GM Once Again World's Top-Selling Automaker

[John Manning]

General Motors and its partners sold 9 million vehicles around
the globe in 2011, the company announced Thursday, allowing it
to reclaim the title of world’s top-selling automaker.

Toyota had snatched the crown from General Motors in 2008, as
the American automaker nearly crumbled under the weight of its
debts and as U.S. sales plummeted with the recession.

The 2011 sales figure reflects the dramatic turnaround that began
when the company filed for bankruptcy less than three years ago
and, according to analysts, stems from the popularity of its
latest vehicles.

"They've demonstrated the ability to introduce competitive products
and do it consistently," said Jeremy Anwyl of the automotive Web
site Edmunds.com.

Overall, the U.S. auto industry, which had seemed to be on the brink
of collapse at the onset of the recession, has strengthened...

Read more here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gm-once-again-top-selling-automaker/2012/01/19/gIQAp3b1BQ_story.html

SEE ALSO: 'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt' - by Mitt Romney
New York Times - November 18, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

[Truth and honesty]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:07:58 -0200, John Manning wrote:

> General Motors and its partners sold 9 million vehicles around
> the globe in 2011, the company announced Thursday, allowing it
> to reclaim the title of world’s top-selling automaker.

Like always John, you tend to get excited over the short term and forget to
see the big picture. GM has done well in the past month but look at the
longer picture.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=gm#symbol=gm;range=2y;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=;

You would have lost money if you had invested six months ago.

The big problem with GM is Europe, if Europe economy goes south which is
likely, GM will go south too.

[sully]

On Jan 20, 1:37 am, Truth and honesty <Tr...@honest.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:07:58 -0200, John Manning wrote:
> > General Motors and its partners sold 9 million vehicles around
> > the globe in 2011, the company announced Thursday, allowing it
> > to reclaim the title of world¢s top-selling automaker.
>
> Like always John, you tend to get excited over the short term and forget to
> see the big picture. GM has done well in the past month but look at the
> longer picture.
>

> http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=gm#symbol=gm;range=2y;compare=;ind...

>
> You would have lost money if you had invested six months ago.
>
> The big problem with GM is Europe, if Europe economy goes south which is
> likely, GM will go south too.

The big problem is that right wingers believe that
government solutions are universally worthless.

Most things don't need government to solve, and
there should always be vigorous debate over how
we want to govern, and what solutions are implemented.

In the GM case, anti-gummint types were willing to
let the auto industry die in the US to support
the failed notion that free-market is the solution to
every problem.

It turns out that the rescue of GM was worth it.

[John Manning]

On 1/20/2012 3:55 PM, sully wrote:
> On Jan 20, 1:37 am, Truth and honesty<Tr...@honest.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:07:58 -0200, John Manning wrote:
>>> General Motors and its partners sold 9 million vehicles around
>>> the globe in 2011, the company announced Thursday, allowing it

>>> to reclaim the title of world┬ top-selling automaker.

>>
>> Like always John, you tend to get excited over the short term and forget to
>> see the big picture. GM has done well in the past month but look at the
>> longer picture.
>>
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=gm#symbol=gm;range=2y;compare=;ind...
>>
>> You would have lost money if you had invested six months ago.
>>
>> The big problem with GM is Europe, if Europe economy goes south which is
>> likely, GM will go south too.
>
> The big problem is that right wingers believe that
> government solutions are universally worthless.
>
> Most things don't need government to solve, and
> there should always be vigorous debate over how
> we want to govern, and what solutions are implemented.
>
> In the GM case, anti-gummint types were willing to
> let the auto industry die in the US to support
> the failed notion that free-market is the solution to
> every problem.
>
> It turns out that the rescue of GM was worth it.
>

'Truth and honesty' has paid his $5.00:
http://www.bartcop.com/free-idiot-test.jpg

[Kulin Remailer]

sully <suls...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:a8dd108a-8dd4-4746-88c0-
bdac88...@rk3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:

> It turns out that the rescue of GM was worth it.

FORBES:

Last week General Motors introduced its $41,000 Volt
electric vehicle. This is a massive new product
program that likely wouldn't exist in a free market,
focusing much of the ailing company's attention on a
product that won't move in any volume without
thousands of dollars per vehicle in government
subsidies.

The debut of the Volt has raised new criticisms of the
GM bailout for having wasted billions of taxpayer
money. Back in April GM and the Obama administration
attempted to deflect some of this negative feedback by
announcing that GM had repaid $6.7 billion in
government loans. What was missing from this
announcement, however, was the fact that the money to
repay this loan had come from a working capital fund
provided by the federal government's TARP program.
Switching money from one pocket to another seldom does
much for financial health.

DID YOU GET THAT? TAXPAYERS BAILED OUT GM, TAXPAYERS
"REPAID" THE BAILOUT ON GM'S BEHALF. THE STREET WORD
FOR THIS IS "WE GOT FUCKED."


Visit Forbes to read the rest:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/09/general-motors-
finance-bailout-opinions-columnists-warren-meyer.html

[sully]

On Jan 20, 12:09 pm, Kulin Remailer <remai...@reece.net.au> wrote:
> sully <sulsn...@yahoo.com>  wrote in
> news:a8dd108a-8dd4-4746-88c0-
> bdac88fcb...@rk3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:

>
> > It turns out that the rescue of GM was worth  it.
>
> FORBES:
>
> Last week General Motors introduced its $41,000 Volt
> electric vehicle. This is a massive new product
> program that likely wouldn't exist in a free market,
> focusing much of the ailing company's attention on a
> product that won't move in any volume without
> thousands of dollars per vehicle in government
> subsidies.

Why don't you tell me what part of the free market
built all the roads and freeways in this country,
and explain how heavy gov't subsidy of oil rights
and development over the past century has been
"free market".

Right wingers make up history as they go along
singing 'free market free market' with their
fingers in their ears and their heads up their
a**es.

[Just Wondering]

On 1/20/2012 10:55 AM, sully wrote:
> On Jan 20, 1:37 am, Truth and honesty<Tr...@honest.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:07:58 -0200, John Manning wrote:
>>> General Motors and its partners sold 9 million vehicles around
>>> the globe in 2011, the company announced Thursday, allowing it

>>> to reclaim the title of world┬ top-selling automaker.

