GM CEO Wagoner to step down at White House request

[there buster]

Since Amelia seems to absent.

Whine: 1. To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint.

2. To complain or protest in a childish fashion.

Petty:

# Of small importance; trivial: a petty grievance.

# Marked by narrowness of mind, ideas, or views.

# Marked by meanness or lack of generosity, especially in trifling matters.

Emotionally laden innuendo. Please rephrase, Bravus.

"inconsequential by comparison" would have not insinuated anything about the person.

[Woody]

*GP

Please, everyone, respond to the content of a persons post and not to the poster. Even inuendo can be a form of personal attack. And though this is the politics forum where things are expected to get heated, it doesn't need to get rude.

Thanks,

Amelia

Hmmmmmm.

[Bravus]

Both 'whining' and 'petty' were about the content, not the person. I stated that the argument is petty. I never said nor insinuated that the person was petty. Petty is a precise technical description for worrying about something minor when something major is happening. The first of the three definitions you cited, ichabod.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: Amelia

*GP

Please, everyone, respond to the content of a persons post and not to the poster. Even inuendo can be a form of personal attack. And though this is the politics forum where things are expected to get heated, it doesn't need to get rude.

Thanks,

Amelia

Hmmmmmm.

What is really interesting about this whole issue concerning the new administration is not Obama as much as those that are willing to hand over their freedoms. Praise those that are taking them one by one.As long as those they resent or are jealous of get theirs. The fact a politician would one by one make a grab for our freedoms shouldn't surprise any SDA,but the glee with which it is handed over is a surprise.

Where is the outrage,especially in this economy where staff of Pelosi,Frank and all those that supposedly represent us gave bonuses of 9.1 million dollars. Not performance based,not retention.But because they had a surplus of taxpayer money and needed to spend it or God forbid they would have to return it and not get as much for the following year. Where was Obama when we needed him to sound the call and target those that live off of our tax dollar. Not just in bonuses but for all their needs.

Our president who insists we all sacrifice has certainly led the way. His wife needs 8 personal assistants on this trip and let's not forget even their own personal chef. Teleprompters in double digits so he knows what to say.

Wonder where the concern is about the enviorment as 500 people use our "limited resources" to fly and pollute.

Wonder what kind of cap and trade cost will be paid out of the president's pockets?

[Neil D]

GP

It's kinda interesting to me, that while the topic is "GM CEO Wagoner to step down at White House request", all the republicans in here are talking about everyone except him...How come you guys are NOT concerned about one of your own? After all, he's loosing his job...there's all that bonuses/cash that he's not having access to and will not be able to afford his home and grounds keeper and cars and such...you know, all that stuff that one looses when one looses his job...He's not going to be able to participate in the trickle down effect...[well, maybe his participating in the 'trickle down effect'.. teehe ] . At any rate, where is your sympathy???

[bonnie]

GP

It's kinda interesting to me, that while the topic is "GM CEO Wagoner to step down at White House request", all the republicans in here are talking about everyone except him...How come you guys are NOT concerned about one of your own? After all, he's loosing his job...there's all that bonuses/cash that he's not having access to and will not be able to afford his home and grounds keeper and cars and such...you know, all that stuff that one looses when one looses his job...He's not going to be able to participate in the trickle down effect...[well, maybe his participating in the 'trickle down effect'.. teehe ] . At any rate, where is your sympathy???

What is to say about him? I don't think he is known personally by anyone here. Do you or anyone else know what went wrong?? As CEO the buck stops with him,but was it dishonesty,carelessness,regulations ??? that caused the downturn in the auto industry.

Did President Obama and the others with their fingers in the bailout terms make clear once they took the money the president would make decisions as to employment? I have received SBA loans. Even tho it was federally backed they did not have the right to state who we could hire,who needed to be fired?

As for what he left with,his pension etc,none of my business.

Haven't reached the stage yet where I resent or worry about what others have.

If that is something that is a big concern of yours tho I would start with politicans. Most IMO are a form of legalized prostitutes . They take and act as they wish. They never quit taking. Their perks and salaries and pensions are off the charts for many of them.

If his grounds keeper and such concern you,Michelle Obama's 8 personal assistants should as well.

[Neil D]

If his grounds keeper and such concern you,Michelle Obama's 8 personal assistants should as well.

