The Gulf Disaster: a geologists take

[HeyBub]

Well, yeah. They differ only on the margins.

"Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and planned by a centralized organization. Socialism asserts that the distribution should take place according to the amount of individuals' production efforts, however, while communism asserts that that goods and services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals' needs." [In socialism, a doctor earns more than a common laborer; under Communism, they earn the pretty much the same.]

A socialist economy has room for small amounts of capitalism; a Communist society does not allow ANY private economic transactions.

[Robert Haar]

That depends on whether you are talking theory or practice. There is significant difference between the theory of communism and how has been practiced in the USSR and China.

Marxist communism is more about exerting control over people.

[keithw86]

Close, though there are differing lines that can be drawn. Socialism is an economic system where the state owns the means of production. Under communism there is no private property, even yourself.

[Jack Stein]

Close but socialism is an economic system where a strong, centralized government *controls* the means of production, communism is the same except they also *own* the means of production. Other than that, they are identical, and always fall on there collective faces compared to an economic system where the individual rules, and owns and controls the means of production.

Whilst falling on their collective faces, they have murdered 100's of millions of people that seem to get in the way of their quest for absolute power.

[krw]

Not buying that distinction. Ownership == control.

Socialism is as socialism does.

[Robatoy]

Yet cocaine and heroin are illegal. What's up with that?

GM did soooo much better on their own. They ran the whole thing into the ground so it had no real value, Ford didn't get stolen by that bastard Obama now did it? By your position (such as it is) Obama should have 'stolen' Ford, it at least had some value. But welcome to the Revisionist Club, in here there are already a few members.

[krw]

How do you justify the taking of the company from its lawful owners and giving it to another?

A lie. Even so, how do you justify the taking, without due process?

[Jack Stein]

I dunno, what's up with it?

The owners of GM, being the stockholders, could not do worse than losing everything. Once big brother, the communist bastard obama and his red regime stole the company, the company could do no worse.

They ran the whole thing into the ground so it had no real value,

Wrong camel breath, the company did have real value before it was stolen by the Obama regime.

Ford didn't get stolen by that bastard Obama now did it?

Not yet, no.

By your position (such as it is) Obama

GM had value before it was stolen by Obama.

The only one making shit up here is you, and you are too fukking simple for it to matter much, so carry on.

[Robatoy]

Your paper-thin ethics are situational, Douche-nozzle.

Give that some thought before you run off the mouth again.

GM, as a car company, had no future. They squandered their position by making product they tried to dictate to the buying public as opposed to building product the public wanted. "We are the Big Company, you will buy what we offer!!" Obama had the vision to see their demise. He did all GM stockholders a favour, same with the pensioners. Besides, Obama wanted to keep some manufacturing ability on tap in case the defense department needed some stuff.

So... who owns GM now?

[Robatoy]

Everybody who works 6 months out of the year to pay for their taxes (Accumulative taxes, sales, income, property etc) is a fukkin slave. You want to live here? You suck the government's dick, no matter who is in power. The big difference is that liberals kill babies, the right-wing nutbars wait till they're 18.

[krw]

At least you admit that you're in favor of enslaving others for your gain.

Spoken like the clueless jerk you are.

[Robatoy]

Ouch! Coming from that means...well....nothing.

[krw]

No brain, no pain.

[Robatoy]

The Tylenol people won't be making any money off you then.

[krw]

You're the hurtin' pup.

[Douglas Johnson]

There was due process. It's called bankruptcy. The lawful owners lose their ownership of the company and the company is broken up and sold off or the creditors get ownership of the company in place of their loans to the company. It happens every day.

The case of GM is politically hot because the major creditors were the US government and the UAW. The UAW was a major creditor through the health care restructuring that was done in 2006 or so. The government was a major creditor because GM came, hat in hand, via private jet, to get a bail out loan late in

2008.

GM was unable to meet the terms of those loans and so was forced into bankruptcy. They had a net worth of minus $82.29 billion dollars according to their March 31, 2009 SEC filing. See

can also see a discussion of the government loan terms and GM's bankruptcy plans in anticipation of their failure to meet those terms. I'd be a little slower with the term "lie" . The company was less than worthless.

-- Doug

[krw]

Wrong. It was an executive action. There was no bankruptcy proceeding.

Except that it was *NOT* a bankruptcy. There was no due process.

So, the fact that they used a "private jet" was reason enough, for you, to throw away the Constitution. Got it.

Wrong. Wrong, and wrong.

[Douglas Johnson]

Oh, my God. What is this?

is a copy of GM's bankruptcy filing in the South District of Manhattan.

No. The private jet comment was just a dig at GM's PR skills.

What do you base that on? I'm providing references. Primary sources, in fact. What are your sources?

What parts of what I said are wrong? All of those things are in the reference I provided in my previous post.. It's the March 31, 2009 10-Q, a legal document filed by GM with the SEC. Look in the balance sheet for the net worth and the management's discussion for the other items.

-- Doug

[Robatoy]

Forget it. As long as you're pulling your info from your ass, there's no point in this discussion.

...and those 'bond-holders' were asleep at the wheel when they elected the management which was supposed to 'manage' their prized company. GM was arrogant to believe that they didn't need to listen to the consumers.

Now, having said that, which administration was in power when the first batch of loans were extended? (TARP, there, that acronym will help you Google some facts.)

Also, by my being a Canuckistani gives me an unbiased view of the US and I have access to the same news sources as you do. The Big Diff, is that I actually read and retain that information. YOU, however, can't see a thing as your head is up your ass. Obama boohoo is all you can come up with..boohoo, he STOLE a huge automotive company...boohoo. *I* think it was stroke of genius and your ilk is just jealous.

[Larry Blanchard]

There you go! Injecting facts into a totally nonsensical rant :-).