>>
>> Like always John, you tend to get excited over the short term and forget to
>> see the big picture. GM has done well in the past month but look at the
>> longer picture.
>>
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=gm#symbol=gm;range=2y;compare=;ind...
>>
>> You would have lost money if you had invested six months ago.
>>
>> The big problem with GM is Europe, if Europe economy goes south which is
>> likely, GM will go south too.
>
> The big problem is that right wingers believe that
> government solutions are universally worthless.
>
> Most things don't need government to solve, and
> there should always be vigorous debate over how
> we want to govern, and what solutions are implemented.
>
> In the GM case, anti-gummint types were willing to
> let the auto industry die in the US to support
> the failed notion that free-market is the solution to
> every problem.

No, the problem was an effective government takeover of a private
corporation to do what Chapter 11 bankruptcy could have done more
effectively and at less cost to taxpayers.

> It turns out that the rescue of GM was worth it.
>

GM should have filed for Chapter 11 reorganization. That's what
bankruptcy is for in the first place, and unlike what Obama did, is
expressly provided for in the constitution. It worked just fine for
Delta Airlines. and it would have worked for GM too.
http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=43&item=167

[sully]

On Jan 20, 1:48 pm, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 1/20/2012 10:55 AM, sully wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 20, 1:37 am, Truth and honesty<Tr...@honest.com>  wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:07:58 -0200, John Manning wrote:
> >>> General Motors and its partners sold 9 million vehicles around
> >>> the globe in 2011, the company announced Thursday, allowing it

> >>> to reclaim the title of world¢s top-selling automaker.

>
> >> Like always John, you tend to get excited over the short term and forget to
> >> see the big picture. GM has done well in the past month but look at the
> >> longer picture.
>
> >>http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=gm#symbol=gm;range=2y;compare=;ind...
>
> >> You would have lost money if you had invested six months ago.
>
> >> The big problem with GM is Europe, if Europe economy goes south which is
> >> likely, GM will go south too.
>
> > The big problem is that right wingers believe that
> > government solutions are universally worthless.
>
> > Most things don't need government to solve, and
> > there should always be vigorous debate over how
> > we want to govern, and what solutions are implemented.
>
> > In the GM case, anti-gummint types were willing to
> > let the auto industry die in the US to support
> > the failed notion that free-market is the solution to
> > every problem.
>
> No, the problem was an effective government takeover of a private
> corporation to do what Chapter 11 bankruptcy could have done more
> effectively and at less cost to taxpayers.
>
> > It turns out that the rescue of GM was worth  it.
>
> GM should have filed for Chapter 11 reorganization.  That's what
> bankruptcy is for in the first place, and unlike what Obama did, is
> expressly provided for in the constitution.  It worked just fine for
> Delta Airlines. and it would have worked for GM too.http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=43&item=167

This is a valid argument. GM should have
filed for Ch eleven a year prior to the crisis.
They didn't.

The reason behind the gov't bailout was made
very clear, the entire industry was at stake, not just
one company. When a company goes bankrupt and
gets protection, generally there are other successful
companies around that bouy the industry, provide markets
for the parts, supplies, that many other industries provide.

There was not another profitable US automaker ready
in the wings, Ford was under, everybody was hit.

chap 11 isn't a clean easy process, it often takes months
or years to clean up messes, restructure, or re-tool.
This timing would have been a disaster toward the other
supporting industries and a cascading job loss.

By intervening, GM kept the jobs it had, plus kept
the dependent economy afloat.

It was an emergency measure.

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Kulin Remailer" <rema...@reece.net.au> wrote in message
news:SMILQ4ST4092...@reece.net.au...

> sully <suls...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:a8dd108a-8dd4-4746-88c0-
> bdac88...@rk3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> It turns out that the rescue of GM was worth it.
>
> FORBES:
>
> Last week General Motors introduced its $41,000 Volt
> electric vehicle. This is a massive new product
> program that likely wouldn't exist in a free market,
> focusing much of the ailing company's attention on a
> product that won't move in any volume without
> thousands of dollars per vehicle in government
> subsidies.
>
> The debut of the Volt has raised new criticisms of the
> GM bailout for having wasted billions of taxpayer
> money. Back in April GM and the Obama administration
> attempted to deflect some of this negative feedback by
> announcing that GM had repaid $6.7 billion in
> government loans. What was missing from this
> announcement, however, was the fact that the money to
> repay this loan had come from a working capital fund
> provided by the federal government's TARP program.
> Switching money from one pocket to another seldom does
> much for financial health.

The Volt is totally badass, and the design was NEEDED. It will be much
copied, and it is the car of the near future. Its development was worth
every penny the government put into it.

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"sully" <suls...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:67e50b26-955c-4b9d...@n7g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...

Fox Republicans (the entire GOP post-Goldwater) are cultists who secretly
worship Satan and stick their dicks in peanut butter jars. They're about as
"conservative" as Mao. The Democratic Party is the true center-conservative
party in the US in 2012. The Republican Party are so radical that they
would welcome Adolf Hitler with open arms. I used to be a Hard Core
Republican, but I saw the error of my ways and now I'm a Conservative
Democrat.

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"sully" <suls...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:538cc26e-bc35-45ae...@a8g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 20, 1:48 pm, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/20/2012 10:55 AM, sully wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 20, 1:37 am, Truth and honesty<Tr...@honest.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:07:58 -0200, John Manning wrote:
>> >>> General Motors and its partners sold 9 million vehicles around
>> >>> the globe in 2011, the company announced Thursday, allowing it

>> >>> to reclaim the title of world┬ top-selling automaker.

This is all true. But the Ron Paul-worshiping free market cultists would
rather industry die in America than to challenge their God, which is the
free market, which doesn't actually exist in the world.

[Truth and honesty]

Just because someone does not agree with you on this topic, does not mean
they are an idiot.

[Truth and honesty]

Do you intend to buy any shares in GM?

