Over 1 Million signatures obtained to recall WI Gov. Scott Walker

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

She thinks the loss taken on GM was somehow a success. Just sayin

Yeah, Dell. The saving of the auto industry, and over 100,000 associated jobs in that and ancillary manufacturing and supply industries in Michigan and nearby states, was a success by any measure. Especially as the vast majority of the loans are paid back, very little was written off, and the cold, hard financial assessment of that small loss versus keeping hundreds of thousands employed, and returning American auto manufacturing to the number one car purchased in the world, is a pretty straight ledger book black win for your fellow citizens.

You think that sucks You are also against healthcare for sick people, and religious freedom. So it goes.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Your comments on GM, the presumption that the only difference is scale, are a broadly superficial and ridiculous comparison to Walker enacting the ALEC agenda via ownership by the Koch Brothers et. al, unless you readily prove that the only reason GM got government money was political union payoff to the President of the United States. Considering that the unions gave massive concessions in pay, pensions and healthcare, and more non-union people than union benefited in the retention of the industry and associated manufacturing jobs, that will be a stretch. Unfortunately for you, your personal dislike of unions and Obama doesn't count as "proof".

Can you name one company that Walker has given tax payer $? It would earn you extra credit if that company has also donated $ to Walker's campaign.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Can you name one company that Walker has given tax payer $?

Why would I? I've never made that contention about Walker.

It seems you are confusing your sureity that Obama bailed out GM only because he's owned by the Unions, with Walker passing ALEC-inspired legislation. You've taken your unproven assumption about Obama, and want me to use your illogical argument to disprove something entirely different, a claim I've not made, but you are?

You are saying that GM was bailed out only because the President was owned by unions. Convince us, before you demand that others take that assumption as inherently true and use it as a proof for their own argument (which is crazy, btw)

Walker passed the ALEC- and RGA- recommended union busting legislation in the face of 100% agreement to his requested cuts and concessions by those very same unions, falsely claiming he needed to union bust to get the cuts, thus doing something he never campaigned upon, and in the face of massive counter-demonstration by his citizens and half his legislature. And now he, his lt. gov, and 4 GOP senators face recall for it. They are getting unlimited (legal) campaign donations from out of state from big private donors, and very little from his own citizens. Far more than what his opposition has currently received.

And no, that is not the same contention as "but Obama bailed out GM because he was owned by unions".

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Why would I? I've never made that contention about Walker.

It seems you are confusing your sureity that Obama bailed out GM only because he's owned by the Unions, with Walker passing ALEC-inspired legislation.

Why did Obama invest tax payer money in companies like Solyndra, Ener1, etc even though prior administrations had reviewed them and decided it wasn't a good risk? Did any of those companies invest companies invest campaign $ in Obama? How did those investments work out? Yet it is Walker who is in the pockets of businesses

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Why did Obama invest tax payer money in companies like Solyndra, Ener1, etc even though prior administrations had reviewed them and decided it wasn't a good risk? Did any of those companies invest companies invest campaign $ in Obama? How did those investments work out? Yet it is Walker who is in the pockets of businesses

What does Obama have to do with Walker, other than as a vehicle for you desperately trying to change the focus away from Walker? The subject is Walker. Not Obama.

As I added to the other post: Walker passed the ALEC- and RGA- 2010 recommended union busting legislation in the face of 100% agreement to his requested cuts and concessions by those very same unions, falsely claiming he needed to union bust to get the cuts, thus doing something he never campaigned upon, and in the face of massive counter-demonstration by his citizens and half his legislature. And now he, his lt. gov, and 4 GOP senators face recall for it. They are getting unlimited (legal) campaign donations from out of state from big private donors, and very little from his own citizens. Far more than what his opposition has currently received.

You say Walker doing the above is the same as Obama bailing out the auto industry. Then you demand I disprove your unproven allegation against Obama, in order to prove Walker isn't doing something entirely different, which is the above?

Uh ... no.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

What does Obama have to do with Walker, other than as a vehicle for you desperately trying to change the focus away from Walker? The subject is Walker. Not Obama.

As I added to the other post: Walker passed the ALEC- and RGA- 2010 recommended union busting legislation in the face of 100% agreement to his requested cuts and concessions by those very same unions, falsely claiming he needed to union bust to get the cuts, thus doing something he never campaigned upon, and in the face of massive counter-demonstration by his citizens and half his legislature. And now he, his lt. gov, and 4 GOP senators face recall for it. They are getting unlimited (legal) campaign donations from out of state from big private donors, and very little from his own citizens. Far more than what his opposition has currently received.

