States refusing federal bailout money

[Jiro]

Bickering about any little thing I state in nearly every thread I post in is a bit more then just simply disagreeing.

I strongly urge you to get over it and be at your best behavior. if you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. I cannot stress enough that you are on the verge of being banned again when mod's back. In fact - you are probably going to get a perm-ban. meanwhile - enjoy your last breath in here.

 

[jillio]

NOT as far as bailouts go. Most all of the bailouts are going to the corporations not the states themselves.

Just look at a lot of the past bailouts

2008 - Citigroup Inc.
2008 - General Motors Corporation
2008 - Chrysler LLC
2008 - Fortis Bank
2008 - The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. bailed out by Berkshire Hathaway
2008 - Morgan Stanley bailed out by The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ
2008 - American International Group, Inc.
1998 - Long-Term Capital Management, by banks and investment houses, not government (see LTCM page).
1991 - Executive Life Insurance Company, by states assessing other insurers

The topic of this thread is bailout money going into states.

 

[jasin]

we're not talking about corporate bailouts. we're talking about federal bailouts for states. please stay on topic. It is possible that the states refused the federal bailout because of the strings attached to it - a certain obligation.

I understand, but what I stated is still relevant and on topic. The bailouts as a whole, whether it's state bailouts or corporate, are going to the corporations and not the states.

 

[jasin]

The topic of this thread is bailout money going into states.

Actually the topic of this thread is, "States refusing federal bailout money".

 

[jillio]

I understand, but what I stated is still relevant and on topic. The bailouts as a whole, whether it's state bailouts or corporate, are going to the corporations and not the states.

Never mind. It isn't worth the attempt to explain. I deleted my explanatory post.

 

[Jiro]

I understand, but what I stated is still relevant and on topic. The bailouts as a whole, whether it's state bailouts or corporate, are going to the corporations and not the states.

ok.... and so? there are other threads that specifically talk about corporate bailouts. You can go ahead there and talk about it but this thread is about state bailouts. Not 100% of federal bailouts go to corporates, right? some are going to states, yes? that's what this thread is about, in case you're confused.

 

[naisho]

Bickering about any little thing I state in nearly every thread I post in is a bit more then just simply disagreeing.

(This is a side post towards jasin only, others need not read)
Skepticism sometimes isn't personal. Some people are very skeptical and you have to provide a logic that can defend itself. You can't just say something and quote a site that you saw and say "here, this is where I got it". You have to brace yourself for all flaws or other things that may dispel itself against the original statement. This is how the scientific theory works and is widely accepted in many different formats.

Much of Political/War and On-topic Debates are very controversial and people will analyze all aspects of every argument if they are paying attention. If you read other posts, you will see it happening all the time. One great example is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Look, it's still open right now but the people are keeping the personal attacks low. But it's very very hot in there.

Jiro did sum it best. What he is saying is, "If you can't take the heat" (the nature of others to question something) you "shouldn't participate" due to it being on the high road and its not just something to join if you cannot back your statements. I am not saying this is you, what I am saying is that it is not for the weak-hearted to participate in if you feel easily offended. Let the mod deal with offenses and infractions. You should worry more about supporting your own decisions and opinions.'

With this being said, just take it with a grain of salt and see if we can move on. They already did and are back on topic.

 

[jasin]

ok.... and so? there are other threads that specifically talk about corporate bailouts. You can go ahead there and talk about it but this thread is about state bailouts. Not 100% of federal bailouts go to corporates, right? some are going to states, yes? that's what this thread is about, in case you're confused.

Its a little disingenuous on your part to suggest that corporate bailouts or bailouts as a whole are not relevant to the discussion at hand. Especially when the author of this thread did post a quote that mentioned and discusses corporate bailouts.

This is from the quote in the first post on this thread that the author of this thread posted.

"Take for example the proposed Big Three auto-maker bailout. We think it's very telling that each of the three CEO's flew on their own private jets to Washington to ask for a taxpayer handout. No amount of taxpayer largess could fix a business culture so fundamentally flawed."

 

[Jiro]

Its a little disingenuous on your part to suggest that corporate bailouts or bailouts as a whole are not relevant to the discussion at hand. Especially when the author of this thread did post a quote that mentioned and discusses corporate bailouts.

This is from the quote in the first post on this thread that the author of this thread posted.

"Take for example the proposed Big Three auto-maker bailout. We think it's very telling that each of the three CEO's flew on their own private jets to Washington to ask for a taxpayer handout. No amount of taxpayer largess could fix a business culture so fundamentally flawed."

it's an analogous example.... to describe about federal bailout for states.

 

[jillio]

it's an analogous example.... to describe about federal bailout for states.

Exactly. It was used for comparative purposes.

 

[Babyblue]

(This is a side post towards jasin only, others need not read)
Skepticism sometimes isn't personal. Some people are very skeptical and you have to provide a logic that can defend itself. You can't just say something and quote a site that you saw and say "here, this is where I got it". You have to brace yourself for all flaws or other things that may dispel itself against the original statement. This is how the scientific theory works and is widely accepted in many different formats.

