Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

How can someone with Aspergers be left-wing?

Page 19 of 21 [ 329 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

26 Nov 2010, 1:03 pm

marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
Hmmm... I'd actually be willing to question my own view or concede something if I could see some arguments from both sides regarding the handing of the GM bailout. Yet all I can find are obvious conservative and/or pro-wall street publications railing against it.


How about the fact Obama did it in violation of Federal Law, does the law mean anything to you. People invest with the understanding that if the place goes broke they are supposed to be practically the first in line to recoup money from bankruptcy. However, Obama is buddies with the Unions so he decided to screw the investors over and give the Unions the money in clear violation of the law.

He has also violated court orders concerning his Drilling Moratorium at least twice, his staff altered documents after thes experts had signed them to make it look like they were supporting something they were opposing.

The fact is this isn't something that is a both sides issue, this is about a contract is a contract. This is about a President violating Federal Law just cause he feels like it (and there is no argument of National Security being at stake either). Laws exist for a reason, you can't change the rules just cause you feel like your buddies should get the money, he is not a king despite what he may believe.


The problem is you haven't provided any unbiased sources supporting the claim you are making that he literally "broke the law". You're simply repeating things you've read from right-wing sources.


Just cause a source has an opinion doesn't invalidate the source. How about you look up bankruptcy law prior to Obama and then look at what happened to the GM and Chrysler investors.

The interesting issue in Chrysler is not the lawyers’ manipulation of the law; it is the politicians’ use of the bankruptcy to launder money. Had the President simply announced that the federal government would give $4 billion to the UAW, the public, even the public in the UAW’s home state of Michigan, would have been up in arms. By laundering the money through the Chapter 11 process, the administration disguised the payment and avoided the outrage.

http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/lq ... yviews.pdf

On Wednesday, two Indiana state pension funds -- representing teachers and state police officers -- and a state road construction fund went to court to block Obama's plan to take their money. The teachers' pension fund alone has said it would lose $4.6 million under Obama's proposal.

The legal issue here is investor rights. These pension funds and many other Chrysler investors were secured investors. They are contractually entitled to be repaid first, before other Chrysler bondholders are, and to receive an ownership stake in the company should it go bankrupt. The President willfully ignored those contractual obligations. To secure more money and power for Chrysler's unions, which he grants 55 percent ownership of the company, he simply nullified the company's contracts with its secured investors. Then he covered his tracks by attacking the investors as "speculators."

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx ... 5558664274

As we dig ourselves out of the Great Recession, investors must cope with an additional risk: the threat of government abrogation of legal rights for political reasons. Even Warren Buffet bemoaned the Chrysler situation: “If we want to encourage lending in this country, we don’t want to say to somebody who lends and gets a secured position that the secured position doesn’t mean anything.”
http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/20 ... r-assault/

At least two of these articles come from Law Schools, it doesn't matter if they are opinion or not, their opinions in this have weight because it is their area of expertise.



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

26 Nov 2010, 1:11 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
Hmmm... I'd actually be willing to question my own view or concede something if I could see some arguments from both sides regarding the handing of the GM bailout. Yet all I can find are obvious conservative and/or pro-wall street publications railing against it.


How about the fact Obama did it in violation of Federal Law, does the law mean anything to you. People invest with the understanding that if the place goes broke they are supposed to be practically the first in line to recoup money from bankruptcy. However, Obama is buddies with the Unions so he decided to screw the investors over and give the Unions the money in clear violation of the law.

He has also violated court orders concerning his Drilling Moratorium at least twice, his staff altered documents after thes experts had signed them to make it look like they were supporting something they were opposing.

The fact is this isn't something that is a both sides issue, this is about a contract is a contract. This is about a President violating Federal Law just cause he feels like it (and there is no argument of National Security being at stake either). Laws exist for a reason, you can't change the rules just cause you feel like your buddies should get the money, he is not a king despite what he may believe.


The problem is you haven't provided any unbiased sources supporting the claim you are making that he literally "broke the law". You're simply repeating things you've read from right-wing sources.


Just cause a source has an opinion doesn't invalidate the source. How about you look up bankruptcy law prior to Obama and then look at what happened to the GM and Chrysler investors.