You said that you want corporate owning out of our politicians. I am just showing you that you only believe this when it is convenient for your arguement. All I was doing was showing you that this is happening with Obama to a much larger degree, but you choose to ignore that fact.

I can't wait until Walker Wins Again!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

You said that you want corporate owning out of our politicians. I am just showing you that you only believe this when it is convenient for your arguement.

No, you didn't "show" anything. You only made an allegation. Go ahead, prove your allegation, that Obama only made the GM bailout as he was owned by unions. Go ahead. Make your argument that is true. If it's good enough, I'll be quite willing to change my mind and agree with you.

But, rather than try and change the subject to Obama, you'd probably do better to instead show what is factually wrong about this statement I made about Walker. Because this discussion is about Walker. Not Obama.

As I added to the other post: Walker passed the ALEC- and RGA- 2010 recommended union busting legislation in the face of 100% agreement to his requested cuts and concessions by those very same unions, falsely claiming he needed to union bust to get the cuts, thus doing something he never campaigned upon, and in the face of massive counter-demonstration by his citizens and half his legislature. And now he, his lt. gov, and 4 GOP senators face recall for it. They are getting unlimited (legal) campaign donations from out of state from big private donors, and very little from his own citizens. Far more than what his opposition has currently received.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, you didn't "show" anything. You only made an allegation. Go ahead, prove your allegation, that Obama only made the GM bailout as he was owned by unions. Go ahead. Make your argument that is true. If it's good enough, I'll be quite willing to change my mind and agree with you.

Obama received campaign donations from solyndra and Ener1. Both of these companies were reviewed for loans/grants by prior administrations and denied based on their business plans and financial sitaution. Obama's administrations gave money to both of these companies and spoke very highly about them. They have both since filed bankruptcy.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Obama received campaign donations from solyndra and Ener1. Both of these companies were reviewed for loans/grants by prior administrations and denied based on their business plans and financial sitaution.

Solyndra majority shareholder ownership is wealthy Republicans, like the Walton family.

And you have other facts omitted: The Bush administration approved the loan to Solyndra, trying to rush it through, but the Department of Energy said no, the documents submitted by Solyndra were not complete, what what was there didn't look good. That loan approval was held over until during the Obama administration before the loan documents were completed, then the DOE approved the loan based upon the updated documents.

The documents submitted by Solyndra to the DOE had lies included by the company to gain the loan, providing false information about the company not consistent with the financial reality surrounding the loan.

It's hard to make a conspiracy theory up when all the facts are included.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Solyndra majority shareholder ownership is wealthy Republicans, like the Walton family.

And you have other facts omitted: The Bush administration approved the loan to Solyndra, trying to rush it through, but the Department of Energy said no, the documents submitted by Solyndra were not complete, what what was there didn't look good. That loan approval was held over until during the Obama administration before the loan documents were completed, then the DOE approved the loan based upon the updated documents.

The documents submitted by Solyndra to the DOE had lies included by the company to gain the loan, providing false information about the company not consistent with the reality.

It's hard to make a conspiracy theory up when all the facts are included.

Solyndra’s loan application was filed during President Bush’s term, but the Solyndra loan was denied by the Bush administration less than two weeks before Bush left office on January 9, 2009. As soon as Obama took office, his administration reversed the denial of the loan and put the ill-advised loan, which had thrown up many red flags that the Bush administration caught, but the Obama administration ignored, on a fast-track to receive the same loan that the Bush administration denied days before.

Do you know who George Kaiser is?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Solyndra’s loan application was filed during President Bush’s term, but the Solyndra loan was denied by the Bush administration less than two weeks before Bush left office on January 9, 2009.

Denied by the DOE. Not the administration.

As soon as Obama took office, his administration reversed the denial of the loan and put the ill-advised loan,

No, they did not. Solyndra was still in the process of submitting additional documents, and the administration had to wait until DOE got those additional documents - which had fake information submitted by Solyndra - for the approval to go through.
The administration had to wait on DOE. DOE approved the loan based upon the merits of the application - which Solyndra lied upon to get the loan.

which had thrown up many red flags that the Bush administration caught but the Obama administration ignored, on a fast-track to receive the same loan that the Bush administration denied days before.