I'm trying to stay on topic...I don't know what MIchelle Obama's 8 assistants have to do with the firing of CEO Waggoner? To be honest, that needs a new thread..Quite frankly, even this post is off topic.. But sometimes a nudge is a good thing to keep the post on topic...[which is my goal]

So, again, why is it that there is not posted about Waggoner's loss? How come the conservative republicans have nothing to lament about with gain of Waggoner's Un-employment? You talk about how bad that Obama is firing people...You talk about how there is no authorization of Goverments firing the head of businesses...You talk about greenhouse gas emmissions....you talk about definitions of words ...You even talk about the death of a celebratety......

BUT YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT CEO WAGONER and his firing from GM.........

....and I have never known an Adventist to be at a loss for words on ANY subject....

[there buster]

Quote:

I never said nor insinuated that the person was petty.

I shall remember.

[Bravus]

Oh, don't even pretend that this is not the *exact same* thing you do anyone calls you on something you say here.

[bonnie]

Quote:

I'm trying to stay on topic...I don't know what MIchelle Obama's 8 assistants have to do with the firing of CEO Waggoner? To be honest, that needs a new thread..Quite frankly, even this post is off topic.. But sometimes a nudge is a good thing to keep the post on topic...[which is my goal]

Obama is the one that calls for sacrifice. Paring down,watching out for the taxpayer's money. No matter how I try to visulize the need for 8 personal assistants.

Quote:

So, again, why is it that there is not posted about Waggoner's loss? How come the conservative republicans have nothing to lament about with gain of Waggoner's Un-employment? You talk about how bad that Obama is firing people...You talk about how there is no authorization of Goverments firing the head of businesses...You talk about greenhouse gas emmissions....you talk about definitions of words ...You even talk about the death of a celebratety......

BUT YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT CEO WAGONER and his firing from GM.........

What is to say? Maybe not much is said about Waggoner because first there is many that love to see the "rich get it". Even if it means one of the most unprecedented overreaching of the federal government .Even if it means a slow but sure erosion of their own rights.

When government can exercise that kind of power over private companies,promise more if they think it necessary, and be praised for that kind of power grab maybe means something far larger to christians

Quote:

You even talk about the death of a celebratety

.

Most people wheter they agreed or not would have known it was concerning a report on medical response and care.

As you say "even" as if that was over the top explain to me if you can why? The story involved a celebrity.

His firing by the president of the US is unprecedented .

They have stated their will be more.

....and I have never known an Adventist to be at a loss for words on ANY subject....

[there buster]

Since you insist on revisiting the episode.

Quote:

whinging (sic) that a tax cut doesn't exactly compensate for an approach to doing something to prevent that

Whine: 1. To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint.

2. To complain or protest in a childish fashion.

"Whining" can only apply to a person. Even if it is through misapplication applied to an argument, it still implies or insinuates that the person is whining.

As I said in the first post on this, "inconsequential in comparison" would have been value neutral, not emotionally laden.

[lazarus]

oh, oh, oh .....here's a word!!!!!!

hyp·o·crite

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

[Bravus]

Reading comprehension 101, as well: 'whinging' and 'whining' are two entirely different words, albeit with similar meanings. And both are verbs, not nouns. I described bonnie's actions as whinging, I did not describe bonnie as a whinger.

You invented these rules, you should be better at applying them than this.

[bonnie]

Reading comprehension 101, as well: 'whinging' and 'whining' are two entirely different words, albeit with similar meanings. And both are verbs, not nouns. I described bonnie's actions as whinging, I did not describe bonnie as a whinger.

You invented these rules, you should be better at applying them than this.

I am interested in how you apply the rules.

You consider it whining it seems to state that the taxes coming down the road is something that cannot be sustained without seriously altering someone's lifestyle. In light of Obama's promise that only the top 5% would be affected by taxes which is totally false the rest of us should not be affected. Little untruth there as all of us will be affected. AND most cannot afford it.

We could not have paid these kinds of taxes,had our own business or raised our sons as we chose as to education. It simply would not have allowed us to do so.

It will hit those that supposedly cause so much angst for some of you.

Not all believe that 80% of the world's population will be destroyed. Any proof on that is lacking at best.

[Bravus]

I'm completely happy to put aside discussion of ichabod's rules and discuss the topic on its merits. If he challenges me and tries to call me to account, and claims I should be moderated, I am going to contest that, and try to do it in the terms he accepts for himself. But it's off topic.