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article
<a8dd108a-8dd4-4746...@rk3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, sully
<suls...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jan 20, 1:37=A0am, Truth and honesty <Tr...@honest.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:07:58 -0200, John Manning wrote:
>> > General Motors and its partners sold 9 million vehicles around
>> > the globe in 2011, the company announced Thursday, allowing it

>> > to reclaim the title of world=A2s top-selling automaker.
>>
>> Like always John, you tend to get excited over the short term and forget =

>to
>> see the big picture. GM has done well in the past month but look at the
>> longer picture.
>>

>> http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=3Dgm#symbol=3Dgm;range=3D2y;compare=3D=

>;ind...
>>
>> You would have lost money if you had invested six months ago.
>>
>> The big problem with GM is Europe, if Europe economy goes south which is
>> likely, GM will go south too.
>
>The big problem is that right wingers believe that
>government solutions are universally worthless.
>
>Most things don't need government to solve, and
>there should always be vigorous debate over how
>we want to govern, and what solutions are implemented.
>
>In the GM case, anti-gummint types were willing to
>let the auto industry die in the US to support
>the failed notion that free-market is the solution to
>every problem.
>
>It turns out that the rescue of GM was worth it.

• good point but neo-cons will never conceede it.

--
Richard L. Measures. AG6K, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org

[John Manning]

Quote from vulture capitalist and presidential candidate Mitt Romney:

"If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout
that their chief executives asked for yesterday,
you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.

"It won't go overnight, but its demise will be virtually
guaranteed."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

[WangoTango]

In article <o9ednVsiyqLsI4XS...@giganews.com>,
jrob...@terra.com.br says...

>
>
> General Motors and its partners sold 9 million vehicles around
> the globe in 2011, the company announced Thursday, allowing it

> to reclaim the title of world=3Fs top-selling automaker.

That's OK, the unions will grapple them back down into oblivion.

[sully]

On Jan 27, 3:45 pm, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In article <o9ednVsiyqLsI4XSnZ2dnUVZ_uudn...@giganews.com>,
> jrobe...@terra.com.br says...

>
>
>
> > General Motors and its partners sold 9 million vehicles around
> > the globe in 2011, the company announced Thursday, allowing it
> > to reclaim the title of world=3Fs top-selling automaker.
>
> That's OK, the unions will grapple them back down into oblivion.

rich right wingers think working people
steal from them when they ask to get
paid for their labor.

poor right wingers hate working people.

[Logan Sacket]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:52:56 -0800 (PST), sully <suls...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Left wingers think that businesses are in business just for the
benefit of the workers. If they make any money in the process, then
that's evil.

[sully]

On Jan 28, 5:10 pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:52:56 -0800 (PST), sully <sulsn...@yahoo.com>

No, they aren't, liberals don't think so at all. So
you'll go out and correct the right wingers that
claim that the wealthy create jobs then?

[Logan Sacket]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:03:17 -0800 (PST), sully <suls...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Seriously? Without wealthy people to help create businesses, only the
goverment would have the ability to do that. Which is exactly what
they are tring to do.

[sully]

On Feb 2, 4:02 pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:03:17 -0800 (PST), sully <sulsn...@yahoo.com>

nonsense. I wasn't wealthy when I started my business, in fact I was
broke.
My wife started and ran a business as well, she certainly wasn't
wealthy.

Access to capital is important for business success. But
there is no business without demand.

I have an acquaintance who is one of the wealthiest men
in Orange County. He is in home construction. When
the housing crash hit, he moved his investments around,
then stopped construction laying off all but a couple workers
in his company. He became WEALTHIER during the down
market (smart guy), yet didn't create a single job.

He'll ramp back up again when demand returns.

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Logan Sacket" <logan....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f2c2386...@news.eternal-september.org...

The rich don't create jobs. Consumers do.

[DanielSan]

I thought poor people created businesses by pulling themselves up by
their bootstraps.

[Just Wondering]

On 2/2/2012 8:03 PM, Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:

> The rich don't create jobs. Consumers do.

Consumers create demand for product and services. Those who fill that
demand are the ones who create the jobs.

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4f2b9a80$0$16069$882e...@usenet-news.net...

Wrong.

[Loirbaj]

Fifty billion TAXPAYER money later,
GM is in ruins and millions have lost
everything on their last bankruptcy.
Do NOT buy a GM car.
Do NOT buy a govt boondoggle.
The Chevy Volt has already cost 500,000
per car. And they EXPLODE INTO FIRE.

[sully]

Jobs and Woz weren't wealthy when they
started Apple. Gates needed a loan from his
attorney father to buy DOS from a programmer
in New Mexico. Both of these guys started
these giants of companies that ended up hiring
thousands of people, and transforming an economy
during the mid 70s when taxes were very high.

[Just Wondering]

If I buy a hamburger at a local cafe, I'm a consumer. The guy who owns
the cafe and hired the cook is the one who created the cook's job.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <4f2c2ca3$0$1300$882e...@usenet-news.net>,

If it were not for the consumer, the owner would have no reason to hire
the cook.

--
JD

"the lybian lier"

[DanielSan]

Nope. You're the consumer who has a demand for hamburgers. The
business owner wants to make money off that demand and hires a cook to
cook the hamburger and, potentially, someone to serve it to you. You
are the reason that the cook (and possibly the server) has a job.
Without you, the consumer, the business owner would not hire anyone and
the business would fold.

[Loirbaj]

Each Chevy Volt has now
cost ME the taxpayer $500,000
and sold a total of 800 of the junk.
While millions are out of work, the
average 'union auto worker' draws
$220,000 a year and works less
than 4 weeks a year.

[Just Wondering]

On 2/3/2012 1:43 PM, DanielSan wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 10:52 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 2/3/2012 8:41 AM, Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4f2b9a80$0$16069$882e...@usenet-news.net...
>>>> On 2/2/2012 8:03 PM, Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The rich don't create jobs. Consumers do.
>>>>
>>>> Consumers create demand for product and services. Those who fill that
>>>> demand are the ones who create the jobs.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> If I buy a hamburger at a local cafe, I'm a consumer. The guy who owns
>> the cafe and hired the cook is the one who created the cook's job.
>
> Nope. You're the consumer who has a demand for hamburgers.

Your demand for a burger does not create anything, except perhaps your
appetite.

> The business owner wants to make money off that demand and hires a cook to cook the
> hamburger

Bingo, thereby creating the job.

> and, potentially, someone to serve it to you.