The interesting issue in Chrysler is not the lawyers’ manipulation of the law; it is the politicians’ use of the bankruptcy to launder money. Had the President simply announced that the federal government would give $4 billion to the UAW, the public, even the public in the UAW’s home state of Michigan, would have been up in arms. By laundering the money through the Chapter 11 process, the administration disguised the payment and avoided the outrage.

http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/lq ... yviews.pdf

On Wednesday, two Indiana state pension funds -- representing teachers and state police officers -- and a state road construction fund went to court to block Obama's plan to take their money. The teachers' pension fund alone has said it would lose $4.6 million under Obama's proposal.

The legal issue here is investor rights. These pension funds and many other Chrysler investors were secured investors. They are contractually entitled to be repaid first, before other Chrysler bondholders are, and to receive an ownership stake in the company should it go bankrupt. The President willfully ignored those contractual obligations. To secure more money and power for Chrysler's unions, which he grants 55 percent ownership of the company, he simply nullified the company's contracts with its secured investors. Then he covered his tracks by attacking the investors as "speculators."

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx ... 5558664274

As we dig ourselves out of the Great Recession, investors must cope with an additional risk: the threat of government abrogation of legal rights for political reasons. Even Warren Buffet bemoaned the Chrysler situation: “If we want to encourage lending in this country, we don’t want to say to somebody who lends and gets a secured position that the secured position doesn’t mean anything.”
http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/20 ... r-assault/

At least two of these articles come from Law Schools, it doesn't matter if they are opinion or not, their opinions in this have weight because it is their area of expertise.


I think what marshall was looking for, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is evidence and/or proof that Obama broke the law - in your own words, considering that it is your claim. Not some law school faculty blog.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

26 Nov 2010, 1:14 pm

number5 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
Hmmm... I'd actually be willing to question my own view or concede something if I could see some arguments from both sides regarding the handing of the GM bailout. Yet all I can find are obvious conservative and/or pro-wall street publications railing against it.


How about the fact Obama did it in violation of Federal Law, does the law mean anything to you. People invest with the understanding that if the place goes broke they are supposed to be practically the first in line to recoup money from bankruptcy. However, Obama is buddies with the Unions so he decided to screw the investors over and give the Unions the money in clear violation of the law.

He has also violated court orders concerning his Drilling Moratorium at least twice, his staff altered documents after thes experts had signed them to make it look like they were supporting something they were opposing.

The fact is this isn't something that is a both sides issue, this is about a contract is a contract. This is about a President violating Federal Law just cause he feels like it (and there is no argument of National Security being at stake either). Laws exist for a reason, you can't change the rules just cause you feel like your buddies should get the money, he is not a king despite what he may believe.


The problem is you haven't provided any unbiased sources supporting the claim you are making that he literally "broke the law". You're simply repeating things you've read from right-wing sources.


Just cause a source has an opinion doesn't invalidate the source. How about you look up bankruptcy law prior to Obama and then look at what happened to the GM and Chrysler investors.

The interesting issue in Chrysler is not the lawyers’ manipulation of the law; it is the politicians’ use of the bankruptcy to launder money. Had the President simply announced that the federal government would give $4 billion to the UAW, the public, even the public in the UAW’s home state of Michigan, would have been up in arms. By laundering the money through the Chapter 11 process, the administration disguised the payment and avoided the outrage.

http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/lq ... yviews.pdf

On Wednesday, two Indiana state pension funds -- representing teachers and state police officers -- and a state road construction fund went to court to block Obama's plan to take their money. The teachers' pension fund alone has said it would lose $4.6 million under Obama's proposal.

The legal issue here is investor rights. These pension funds and many other Chrysler investors were secured investors. They are contractually entitled to be repaid first, before other Chrysler bondholders are, and to receive an ownership stake in the company should it go bankrupt. The President willfully ignored those contractual obligations. To secure more money and power for Chrysler's unions, which he grants 55 percent ownership of the company, he simply nullified the company's contracts with its secured investors. Then he covered his tracks by attacking the investors as "speculators."

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx ... 5558664274

As we dig ourselves out of the Great Recession, investors must cope with an additional risk: the threat of government abrogation of legal rights for political reasons. Even Warren Buffet bemoaned the Chrysler situation: “If we want to encourage lending in this country, we don’t want to say to somebody who lends and gets a secured position that the secured position doesn’t mean anything.”
http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/20 ... r-assault/

At least two of these articles come from Law Schools, it doesn't matter if they are opinion or not, their opinions in this have weight because it is their area of expertise.


I think what marshall was looking for, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is evidence and/or proof that Obama broke the law - in your own words, considering that it is your claim. Not some law school faculty blog.


Well considering either Obama or another member of his staff made the decisions to deny the secured stakeholders their rights, it's kinda obvious that either he or one of his underlings broke the law.