Much of Political/War and On-topic Debates are very controversial and people will analyze all aspects of every argument if they are paying attention. If you read other posts, you will see it happening all the time. One great example is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Look, it's still open right now but the people are keeping the personal attacks low. But it's very very hot in there.

Jiro did sum it best. What he is saying is, "If you can't take the heat" (the nature of others to question something) you "shouldn't participate" due to it being on the high road and its not just something to join if you cannot back your statements. I am not saying this is you, what I am saying is that it is not for the weak-hearted to participate in if you feel easily offended. Let the mod deal with offenses and infractions. You should worry more about supporting your own decisions and opinions.'

With this being said, just take it with a grain of salt and see if we can move on. They already did and are back on topic.

Excellent posting!!!

No need for smiles Pure raw opinion.

 

[jasin]

(This is a side post towards jasin only, others need not read)
Skepticism sometimes isn't personal. Some people are very skeptical and you have to provide a logic that can defend itself. You can't just say something and quote a site that you saw and say "here, this is where I got it". You have to brace yourself for all flaws or other things that may dispel itself against the original statement. This is how the scientific theory works and is widely accepted in many different formats.

Much of Political/War and On-topic Debates are very controversial and people will analyze all aspects of every argument if they are paying attention. If you read other posts, you will see it happening all the time. One great example is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Look, it's still open right now but the people are keeping the personal attacks low. But it's very very hot in there.

Jiro did sum it best. What he is saying is, "If you can't take the heat" (the nature of others to question something) you "shouldn't participate" due to it being on the high road and its not just something to join if you cannot back your statements. I am not saying this is you, what I am saying is that it is not for the weak-hearted to participate in if you feel easily offended. Let the mod deal with offenses and infractions. You should worry more about supporting your own decisions and opinions.'

With this being said, just take it with a grain of salt and see if we can move on. They already did and are back on topic.

If that's what you want to call it, skepticism, then fine. I however, do not find following a person around to nearly every thread they're in doing the same things they have done here to be skepticism. That is the exact opposite of what skepticism is. I find all of that to be harassment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All of this btw, is something a moderator, Jolie77, has asked one them stop doing.

 

[jillio]

Going :topic: again. Back to bailouts, please.

 

[Jiro]

If that's what you want to call it, skepticism, then fine. I however, do not find follwing a person around to nearly every thread they're in and bringing up irrelevant things about the person to be skepticism. I find that to be harassment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it's not hard to understand - you say something, we response back.... and we do same to every other ADers in any threads. If you feel we are harassing you, you can report to mods. unfortunately - the mods do not agree with your statement because if we were harassing you, we would be banned. If I remember correctly - you were banned.



again - this is not about corporate bailouts. Stick with state bailouts.

 

[jasin]

it's not hard to understand - you say something, we response back.... and we do same to every other ADers in any threads. If you feel we are harassing you, you can report to mods. unfortunately - the mods do not agree with your statement because if we were harassing you, we would be banned. If I remember correctly - you were banned.



again - this is not about corporate bailouts. Stick with state bailouts.

Following me around on here bickering about anything I say or state in nearly every thread I post in is a bit more then just simple response.

 

[jasin]

Going :topic: again. Back to bailouts, please.

Really? But I am not the one who originally brought any of that up. Please address your off topic comments to naisho.

 

[Babyblue]

If that's what you want to call it, skepticism, then fine. I however, do not find following a person around to nearly every thread they're in doing the same things they have done here to be skepticism. I find that to be harassment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Following?

These people that you are speaking of post in other threads as well..

OH man!

This is a public forum. They are following threads. Not you in particular.

You are taking it way to personally.

These same people you speak of don't always agree with me. nor do I agree with them.

but to sit there and accuse them of following you because they don't see your view is absolutely ridiculous.

Oh wow! You actually believe that? They simply don't see your view and you don't see theirs.

 

[Jiro]

Following me around on here bickering about anything I say or state in nearly every thread I post in is a bit more then just simple response.

Correction - I did not follow you to any threads you were in. How about you step away from any threads I participated in?

 

[jillio]

Following?

These people that you are speaking of post in other threads as well..

OH man!

This is a public forum. They are following threads. Not you in particular.

You are taking it way to personally.

These same people you speak of don't always agree with me. nor do I agree with them.

but to sit there and accuse them of following you because they don't see your view is absolutely ridiculous.

Oh wow! You actually believe that? They simply don't see your view and you don't see theirs.

Hey, Babyblue...you post in most all of the same threads that I post in. Are you stalking me????

 

[naisho]

Following?

This is a public forum. They are following threads. Not you in particular.

Yes, this statement is a fact. Double agreed upon.

This is a public forum, people will always be subjective to debate. Imagine this is only a forum for people of deaf nature. On a popular forum like wikipedia, imagine how much skepticism will go on there? It is way worse over there.

Jiro and Jillio read ALL threads and dissect ALL opinions, not just yours.. Don't take it personally if you feel they are. Someone/many others else will figure that out for you.

If you think you have been trolled, take it up to a moderator privately.. In a Private Message, just PM Jolie or Vamp and check your own PMs if they give you a response.