Which would mean the owner created a second job.

> You are the reason that the cook (and possibly the server) has a job.

The owner's desire to trade his product for your money is the reason the
owner creates the job.

> Without you, the consumer, the business owner would not hire anyone and the business
> would fold.

The business owner created the job in order to provide you with the
product. If the business owner had the money, he could hire the cook,
and the job would be created, whether you actually bought the burger or
not. But it doesn't matter how much you want the burger, until someone
else comes along to create the job of making burgers, you won't get one.

[DanielSan]

On 2/3/2012 1:26 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 1:43 PM, DanielSan wrote:
>> On 2/3/2012 10:52 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 2/3/2012 8:41 AM, Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:4f2b9a80$0$16069$882e...@usenet-news.net...
>>>>> On 2/2/2012 8:03 PM, Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The rich don't create jobs. Consumers do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consumers create demand for product and services. Those who fill that
>>>>> demand are the ones who create the jobs.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> If I buy a hamburger at a local cafe, I'm a consumer. The guy who owns
>>> the cafe and hired the cook is the one who created the cook's job.
>>
>> Nope. You're the consumer who has a demand for hamburgers.
>
> Your demand for a burger does not create anything, except perhaps your
> appetite.
>
>> The business owner wants to make money off that demand and hires a
>> cook to cook the
>> hamburger
>
> Bingo, thereby creating the job.

Nope. The job wouldn't exist without "your appetite".

>
>> and, potentially, someone to serve it to you.
>
> Which would mean the owner created a second job.

Nope. That job wouldn't exist either without "your appetite".

>
>> You are the reason that the cook (and possibly the server) has a job.
>
> The owner's desire to trade his product for your money is the reason the
> owner creates the job.

No. The owner's desire to make money is the reason that those jobs are
created. But the owner's desire to make money would remain only a
desire without you, the consumer.

>
>> Without you, the consumer, the business owner would not hire anyone
>> and the business
>> would fold.
>
> The business owner created the job in order to provide you with the
> product.

No, you created the job. If the business owner could provide you with
the product without hiring anyone, he/she would.

> If the business owner had the money, he could hire the cook,
> and the job would be created, whether you actually bought the burger or
> not.

But that's stupid. Why would he hire a cook if there were no demand for
burgers?

> But it doesn't matter how much you want the burger, until someone
> else comes along to create the job of making burgers, you won't get one.

Unless you buy frozen burgers (and other ingredients) and cook them
yourself. You are paying the business to have the cook cook the burgers
for you and (perhaps the server to) serve the burger to you all prepared
according to your specifications.

The business owner just wants to make money so he's forced, by the
demand, to hire people. Again, if he could do it without hiring anyone,
he would.

[Logan Sacket]

It is simply trading something for something else.
Apple makes an IPad. Consumers say, gee that looks cool, I don't need
one, but I'll buy one because I have the money to do so.

Without Apple, the consumer would not have the product.
Without someone taking risk, investing their time and money into a
business to create an IPad, the consumer would trade his money for the
product that the someone, (Apple) took the initial step, invested in
it, and hired a workforce to create and make the product.

No wonder Liberals don't like trickle down economics, they can't
understand it.

[sully]

that's called demand.

>
> Without Apple, the consumer would not have the product.
> Without someone taking risk, investing their time and money into a
> business to create an IPad, the consumer would trade his money for the
> product that the someone, (Apple) took the initial step, invested in
> it, and hired a workforce to create and make the product.

the investment in the development of
ipad was in the expectation of massive
demand for the product once produced. An
ipad didn't come out of whole cloth but was
a derivation of hundreds of types of products
consumers have bought in the past.

>
> No wonder Liberals don't like trickle down economics, they can't
> understand it.

We don't understand how real magic spells and ESP
work either.

We think they are tricks pulled by
magicians on the gullible.

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Logan Sacket" <logan....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4f2c5fc3...@news.eternal-september.org...

Because they don't work.

[Loirbaj]

Never buy union built GARBAGE

[Just Wondering]

On 2/3/2012 2:40 PM, DanielSan wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 1:26 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

< clipped for brevity .

>> The business owner created the job in order to provide you with the
>> product.
>
> No, you created the job. If the business owner could provide you with
> the product without hiring anyone, he/she would.
>
>> If the business owner had the money, he could hire the cook,
>> and the job would be created, whether you actually bought the burger or
>> not.
>
> But that's stupid. Why would he hire a cook if there were no demand for
> burgers?

The question is not whether the owner is smart or stupid, it's who
creates the cook's job.

>> But it doesn't matter how much you want the burger, until someone
>> else comes along to create the job of making burgers, you won't get one.
>
> Unless you buy frozen burgers (and other ingredients) and cook them
> yourself. You are paying the business to have the cook cook the burgers
> for you and (perhaps the server to) serve the burger to you all prepared
> according to your specifications.
>
> The business owner just wants to make money so he's forced, by the
> demand, to hire people. Again, if he could do it without hiring anyone,
> he would.

Again, the question is who creates the cook's job. Suppose there are a
thousand customers who want a burger. They show up at a building with
money burning holes in their pockets. The all say, "I want a burger."
Since they create the cooks' job, they will all get burgers, right?
WRONG. Because the building is empty. There's no meat, no bun, no
stove, no frying pan, and most importantly, NO COOK. Why? BECAUSE THEY
DIDN'T CREATE A COOK'S JOB!

Now, suppose some guy decides to go into the burger business. He rents
a building, buys a stove, a frying pan, some meat and buns, and hires
someone to make burgers. Regardless of whether any customer show up,
guess what? THE COOK HAS A JOB. Because the owner CREATED it! If the
owner has enough money, he can keep the cook employed indefinitely even
if he never sells a single burger. Whether that's a smart way to do
business is a separate question. But the one who creates the cook's job
is the guy who hires the cook, not the guy who wants to buy a burger.

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:4f2ceda7$0$32083$882e...@usenet-news.net...

You fucking idiot. Without the person to buy the burger, the job is not
created. Therefore the genesis of the job begins with the customer. There
is no question of this. But you neo liberals think that the businessman
deserves 100% credit when it is not deserved.

[DanielSan]

You're an idiot. Apple wouldn't make something that has no demand.
There was already demand for handheld computing with things like the
iPod Touch, tablet computers, PDAs and such.