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

26 Nov 2010, 1:14 pm

I'll add that in you first link appears the quote "clever but legal manipulation of the bankruptcy system."



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

26 Nov 2010, 1:24 pm

number5 wrote:
I'll add that in you first link appears the quote "clever but legal manipulation of the bankruptcy system."


You left out the rest of it:

Understand what I am not claiming; I do not claim that the lawyers or the judges in Chrysler did anything wrong. If they are aggrieved it is only because they were the puppets attached to the
administration’s strings. By its clever but legal manipulation of the bankruptcy system, the administration was able to move $4 billion of value to its friend the UAW while being much less generous to Chrysler’s secured creditors who, in another setting, could have received a much larger payoff.

http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/lq ... yviews.pdf

While the use of the laws in the bankruptcy can be legally used to do that using a legal loophole. It is essentially money laundering which the article argues on page 1, and that is not legal. See conviction of Tom DeLay.



alicedress
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 218

26 Nov 2010, 9:39 pm

Left-winger over here.

LibertarianAS wrote:
some Asperger traits:

-Perseveration and difficulties with change


I'm quite fond of good and well needed changes. Quite frankly, I don't know how anyone, Aspergers or not, can look at the world around them and think, "Gee, I don't know what everyone is talking about, everything looks perfectly fine and I don't see anything that needs to change."

LibertarianAS wrote:
-low agreeability


Just means I don't smile sweetly when faced with ideologies that I find abhorrent.

LibertarianAS wrote:
-logical thinking


Hehe, I think someone has already covered this. :P



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

26 Nov 2010, 11:53 pm

the answer to the original question - Very easily.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

27 Nov 2010, 12:50 am

Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
I'll add that in you first link appears the quote "clever but legal manipulation of the bankruptcy system."


You left out the rest of it:

Understand what I am not claiming; I do not claim that the lawyers or the judges in Chrysler did anything wrong. If they are aggrieved it is only because they were the puppets attached to the
administration’s strings. By its clever but legal manipulation of the bankruptcy system, the administration was able to move $4 billion of value to its friend the UAW while being much less generous to Chrysler’s secured creditors who, in another setting, could have received a much larger payoff.

http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/lq ... yviews.pdf

While the use of the laws in the bankruptcy can be legally used to do that using a legal loophole. It is essentially money laundering which the article argues on page 1, and that is not legal. See conviction of Tom DeLay.


I agree that the governments action may have caused a legal headache for creditors of very large companies. They may fight to close the loophole in case of future bailout actions. However, to call it laundering seems like hyperbole to me. There was no attempt by the administration to conceal what they were doing. The goal was to protect the UAW workers, not to pay off some wealthy higher-ups.



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

27 Nov 2010, 9:20 am

marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
I'll add that in you first link appears the quote "clever but legal manipulation of the bankruptcy system."


You left out the rest of it:

Understand what I am not claiming; I do not claim that the lawyers or the judges in Chrysler did anything wrong. If they are aggrieved it is only because they were the puppets attached to the
administration’s strings. By its clever but legal manipulation of the bankruptcy system, the administration was able to move $4 billion of value to its friend the UAW while being much less generous to Chrysler’s secured creditors who, in another setting, could have received a much larger payoff.

http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/lq ... yviews.pdf

While the use of the laws in the bankruptcy can be legally used to do that using a legal loophole. It is essentially money laundering which the article argues on page 1, and that is not legal. See conviction of Tom DeLay.


I agree that the governments action may have caused a legal headache for creditors of very large companies. They may fight to close the loophole in case of future bailout actions. However, to call it laundering seems like hyperbole to me. There was no attempt by the administration to conceal what they were doing. The goal was to protect the UAW workers, not to pay off some wealthy higher-ups.


It's not just a hyperbole, it's a fabrication. No law was broken.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

27 Nov 2010, 12:36 pm

marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
I'll add that in you first link appears the quote "clever but legal manipulation of the bankruptcy system."


You left out the rest of it:

Understand what I am not claiming; I do not claim that the lawyers or the judges in Chrysler did anything wrong. If they are aggrieved it is only because they were the puppets attached to the
administration’s strings. By its clever but legal manipulation of the bankruptcy system, the administration was able to move $4 billion of value to its friend the UAW while being much less generous to Chrysler’s secured creditors who, in another setting, could have received a much larger payoff.

http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/lq ... yviews.pdf

While the use of the laws in the bankruptcy can be legally used to do that using a legal loophole. It is essentially money laundering which the article argues on page 1, and that is not legal. See conviction of Tom DeLay.