The 80% claim might have been an exaggeration, but it was looking at the most extreme consequences of climate change in the longer term. Basically it's fairly simple: the world has a vast amount of water, but a miniscule amount of fresh water. And most of that is frozen in glaciers and icecaps. Climate change is leading all that ice to melt and the fresh water to run off into the seas and become salt. And with a growing world population and not enough fresh water, it simply becomes impossible to grow food. Add that to increased disease epidemics and extreme weather - floods, hurricanes, tornados and so on.

There is excellent science to describe the reasons and processes of climate change, and excellent evidence that it's already happening.

I actually agree that cap-and-trade is not the best possible solution: but you wouldn't like the other ones either since they all involve government getting involved to change the incentives so that non-polluting behaviour is cheaper than polluting behaviour.

Back around to the topic of GM: they are a huge part of the problem, since all the incentives have been set up to build large, oil-fueled and highly inefficient vehicles. Massive government subsidies to the oil industry (paid for from taxes, interestingly - worth doing some sums on the tax burden due to that?) and the bailing out of inefficient car makers instead of the support of those making alternative vehicles are all part of the problem.

My entire point was that your calculation - this much tax cut, that much cost due to cap-and-trade - assumed that everything can go on as it has. I'm a scientist, and I know very well that it cannot.

[bonnie]

Quote:

The 80% claim might have been an exaggeration, but it was looking at the most extreme consequences of climate change in the longer term. Basically it's fairly simple: the world has a vast amount of water, but a miniscule amount of fresh water. And most of that is frozen in glaciers and icecaps. Climate change is leading all that ice to melt and the fresh water to run off into the seas and become salt. And with a growing world population and not enough fresh water, it simply becomes impossible to grow food. Add that to increased disease epidemics and extreme weather - floods, hurricanes, tornados and so on.

I do not believe climate change is due to green house gas or is man made. Floods,hurricanes and tornado's are hardly new or extreme. Neither are epidemics new.

Growing food,the US does a great job if left alone.

Quote:

There is excellent science to describe the reasons and processes of climate change, and excellent evidence that it's already happening.

There is also excellent science that debunks your excellent science.

Quote:

I actually agree that cap-and-trade is not the best possible solution: but you wouldn't like the other ones either since they all involve government getting involved to change the incentives so that non-polluting behaviour is cheaper than polluting behaviour

.

Government is never efficient,cost effective or most of the time even qualified to get involved. Kind of like the 31 year old campaign worker now elevated to car czar.

Quote:

Back around to the topic of GM: they are a huge part of the problem, since all the incentives have been set up to build large, oil-fueled and highly inefficient vehicles. Massive government subsidies to the oil industry (paid for from taxes, interestingly - worth doing some sums on the tax burden due to that?) and the bailing out of inefficient car makers instead of the support of those making alternative vehicles are all part of the problem.

Back to the topic of Obama bailing out GM. I don't blame GM for taking the bailout,I blame those who were idiot enough to do so,whether Bush or Obama. Couldn't care less. They also needed to let the american people know that by doing this the government would now take the right to fire employees. Wonder if that was in the fine print or Obama's idea of transparency.

They can't give their alternatives away most of the time. They have 20 money making vehicles and have to scarp 11 of them.Ought to help the old budget.

Quote:

My entire point was that your calculation - this much tax cut, that much cost due to cap-and-trade - assumed that everything can go on as it has. I'm a scientist, and I know very well that it cannot.

We cannot tax our way out of debt.We cannot give enough to the poor to lift them out of poverty. We can however worsen the debt. 5% of the citizens cannot bear the brunt of what Obama wants to throw at them. Which is a lie. The tax will effect the very ones he pretends to have such grave concerns for the worst.

As for you being a scientist,there are many scientists I don't believe.

[Amelia]

*GP

If someone would like to start a thread about the pros/cons of greenhouse gas and climite change, please go for it. This thread is being closed as it has not been on the topic started for some time now. Thank you all for participaing.

Amelia

[Bravus]

Your beliefs on climate change don't change the facts. But we'll have to agree to disagree on that issue.

My other point, which I apologise for not making more clearly, is that government is already *deeply* involved in energy policy, and already has a massive influence and investment in the field in all sorts of ways, from the Strategic Reserve to subsidies to oil companies to policies about pollution and vehicles and on and on.

So what I'm advocating is not added government engagement in energy policy - contrary to assumptions, I *don't* think more government is the solution to everything, and often think less is - but changed government involvement. At the moment government is hard on the side of an unsustainable status quo.

But if you don't believe in human-caused climate change, it's all moot.