> Without Apple, the consumer would not have the product.
> Without someone taking risk, investing their time and money into a
> business to create an IPad, the consumer would trade his money for the
> product that the someone, (Apple) took the initial step, invested in
> it, and hired a workforce to create and make the product.

Someone risked their money to make even more money. That's why Apple
did what they did. They saw a demand for a product and they risked
their money on the creation of this product and now they're netting
millions.

> No wonder Liberals don't like trickle down economics, they can't
> understand it.

Or you have this cartoon "liberal" in your head that has no bearing in
reality.

[DanielSan]

On 2/4/2012 12:35 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 2:40 PM, DanielSan wrote:
>> On 2/3/2012 1:26 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>
> < clipped for brevity .
>
>>> The business owner created the job in order to provide you with the
>>> product.
>>
>> No, you created the job. If the business owner could provide you with
>> the product without hiring anyone, he/she would.
>>
>>> If the business owner had the money, he could hire the cook,
>>> and the job would be created, whether you actually bought the burger or
>>> not.
>>
>> But that's stupid. Why would he hire a cook if there were no demand for
>> burgers?
>
> The question is not whether the owner is smart or stupid, it's who
> creates the cook's job.

So, since he wouldn't hire a cook if there were no demand....

>
>>> But it doesn't matter how much you want the burger, until someone
>>> else comes along to create the job of making burgers, you won't get one.
>>
>> Unless you buy frozen burgers (and other ingredients) and cook them
>> yourself. You are paying the business to have the cook cook the burgers
>> for you and (perhaps the server to) serve the burger to you all prepared
>> according to your specifications.
>>
>> The business owner just wants to make money so he's forced, by the
>> demand, to hire people. Again, if he could do it without hiring anyone,
>> he would.
>
> Again, the question is who creates the cook's job. Suppose there are a
> thousand customers who want a burger. They show up at a building with
> money burning holes in their pockets. The all say, "I want a burger."
> Since they create the cooks' job, they will all get burgers, right?
> WRONG. Because the building is empty. There's no meat, no bun, no stove,
> no frying pan, and most importantly, NO COOK. Why? BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T
> CREATE A COOK'S JOB!

Business fail. A person wants to make money and, after doing research,
he sees a large residential area underserved in the burger market.
There is a building going empty that would be perfect for building a
burger joint. So, he does the necessary paperwork, buys the equipment,
hires enough people to run it, and opens his doors. If he's right, the
business succeeds. If he's wrong, the business fails and those jobs
that he allegedly created quickly disappear.

Because he didn't create jobs.

> Now, suppose some guy decides to go into the burger business. He rents a
> building, buys a stove, a frying pan, some meat and buns, and hires
> someone to make burgers. Regardless of whether any customer show up,
> guess what? THE COOK HAS A JOB. Because the owner CREATED it!

Nope. The "job" was someone getting paid to do nothing. That's not a job.

> If the
> owner has enough money, he can keep the cook employed indefinitely even
> if he never sells a single burger.

Now that's idiotic in the extreme. Just give the person money. That's
not a job.

> Whether that's a smart way to do
> business is a separate question. But the one who creates the cook's job
> is the guy who hires the cook, not the guy who wants to buy a burger.

It's still not a job. It's just giving some guy money for his time.

[John Manning]

None of the right wing ideological nonsense and whining
from the Utah, Kingston Clan polygamist, 'Just Wondering'
[aka, F Mark Hansen] says has any bearing on the actual facts
that:

-- GM is Once Again the World's Top-Selling Automaker --

General Motors and its partners sold 9 million vehicles around
the globe in 2011, the company announced Thursday, allowing it

to reclaim the title of world's top-selling automaker.

Toyota had snatched the crown from General Motors in 2008, as
the American automaker nearly crumbled under the weight of its
debts and as U.S. sales plummeted with the recession.

The 2011 sales figure reflects the dramatic turnaround that began
when the company filed for bankruptcy less than three years ago
and, according to analysts, stems from the popularity of its
latest vehicles.

"They've demonstrated the ability to introduce competitive products
and do it consistently," said Jeremy Anwyl of the automotive Web
site Edmunds.com.

Overall, the U.S. auto industry, which had seemed to be on the brink
of collapse at the onset of the recession, has strengthened...

Read more here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gm-once-again-top-selling-automaker/2012/01/19/gIQAp3b1BQ_story.html

SEE ALSO: 'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt' - by Mitt Romney - New York Times -
November 18, 2008

"IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their
chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American
automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise
will be virtually guaranteed."

~~ Vulture capitalist and corporate raider, Mitt Romney

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

[Logan Sacket]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 02:24:11 -0800, DanielSan

So, if Apple didn't would there still be consumer demand?

I'm the idiot?

>> Without Apple, the consumer would not have the product.
>> Without someone taking risk, investing their time and money into a
>> business to create an IPad, the consumer would trade his money for the
>> product that the someone, (Apple) took the initial step, invested in
>> it, and hired a workforce to create and make the product.
>
>Someone risked their money to make even more money. That's why Apple
>did what they did. They saw a demand for a product and they risked
>their money on the creation of this product and now they're netting
>millions.

Your starting to catch on.
"People risked their money" your words.. No, not the consumers money.

>> No wonder Liberals don't like trickle down economics, they can't
>> understand it.
>
>Or you have this cartoon "liberal" in your head that has no bearing in
>reality.

Yep, Liberals typically don't have a grasp on reality.

[DanielSan]

Yes. Someone else would've seen that demand and filled it. Maybe
Microsoft.

> I'm the idiot?

Yes.

>
>
>>> Without Apple, the consumer would not have the product.
>>> Without someone taking risk, investing their time and money into a
>>> business to create an IPad, the consumer would trade his money for the
>>> product that the someone, (Apple) took the initial step, invested in
>>> it, and hired a workforce to create and make the product.
>>
>> Someone risked their money to make even more money. That's why Apple
>> did what they did. They saw a demand for a product and they risked
>> their money on the creation of this product and now they're netting
>> millions.
>
> Your starting to catch on.
> "People risked their money" your words.. No, not the consumers money.

Yep. I have never claimed otherwise.

