Murdoch: ‘If we weren’t fair and balanced, we wouldn’t have the number one network in news.’

[Gussy 0]

No, I'm not in the Obama fan club. I'm pissed that he's reversed himself on things like FISA and secret tribunals. I believe in my country, and the rule of law.

Selective rule of law, I presume?

Because... according to the rule of law, senior bondholders are to be first in line during any bankruptcy

process.

According to Obama's rule of law, senior bondholders (who have a contractual right to seize the assets

of the failed GM) will see their $27 billion reduced to just a 10% equity stake.

Except the most senior bondholder inline is the US GOVT. The company would be insolvent without the loans from the gov. Also, the medical and pension guarantees come *before* the bond holders. Those aren't new conditions, anyone who bought into these companies could have known about these guarantees.

Obama, nor anyone else in the gov forced these conditions down the throats of the bond holders. In fact, the bond holders had a vote and rejected the first offer. The gov reduced their take away to make a more lucrative deal. Had no deal been reached, then under law (bankruptcy law) the company would have been moved from chapter 11 to chapter 7. The trustee would have taken over, assets would have been sold - assets that in these economy are worth practically nothing, and the payout would have been like this:

Company liabilities (pension, healthcare)

Preferred bond holders (the gov)

Standard bond holders (the rest of the group).

By the time the liabilities were paid off, and the preferred bond holders were paid off, the guys who had $27 billion in outstanding bonds would have gotten..... wait for it.... $0

That's why when given the change to vote, they voted for the restructuring plan - it sure beats chapter 7!

Of course, you're blaming Obama (who I'm pretty sure is a little bit too busy to ink this deal) when in fact, under chapter 11 it's up to the debtor in possession to come up with a plan for getting the company healthy! Perhaps his administration made suggestions on how to structure it to get everyone to agree - but the alternative was chapter 7.

Of course, these pesky details may not fit into a convenient black and white picture that was provided via a 30 second sound byte on TV.

Just FYI, given that they're in chapter 11, the bond holders are part of the creditors committee, and they voted for the deal through the bankruptcy process - what exact law are you claiming Obama broke?

[scandal 951]

For one Eric Holder has already cited executive privilege in regard to the disposition of Guantanamo Bay prisoners. That's pissed off quite a few human rights groups who were hoping the Obama administration would draw a firm line under the Bush administration's approach.

As to FISA - here you go.

Your article dates from 2008, during the campaign. And it actually cites evidence for what I'm saying - namely, that Obama declared his position on the new FISA law while still a Senator, stuck to that position, and has not reversed it after being elected and taking office.

The article does make it clear that many other Democrats, and Obama supporters, were unhappy with his position and wanted him to oppose it on the grounds that it caved in to the Bush administration and telecom companies that had been cooperating with the illegal wiretaps. It also indicates that as a candidate, he had earlier (in Feb 2008) been making speeches opposing the FISA bill which he then announced his support for in June 2008. So any reversal happened only in his public remarks as a candidate. Not while in office.

Principled people on the left of Obama who want to oppose his stance were free to do so then, and may continue to do so today.

I don't see however that President Obama has "reversed himself" on FISA.

Gussy - you've no doubt noted that you'll not get too far presenting fact based evidence with the likes of the Constellation here. But others among us will be happy to wade deep into these waters with you.

For myself, I was outraged when the secret wiretaps came to light during the Bush years. I firmly believe that we need to give Law Enforcement the tools it needs to properly prosecute the fight against the bad guys, but I think it needs to be done under rule of law, as you stated so well. And we have laws for just such purposes. RICO, which was originally drafted to battle the Mob, has proved quite effective against terror cells. And FISA allows legal -- and yet secret -- wiretaps that comply with the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against illegal search and seizure. The Bushies used to argue that it takes too long to get a FISA court order, and meanwhile the valuable intel which the NSA or FBI wanted to pick up based on a hot tip would be long gone. However even the original FISA had a provision for 48 hours retroactive court order. In other words - let the G-men tap the line when the tip is fresh, and file the court paperwork later to retroactively make it legal. If the judge doesn't grant the warrant, any recordings get destroyed and can't be used as evidence. It was a reasonable balance between the urgent need to get the intel, and civil rights. The new law, as I understand it, extended that 48 hour period to 72 hours. Why the Bushies couldn't comply with FISA all along is beyond me. Actually --- it's not. It was always a principled part of Cheney's dogged assertion of the breadth of executive power and the ability for the Executive to essentially flaunt the law.