I agree that the governments action may have caused a legal headache for creditors of very large companies. They may fight to close the loophole in case of future bailout actions. However, to call it laundering seems like hyperbole to me. There was no attempt by the administration to conceal what they were doing. The goal was to protect the UAW workers, not to pay off some wealthy higher-ups.


I fail to see how paying off big union bosses is protecting the little guy. Seriously, this is one of the reasons why I don't trust Democrats as far as I could throw the Titanic.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

27 Nov 2010, 1:34 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
I'll add that in you first link appears the quote "clever but legal manipulation of the bankruptcy system."


You left out the rest of it:

Understand what I am not claiming; I do not claim that the lawyers or the judges in Chrysler did anything wrong. If they are aggrieved it is only because they were the puppets attached to the
administration’s strings. By its clever but legal manipulation of the bankruptcy system, the administration was able to move $4 billion of value to its friend the UAW while being much less generous to Chrysler’s secured creditors who, in another setting, could have received a much larger payoff.

http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/lq ... yviews.pdf

While the use of the laws in the bankruptcy can be legally used to do that using a legal loophole. It is essentially money laundering which the article argues on page 1, and that is not legal. See conviction of Tom DeLay.


I agree that the governments action may have caused a legal headache for creditors of very large companies. They may fight to close the loophole in case of future bailout actions. However, to call it laundering seems like hyperbole to me. There was no attempt by the administration to conceal what they were doing. The goal was to protect the UAW workers, not to pay off some wealthy higher-ups.


I fail to see how paying off big union bosses is protecting the little guy. Seriously, this is one of the reasons why I don't trust Democrats as far as I could throw the Titanic.


The claim that the administrations action was a hidden scheme to "launder" money to union executives looks pretty dishonest to me.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

07 Dec 2010, 1:35 pm

LibertarianAS wrote:
some Asperger traits:

-Perseveration and difficulties with change
-low agreeability
-logical thinking

now a leftists is someone who WANT change,who want to live in a COLLECTIVE over INDIVIDUALISTIC world where everyone help everyone and about logical thinking...LOL



Are we REALLY implying leftists are inherently illogical?

That's funny coming from someone who apparently conflates leftism with communism. :lol:

Btw, collectivism and individualism are not oppositional concepts. :wink:

Me thinks the man doth read too little.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

07 Dec 2010, 1:48 pm

Bethie wrote:
LibertarianAS wrote:
some Asperger traits:

-Perseveration and difficulties with change
-low agreeability
-logical thinking

now a leftists is someone who WANT change,who want to live in a COLLECTIVE over INDIVIDUALISTIC world where everyone help everyone and about logical thinking...LOL



Are we REALLY implying leftists are inherently illogical?

Yes leftists can be extremely illogical.

Bethie wrote:
That's funny coming from someone who apparently conflates leftism with communism. :lol:


People on the left can be equated with Communism, in fact a lot of the Democrats in Congress have socialist/communist ties.

Bethie wrote:
Btw, collectivism and individualism are not oppositional concepts. :wink:

I'm sure the Borg from Star Trek really promoted individuality... :roll:

Bethie wrote:
Me thinks the man doth read too little.


Looks like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I would be adding sources to back myself up but I think other people can google stuff and find sources atm.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Dec 2010, 6:31 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
[
Yes leftists can be extremely illogical.

.


And some lefties can be very logical. For example, Albert Einstein who inclined leftward politically.

ruveyn



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

07 Dec 2010, 9:03 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Bethie wrote:
Are we REALLY implying leftists are inherently illogical?

Yes leftists can be extremely illogical.

So can rightists.
"Inherently". Look it up.
Inuyasha wrote:
Bethie wrote:
That's funny coming from someone who apparently conflates leftism with communism. :lol:

People on the left can be equated with Communism, in fact a lot of the Democrats in Congress have socialist/communist ties.

That's PAINFULLY fallacious.
Democrats =/= Leftists =/= Socialists =/= Communists
Inuyasha wrote:
Bethie wrote:
Me thinks the man doth read too little.

Looks like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I would be adding sources to back myself up but I think other people can google stuff and find sources atm.

What "source" is needed? Would the dictionary suffice?
Here:
http://dictionary.reference.com
Have fun learning.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

07 Dec 2010, 9:20 pm

I wonder why you people see things in black or white... <.<