>
>
>
>>> No wonder Liberals don't like trickle down economics, they can't
>>> understand it.
>>
>> Or you have this cartoon "liberal" in your head that has no bearing in
>> reality.
>
> Yep, Liberals typically don't have a grasp on reality.

I'm glad that your cartoon liberal doesn't exist.

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Logan Sacket" <logan....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4f2e814...@news.eternal-september.org...

>>Someone risked their money to make even more money. That's why Apple
>>did what they did. They saw a demand for a product and they risked
>>their money on the creation of this product and now they're netting
>>millions.
>
> Your starting to catch on.
> "People risked their money" your words.. No, not the consumers money.

Customers risk their money every time they buy something. If it's something
new, they risk not liking it. If it's something they've bought before,
there's a risk of it being defective or a lower quality than what you have
bought in the past. You can return some merchandise, but it is a major
hassle and sometimes it's not even worth it if the item didn't cost much.

>>> No wonder Liberals don't like trickle down economics, they can't
>>> understand it.
>>
>>Or you have this cartoon "liberal" in your head that has no bearing in
>>reality.
>
> Yep, Liberals typically don't have a grasp on reality.

I'm a Conservative Democrat who does not agree with trickle down economics.
I'm way more "Conservative" than I am a "Democrat" but I do like President
Obama and do think that he's a good Conservative president who is only hated
by the fox conservative Republicans because he is African American.

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgk4cd$pl2$1...@dont-email.me...

>>>> Without Apple, the consumer would not have the product.
>>>> Without someone taking risk, investing their time and money into a
>>>> business to create an IPad, the consumer would trade his money for the
>>>> product that the someone, (Apple) took the initial step, invested in
>>>> it, and hired a workforce to create and make the product.
>>>
>>> Someone risked their money to make even more money. That's why Apple
>>> did what they did. They saw a demand for a product and they risked
>>> their money on the creation of this product and now they're netting
>>> millions.
>>
>> Your starting to catch on.
>> "People risked their money" your words.. No, not the consumers money.
>
> Yep. I have never claimed otherwise.

Nope. Consumers risk their money every time they buy something.

[Logan Sacket]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 19:01:59 -0600, "Zacharias Mulletstein"
<zachariasm...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:

>"Logan Sacket" <logan....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4f2e814...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>Someone risked their money to make even more money. That's why Apple
>>>did what they did. They saw a demand for a product and they risked
>>>their money on the creation of this product and now they're netting
>>>millions.
>>
>> Your starting to catch on.
>> "People risked their money" your words.. No, not the consumers money.
>
>Customers risk their money every time they buy something. If it's something
>new, they risk not liking it. If it's something they've bought before,
>there's a risk of it being defective or a lower quality than what you have
>bought in the past. You can return some merchandise, but it is a major
>hassle and sometimes it's not even worth it if the item didn't cost much.

The customer is the demand for the product. Someone, somewhere had to
have enough money, and risk it for the product to be created.

>>>> No wonder Liberals don't like trickle down economics, they can't
>>>> understand it.

>>>Or you have this cartoon "liberal" in your head that has no bearing in
>>>reality.
>>
>> Yep, Liberals typically don't have a grasp on reality.
>
>I'm a Conservative Democrat who does not agree with trickle down economics.
>I'm way more "Conservative" than I am a "Democrat" but I do like President
>Obama and do think that he's a good Conservative president who is only hated
>by the fox conservative Republicans because he is African American.

Obama is nothing of a conservative president. A conservative
president would not have added 6 Trillioin or whatever it is now to
the national debt in just 3 years.

Playing the race card?
Obama is no more black than he is white.
It is his either lack of understanding and being way over his head, or
more likely, trying to re-create America in His own image.

[sully]

On Feb 5, 3:35 pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 19:01:59 -0600, "Zacharias Mulletstein"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <zachariasmulletst...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:
> >"Logan Sacket" <logan.sac...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >news:4f2e814...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>Someone risked their money to make even more money.  That's why Apple
> >>>did what they did.  They saw a demand for a product and they risked
> >>>their money on the creation of this product and now they're netting
> >>>millions.
>
> >> Your starting to catch on.
> >> "People risked their money" your words.. No, not the consumers money.
>
> >Customers risk their money every time they buy something.  If it's something
> >new, they risk not liking it.  If it's something they've bought before,
> >there's a risk of it being defective or a lower quality than what you have
> >bought in the past.  You can return some merchandise, but it is a major
> >hassle and sometimes it's not even worth it if the item didn't cost much.
>
> The customer is the demand for the product.  Someone, somewhere had to
> have enough money, and risk it for the product to be created.

This is the constant fallacy in the current
right wing talking point. jobs are created
by a combination of entrepreneur and demand.

There's no requirement that the wealthy
ever need be involved in that.

There's also no evidence of any difference
in either entrepreneurship with higher or
lower taxes on the wealthy. You certanly
had an experiment of low taxes for the past
10 years to no good effect.

>
> >>>> No wonder Liberals don't like trickle down economics, they can't
> >>>> understand it.
> >>>Or you have this cartoon "liberal" in your head that has no bearing in
> >>>reality.
>
> >> Yep, Liberals typically don't have a grasp on reality.
>
> >I'm a Conservative Democrat who does not agree with trickle down economics.
> >I'm way more "Conservative" than I am a "Democrat" but I do like President
> >Obama and do think that he's a good Conservative president who is only hated
> >by the fox conservative Republicans because he is African American.
>
> Obama is nothing of a conservative president.  A conservative
> president would not have added 6 Trillioin or whatever it is now to
> the national debt in just 3 years.

right, a conservative would have added 12 tril.

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Logan Sacket" <logan....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4f30111...@news.eternal-september.org...

Was Bush a liberal? Yes or no answer. He raised the national debt.

> Playing the race card?
> Obama is no more black than he is white.

I made a true statement about his ethnicity. You made a racist statement
about his ethnicity.

[Logan Sacket]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 22:25:43 -0600, "Zacharias Mulletstein"

Nothing compared to Obama's phoney sstimulus and other boondoggles.

>> Playing the race card?
>> Obama is no more black than he is white.
>
>I made a true statement about his ethnicity. You made a racist statement
>about his ethnicity.

