myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Barney being Frank
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
feuser



Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1398

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deleted duplicate post
_________________
florian - ny22

http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/


Last edited by feuser on Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2894

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Under your system, the all knowing and all seeing administration of the day can simply ignore the law, and decide what's "fair" in their estimation.........just like in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Cuba, Soviet Union etc, etc, etc.

"The rule of law can be wiped out in one miguided, however well intentioned generation." William Gossett
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14618

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The remaining 11 rules Alinsky describes are concerned with
“the ethics of means and ends”

1. “One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue and inversely with one’s distance from the scene of conflict.”

2. “[T]he judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.”

3. “[I]n war the end justifies almost any means.”

4. “[J]udgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.”

5. “[C]oncern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.”

6. “[T]he less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.”

7. “[G]enerally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.”

8. “The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”

9. “[A]ny effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.”

10. “[Y]ou do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.”

11. “[G]oals must be phrased in general terms like ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,’ ‘Of the Common Welfare,’ ‘Pursuit of Happiness,’ or ‘Bread and Peace.’”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5574

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's so easy to bandy about terms like "ignore the law" without being specific. Whatever the source of the animus, continually holding Obama to an imaginary standard that you didn't hold Bush to, on issues like intervening in the economy, ignoring the Geneva convention on waterboarding, proposing a bailout of GM and the banks, et cetera, betrays a deep bias. Particularly telling when all of Obama's so-called crimes (along with those of environmental groups) track back to neo-con and John Birch Society sources. Hardly unimpeachable, and hardly balanced.

Your legal department was going to list the crimes, wasn't it? Still waiting...

Show a little understanding of the issues, and lay out your opinion instead of playing gotcha and you might be better understood.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2894

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An analysis of the Chrysler deal issued by Harvard Law. They roundly condemn it. Since Feuser is interested in the big picture, he may wish to read the section with that same title where he will find that the picture is a lot bigger than he thinks. An extract from that section:

"It’s important for courts to reject Chrysler, so that we can be better assured that credit markets will continue to function properly for weak firms.......The Chrysler deal was structured as a pseudo sale, mostly to insiders (in the Chrysler case to the UAW and the government), in a way eerily resembling the ugliest equity receiverships at the end of the 19th century."

And from the conclusion:

For minority creditors, there’s a century of bankruptcy and equity receivership law designed to balance protection from the majority’s potential to encroach on the minority and squeeze them out from their contractual priority against the minority’s potential to hold out perniciously. These are neither small nor simply fairness-based considerations: Capital markets depend on effective mechanisms that prevent financial majorities from ousting financial minorities from their ratable position in an enterprise. That’s what’s at stake. It’s in that light that the Chrysler bankruptcy was pernicious, in that it failed to comply with good bankruptcy practice, reviving practices that were soundly rejected nearly a century ago. Going forward, the extent of Chrysler’s damage to bankruptcy practice and financial markets will depend on how it is construed by other courts, and whether they will limit its application, as they should.

http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1434&context=harvard_olin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14618

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
An analysis of the Chrysler deal issued by Harvard Law.


Keycocker declared Harvard, at least their School of Public Health, "right wing hacks", and none of them objected, so you're boring them. Give 'em a source they trust, like MSNBC.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5574

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now posting a credible source wasn't that hard, was it? I understand that it may not have accused Obama of being a criminal, and it only took three requests and was about the fifth thing you posted, but finally some analysis...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5574

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting to read the Harvard article, and I'm not through. But the nub seems to be that Chrysler had a value of perhaps $2 billion, but substantial debt well in excess of that value, or a higher value if such could have obtained in an ordinary bankruptcy proceeding, from the article:

Quote:

its two largest creditors were secured creditors owed $6.9 billion and an
unsecured employee benefit plan, owed $10 billion. It also owed trade creditors $5.3 billion, and it had warranty and dealer obligations of several billion dollars.10


The government, for policy purposes, pumped a lot of money into Chrysler, before and after the economic collapse:

Quote:
The United States Treasury and the government of Canada had lent roughly $4 billion to Chrysler prior to bankruptcy, and then agreed to provide $5 billion to fund the bankruptcy, and another $6 billion in exit
financing.11 Some of the excess promised to the retiree trust was surely spilling over from the government’s concessionary lending.


The article states that without the government money (Canada and US), the policy of according the unsecured pension funds 55% of their unsecured debt, and secured creditors only 29% would surely have been overturned. But the Federal government, with capital well in excess of both the remaining value of Chrysler and the value of the secured debt, had the ability to direct much of their capital to the retiree trust. The Federal government faced the loss of a large number of jobs, and absorption of a portion of the retiree benefits directly through another arrangement and social security. There are certainly ample reasons to object to the Federal government taking such a large role in the economy, and in using TARP funds rather than separate Congressional authorization. However, mrgybe's description of the deal is way over the top. From the article, perhaps a more modest characterization, although no endorsement:

Quote:
Simply stated, although the secured creditors received $2 billion on their $6.9 billion claim, there is nothing in the structure of Chrysler’s bankruptcy process inconsistent with the proper number for the secured being not $2 billion, but $5 billion, or $1 billion. Or zero.


Credibility depends, at the end of the day, on the ability to analyze and present things fairly, with your opinion distinguished. Characterizations such as disregard of legality are, in this case, unwarranted. But that doesn't surprise me a bit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 6029

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe, what I find a bit curious in your most recent link is the fact that quite a bit of report's documentation is missing. While I have to admit that I'm hardly a business lawyer, or a financial expert that is versed on bankruptcy law, so it is likely that I wouldn't be able to understand or appreciate the background, methodology and conclusions of the report, even if it was complete. Nevertheless, the idea of cherry picking data sends the wrong message. Also, there are a lot of "maybe this or that" interpretations or presumptions in what I did read.

Overall, I got the impression that the this report might be a brief that would be used by lawyers in a court action or inquiry. Given the time that has passed where no significant real court action has happened, there must be whole other side to things that we're not seeing up til now. Seemingly, it must be the winning side this debate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5574

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chandler--there was a challenge, in bankruptcy court, but it was not successful. Neither was the appeal. Doesn't sound so John Birchy to actually provide more of the details, does it.

I don't know whether or not I agree with the efforts to revive Chrysler; it clearly was in much greater distress. Even with GM I think it is not clear whether it was good policy. Second guessing the leadership efforts of the Obama administration in trying to deal with the recession, caused by the legislation drafted by Republican Gramm of Texas, is part of the right narrative. Where Obama led it was illegal. Sigh.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
Page 15 of 17

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group