No. The above is only the false coloring of the anti-Obama conspiracy theorists. The regular, lifetime government workers in the DOE caught the red flags during the Bush administration, and approved the loan based upon the falsified documents under the Obama administration. The executive branch does not approve these loans.

The change of administrations was merely coincidental, not the massive conspiracy you and others believe.

Do you know who George Kaiser is?

Yes, he was one of the stockholders of Solyndra. Can you name the other, major Republican stockholders of Solyndra? Aside from the Walton Family? Why do you ignore that the majority ownership of Solyndra were big money Republican donors?

Can you see why the "Obama Solyndra Scandal" has only taken hold within the Obama Derangement Syndrome folks? Because the accusation of "scandal" doesn't stand up to any superficially intelligent review of the facts surrounding the case. Which everyone else figured out as soon as the alleged "scandal" was first revealed. But that never stops a dedicated wingnut.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Denied by the DOE. Not the administration.


No, they did not. Solyndra was still in the process of submitting additional documents, and the administration had to wait until DOE got those additional documents - which had fake information submitted by Solyndra - for the approval to go through.
The administration had to wait on DOE.



No. The above is only the false coloring of the anti-Obama conspiracy theorists.



Yes, he was one of the stockholders of Solyndra. Can you name the other, major Republican stockholders of Solyndra? Aside from the Walton Family?

Is George Kaiser a republican?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Is George Kaiser a republican?

No, he's Democratic and contributed to Obama's campaign, while other shareholders of Solyndra, the majority, happen to be Republican and contributed to Bush. Stop ignoring that.

Unfortunately, while both administrations wanted to capitalize on the publicity of a loan to a promising upstart solar energy company, Solyndra lied on the documentation to get the loan. The loan was first disproved, not by "Bush", but by the regular workers in the DOE, and the loan was subsequently approved, not by "Obama", but by those same regular workers in the DOE. Unfortunately Solyndra faces penalty for lying to the government to get the loan approved.

Stop with the "Solyndra is an Obama Scandal!" That's as ridiculous and false as "he's a Muslim Kenyan!", and everyone else in the world knows it.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, he's Democratic and contributed to Obama's campaign, while other shareholders of Solyndra, the majority, happen to be Republican and contributed to Bush. Stop ignoring that.

Unfortunately, while both administrations wanted to capitalize on the publicity of a loan to a promising upstart solar energy company, Solyndra lied on the documentation to get the loan. The loan was first disproved, not by "Bush", but by the regular workers in the DOE, and the loan was subsequently approved, not by "Obama", but by those same regular workers in the DOE. Unfortunately Solyndra faces penalty for lying to the government to get the loan approved.

Stop with the "Solyndra is an Obama Scandal!" That's as ridiculous and false as "he's a Muslim Kenyan!", and everyone else in the world knows it.

Thoughts on "Enron1" (thx Uncle Joe!)

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Thoughts on "Enron1" (thx Uncle Joe!)

No thanks. You and Uncle Joe go ahead and explain that to us.

Although, if you refuse to acknowledge the obvious roaring success of the administration betting on the American auto industry, you can't really ignore that while trying to also blame the administration for any failures in the Green energy industry.

But I know that won't stop some :-)

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

No thanks. You and Uncle Joe go ahead and explain that to us.

I will leave that to Bloomberg.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...rotection.html

[Clip-Clop]

IF these companies were going to succeed and had proper business plans and forecasts, they would not need gov't loans. Private investors would be footing the bill.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

No thanks. You and Uncle Joe go ahead and explain that to us.

Although, if you refuse to acknowledge the obvious roaring success of the administration betting on the American auto industry, you can't really ignore that while trying to also blame the administration for any failures in the Green energy industry.

But I know that won't stop some :-)

You are kidding right?
GM and Chrysler are not doing well at all, despite what you might have read. Ford is reasonably solid thanks to new models and a killer ad-campaign.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

You are kidding right?
GM and Chrysler are not doing well at all, despite what you might have read.

Please, go ahead and explain "how so".

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

IF these companies were going to succeed and had proper business plans and forecasts, they would not need gov't loans. Private investors would be footing the bill.

Exactly. But investment capital nowadays goes more to gambling on money, and created financial products, rather than actual capital investments in making something tangible.