Ha,
No, you played the race card. I just pointed out the facts.

[plainolamerican]

On Jan 19, 7:07 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> General Motors and its partners sold 9 million vehicles around
> the globe in 2011, the company announced Thursday, allowing it
> to reclaim the title of world’s top-selling automaker.
>
> Toyota had snatched the crown from General Motors in 2008, as
> the American automaker nearly crumbled under the weight of its
> debts and as U.S. sales plummeted with the recession.
>
> The 2011 sales figure reflects the dramatic turnaround that began
> when the company filed for bankruptcy less than three years ago
> and, according to analysts, stems from the popularity of its
> latest vehicles.
>
> "They've demonstrated the ability to introduce competitive products
> and do it consistently," said Jeremy Anwyl of the automotive Web
> site Edmunds.com.
>
> Overall, the U.S. auto industry, which had seemed to be on the brink
> of collapse at the onset of the recession, has strengthened...
>

> Read more here:http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gm-once-again-top-sell...

>
> SEE ALSO: 'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt' - by Mitt Romney

>             New York Times - November 18, 2008

>            http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

GM Once Again World's Top-Selling Automaker
---
maybe now they can make an auto that lasts 10 years again

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Logan Sacket" <logan....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4f3057f7...@news.eternal-september.org...

I made a factual statement. Obama's critics hate Him because He is black.

[DanielSan]

Obama's increases to the debt pale in comparison to Bush's increases.
And Obama's increases actually helped America. Bush's didn't.

[Logan Sacket]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 16:42:01 -0800 (PST), sully <suls...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 2, 4:02 pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:03:17 -0800 (PST), sully <sulsn...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jan 28, 5:10 pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:52:56 -0800 (PST), sully <sulsn...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Jan 27, 3:45 pm, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <o9ednVsiyqLsI4XSnZ2dnUVZ_uudn...@giganews.com>,
>> >> >> jrobe...@terra.com.br says...

>>
>> >> >> > General Motors and its partners sold 9 million vehicles around
>> >> >> > the globe in 2011, the company announced Thursday, allowing it

>> >> >> > to reclaim the title of world=3Fs top-selling automaker.
>>
>> >> >> That's OK, the unions will grapple them back down into oblivion.
>>
>> >> >rich right wingers think working people
>> >> >steal from them when they ask to get
>> >> >paid for their labor.
>>
>> >> >poor right wingers hate working people.
>>
>> >> Left wingers think that businesses are in business just for the
>> >> benefit of the workers.  If they make any money in the process, then
>> >> that's evil.
>>
>> >No, they aren't, liberals don't think so at all.   So
>> >you'll go out and correct the  right wingers that
>> >claim that the wealthy create jobs then?
>>
>> Seriously?  Without wealthy people to help create businesses, only the
>> goverment would have the ability to do that.  Which is exactly what
>> they are tring to do.
>
>nonsense. I wasn't wealthy when I started my business, in fact I was
>broke.
>My wife started and ran a business as well, she certainly wasn't
>wealthy.

Of course you can build a business from the ground up, but many
businesses cannot start on such a small scale. That's where venture
capitalists come in. Either you have the money or you find someone to
invest in your venture.

[Logan Sacket]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 14:47:01 -0800 (PST), sully <suls...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Some are, and some aren't.
You just have to be able to discern the difference.

[Logan Sacket]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:16:33 -0800 (PST), sully <suls...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Your going way over the curbs on that one.

[Logan Sacket]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:00:52 -0600, "Zacharias Mulletstein"

Obama's critics, including a lot of those who bought his rethoric,
don't like him because his is black, but because of his actions and
lack thereof.

You throw the race card into the conversation and then claim it was
the other guy who is racist.

Isn't it racist to claim there is racism where there is none?

[Logan Sacket]

You have to keep up with things in order to intelligently discuss
them. Obama hasn't had a deficit under 1.3 trillion dollars since he
was president. What was Bush's largest deficit.

I'll leave that for your much needed homework.

[DanielSan]

Sounds good.

Bush's largest deficit (FY2009) was $1.41T
Obama's largest deficit (FY2010) was $1.3T
Obama's current deficit (FY2012) is projected to be $1.1T

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Logan Sacket" <logan....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4f36b900...@news.eternal-september.org...

Are you saying there is no racism in the Tea Party? I didn't ask if all the
Tea Partiers were racist, I asked if there is racism within the Tea Party.
And how high the percentage is.

[Loirbaj]

Amazing that the Bible outsells ALL
other top ten combined.

[Budikka666]

http://tinyurl.com/8bsws
http://tinyurl.com/aumcy
http://tinyurl.com/bpy24
http://tinyurl.com/b34ts
http://tinyurl.com/cfodb
http://tinyurl.com/974pu
http://tinyurl.com/77ga3
http://tinyurl.com/cjcp7

Budikka

[Vurgil]

In article
<27ca3e7d-785e-45e2...@o13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

Anyone like Liarboi posting creationism to atheist or agnostic
newsgroups is a self confessed and self convicted troll.

[Truth and honesty]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 22:37:50 -0800 (PST), Loirbaj wrote:

> Amazing that the Bible outsells ALL
> other top ten combined.

Bible is often printed to be given away free, instead of being sold. How
would you know the sales figure?

[Mitchell Holman]

Robert Parker <Dontb...@netportusa.com> wrote in
news:ffs4j75tofhj6l2qf...@4ax.com:

> Many Churches buy bibles by the case, some more than one case at a
> time. Most Bibles wasting book case shelf space was a gift. The best
> selling least read book in history.


Not to mention the tons of bibles bought by
the Gideons to put in every hotel room in the
country. None which get read by anyone, of course.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:03:26 -0600, Robert Parker
<Dontb...@netportusa.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:41:52 +1100, Truth and honesty <Tr...@honest.com> wrote:
>

>Many Churches buy bibles by the case, some more than one case at a time. Most Bibles wasting book
>case shelf space was a gift. The best selling least read book in history.

Even then they still sold more copies of the TV Guide pre-Internet.

[John Locke]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 22:37:50 -0800 (PST), Loirbaj

Hogwash. Bibles are bought by the gross by Christian nutter groups to
be given away to the cannibal tribes in Papua New Guinea who probably
put them to good use as fuel for their cooking fires.

