciarrillo]

However the most important thing is that NO ONE would buy a car from a company that is bankrupt, therefore one might conclude that bankruptcy would be the final nail in the coffin. And the domino effect on unemployment could prove disastrous in the unemployment percentage.

Oh really? That's funny because

GM went bankrupt anyway and is still in reorganization.

It trades on the pinksheets as MTLQQ.PK under the name "Motors Liquidation."

I always have fun trading penny stocks...

I agree. They are fun to to play with

[lonewolf]

However the most important thing is that NO ONE would buy a car from a company that is bankrupt, therefore one might conclude that bankruptcy would be the final nail in the coffin. And the domino effect on unemployment could prove disastrous in the unemployment percentage.

Oh really? That's funny because

GM went bankrupt anyway and is still in reorganization.

It trades on the pinksheets as MTLQQ.PK under the name "Motors Liquidation."

I always have fun trading penny stocks...

I agree. They are fun to to play with

I never mess with the ones with Q on the end. GM is really lucky...they have TWO Q's on their symbol, lol. I guess that means when they come out of bankruptcy, they will sill have a Q at the end of their symbol and most people will avoid it like herpes. Good plan Barry!

[lonewolf]

I have some idea of what chapter 11 is, likely not as much as you do. I thought that the money the company owes to it's creditors is greatly reduced. That reduced amount would be payed back IF reorganization works. And I think the creditors can vote on whether the reduced amount is acceptable, or ask for the company to be closed and the assets sold off and they devide the money ?

The distribution of assets is dependent on many things, especially subordinate clauses which classify the hierarchy of debt. Like the shareholders, subordinate debt generally gets very little of the remaining assets or is wiped out altogether. Pensions are even lower in the pecking order.

I suppose there could be reorganizations where low-tier debt is still carried on the books by special agreement, but I don't know of any...

When the court has determined who gets how much, it comes in the form of shares of stock or senior debt in the newly formed equity structure. The old company is swept away and a new one emerges.

[nakedtwister]

I remember Hitler's propaganda minister and I remembered a few of his methods and they reminded me of Palin and Limbaugh, so I did some research and found this list.

Yeah, you used to drink coffee and eat schnitzel together at the pub, in the day.