No one walks into a bookstore and buys a Bible. It would be a rare
event.

[Don Martin]

Another of my father's jokes:
Optimist--a guy who thinks his daughter has got religion when she comes
home with a Gideon Bible in her suitcase.

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[John Locke]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:53:44 GMT, Don Martin <drdon...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
>> Robert Parker <Dontb...@netportusa.com> wrote in
>> news:ffs4j75tofhj6l2qf...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:41:52 +1100, Truth and honesty
>>> <Tr...@honest.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 22:37:50 -0800 (PST), Loirbaj wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Amazing that the Bible outsells ALL
>>>>> other top ten combined.
>>>>
>>>> Bible is often printed to be given away free, instead of being sold.
>>>> How would you know the sales figure?
>>>
>>> Many Churches buy bibles by the case, some more than one case at a
>>> time. Most Bibles wasting book case shelf space was a gift. The best
>>> selling least read book in history.
>>
>>
>> Not to mention the tons of bibles bought by
>> the Gideons to put in every hotel room in the
>> country. None which get read by anyone, of course.
>
>Another of my father's jokes:
>Optimist--a guy who thinks his daughter has got religion when she comes
>home with a Gideon Bible in her suitcase.
>

..let's be fair now, she was probably prasing the Lord...oh God, oh
God, oh God..........

[Logan Sacket]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 23:49:54 -0600, "Zacharias Mulletstein"

Do you think there is any more racism in the Tea Party than there is
in the general population? Why?

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Logan Sacket" <logan....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4f3502b4...@news.eternal-september.org...

Yes. Because modern neoliberal "conservative Republicanism" and racism go
hand in hand.

[Father Haskell]

On Jan 21, 12:59 am, "Zacharias Mulletstein"
<zachariasmulletst...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:

> The Republican Party are so radical that they
> would welcome Adolf Hitler with open arms.

You misspelled "butt cheeks."

[Logan Sacket]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:26:11 -0600, "Zacharias Mulletstein"

Learned that in school, eh?

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Logan Sacket" <logan....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4f355e09...@news.eternal-september.org...

>>> Do you think there is any more racism in the Tea Party than there is
>>> in the general population? Why?
>>
>>Yes. Because modern neoliberal "conservative Republicanism" and racism go
>>hand in hand.
>
> Learned that in school, eh?

No, I learned it on the street. I grew up in a mostly white, neoliberal
"Republican" neocon town. I have heard the N word so many times that I
can't even remember most of the times I've heard somebody say it. I'm numb
to it when I hear it. I'd be wealthy if I had $1 for every time anybody
utters that word in the whole city. I never noticed this in more racially
mixed neighborhoods.

[Loirbaj]

Year after year, century after century,
the Black Book remains the world's
best seller. Actually selling more in just
ONE day than the next competitor does
in an entire year. Go buy a Black Book!

[Calvin Ramsey]

Proof that Loirbaj is not a Christian:



On 2/9/2012 9:31 AM, Loirbaj wrote:

> SHIT


Loibaj also admitted in an email to me that he is not
a member of any particular church, and in fact does
not even attend church service, and that the only
time he's ever in a church building is "for weddings
and funerals".

Loirbaj also wrote that the Apostle Paul "really had
no clue what Jesus even taught", and that "he often
contradicts Jesus."

And yet Loirbaj denies these very words of Jesus,
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent
me draws him.", and "You did not choose me, but I
chose you.", and "If the world hates you, know that
it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of
the world, the world would love you as its own; but
because you are not of the world, but I chose you out
of the world, therefore the world hates you."

And there are many more verses like those where Jesus
specifically states that the Father gives to Him those whom
he has chosen.

Loirbaj refuses to accept those verses, and he thereby rejects
the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Loirbaj should not be thought of as a Christian.

[John Manning]

"You Start Out in 1954 By Saying, 'Nigger, Nigger, Nigger.'
~~ The Racist GOP Southern Strategy of political consultant
and strategist to the Republican Party, Lee Atwater

Lee Atwater was an advisor of U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and
George H. W. Bush and Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

ATWATER: "You Start Out in 1954 By Saying, 'Nigger, Nigger, Nigger.'
By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' — that hurts you. Backfires. So
you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff.

"You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about
cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are
totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks
get hurt worse than whites.

"And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that.
But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that
coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or
the other.

"You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want
to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and
a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.'"

Link:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E6DF1E30F935A35753C1A9639C8B63

[Logan Sacket]

How do you know they were not Democrats too!?

[sully]

On Feb 10, 2:43 pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 21:21:23 -0600, "Zacharias Mulletstein"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <zachariasmulletst...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:
> >"Logan Sacket" <logan.sac...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >news:4f355e09...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>> Do you think there is any more racism in the Tea Party than there is
> >>>> in the general population?  Why?
>
> >>>Yes.  Because modern neoliberal "conservative Republicanism" and racism go
> >>>hand in hand.
>
> >> Learned that in school, eh?
>
> >No, I learned it on the street.  I grew up in a mostly white, neoliberal
> >"Republican" neocon town.  I have heard the N word so many times that I
> >can't even remember most of the times I've heard somebody say it.  I'm numb
> >to it when I hear it.  I'd be wealthy if I had $1 for every time anybody
> >utters that word in the whole city.  I never noticed this in more racially
> >mixed neighborhoods.
>
> How do you know they were not Democrats too!?

there were. Indeed, most of the white racist system of the
pre civil rights era were democrats. When Kennedy
enforced integration in the south, and Johnson passed
the Civil Rights bill, the southern dems fled the party.

Republicans courted them.

My greater family from Chicago were all democrats
and racist as hell. Some of them are still racist but
are now republicans. They've always been ignorant
boneheads.

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Logan Sacket" <logan....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4f389d89...@news.eternal-september.org...

Because I know them. Most of them drive pickemup trucks with either "W 04"
or "McCAIN/PALIN" bumper stickers in the back window. Some of them drive
SUVs. None of them drive fox Mustangs.

[Logan Sacket]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:57:19 -0800 (PST), sully <suls...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Most of the racists people I know are COPS, because they have to deal
with the worst of the blacks.