[scandal 951]

1. I agree. First, the electoral college is stupid. It creates a situation where some states have more power than they would if every vote was created equal. This might make sense in a situation where each "state" acted like a state in the way the member states of the EU work. But they don't - the federal government at the end of the day has way more power than was ever originally intended. This may not actually be such a bad thing (our first charter was pretty much thrown away because the states couldn't agree to do anything together) - but it should be recognized as it is.

The senate should be realigned. It should still be a smaller body than the house, but based solely on the number of residents in each state. Why should people in Montana have more of a say than California? The senate gives large land owners more rights than their fellow citizens. I thought people came here to leave european feudalism?

Districting for the house needs to be mandated federally using a consistent system for all districts. The system is gamed by the parties - and that's to nobodies advantage - especially the third party candidates!

This is not a view, however you'll see on Fox News - it runs counter to the agenda of the party the support.

Not going to address the rest of your long post, but wanted to jump in on this.

I don't have a problem with the Electoral College system. I probably wouldn't object if it was done away with and replaced with a nation-wide popular vote count, but so long as the rules are clear and everybody plays by them, I think the EC has worked fairly well for all these many years. If we had had nation wide popular count in 2000, Gore would have been president - hanging chads in Florida would not have mattered. That would be great for me, as a Gore supporter. But I recognize that in some future election it could just as easily work against what I may prefer. It's not about that - it's about a system that works reliably. We had a failure in Florida in 2000. But the EC was not the root cause of that fault.

I entirely disagree with you about the Senate. It was carefully designed as a deliberative body and to represent states rights. And it does that job. Look, I've always lived in large states. I was born in NY, have lived in CA, and now live in IL. I would have every reason to argue for a Senate that gives more proportional representation to large powerful states such as these. But I don't. There's a need to have representation for the less populous states and regions of the country. That's how we mold and fuse opinions. It's an important part of resisting the tyranny of the majority. A state like Montana already has less clout in the House where we have rep. by pop. Imagine how alienated Montanans would feel if they did not have any forum to express their equivalence to CA or NY. We are a nation of individuals, yes. But also of states. We are the United States. MT is a peer to NY, and needs to be treated that way. The Senate is one key way in which we ensure that.

Of course I entirely agree with you about gerrymandering House districts. Note that this is a bipartisan problem. House districts are decided by the states, and both Democrats and Republicans have been equally guilty of using gerrymandering to draw grotesque boundaries in order to guarantee safe seats. The result is uncontested elections, voter apathy, and weakened democracy. Both parties should be ashamed of themselves.

[Heracles 417]

I'm glad you have expressed your opinion in this way. What it tells me is that we're more aligned in ideology than we are apart. It also tells me that you fit neither the mold of a democrat or republican. I'll address all five points.

1. I agree. First, the electoral college is stupid. It creates a situation where some states have more power than they would if every vote was created equal. This might make sense in a situation where each "state" acted like a state in the way the member states of the EU work. But they don't - the federal government at the end of the day has way more power than was ever originally intended. This may not actually be such a bad thing (our first charter was pretty much thrown away because the states couldn't agree to do anything together) - but it should be recognized as it is.

The senate should be realigned. It should still be a smaller body than the house, but based solely on the number of residents in each state. Why should people in Montana have more of a say than California? The senate gives large land owners more rights than their fellow citizens. I thought people came here to leave european feudalism?

Districting for the house needs to be mandated federally using a consistent system for all districts. The system is gamed by the parties - and that's to nobodies advantage - especially the third party candidates!

This is not a view, however you'll see on Fox News - it runs counter to the agenda of the party the support.

2. I sort of almost agree. The question of frivolous lawsuits as your described can be solved using the loser pays system. This system has proved to keep BS lawsuits down in most other western countries.

However, you have to understand our entire system is built on law. Some questions have to be answered by interpretation of the most important legal document in our country: the constitution. I know that in many countries, even western european ones, the law is the law and is not subject to interpretation. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not - but here, when there's a question of ambiguity with regards to the law we consult prior decisions, as well as written documents which leads me into 3...

3. Yes and no. You seem like a Fox News supporter. Gay Rights and Abortion are wedge issues that both the dems and repubs use to energize their base. And Fox News exploits this to the extreme. They phrase as it as 'saving the institution of marriage' and 'protecting unborn children'. These issues for the right are meant to keep the fundamentalist religious people voting for them.

But for the woman who can't have children because many years ago she got an abortion from a coat hanger doctor - this is issue is about more than energizing the base. It's about their life - about their life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Abortion itself does not make anyone happy, and I have my own personal opinions about this which differ from both the left and the right (which includes forced sterilization for repeat offenders - NOBODY likes my opinion : -)

For gay people its a practical question. To be able to choose to pull their loved one off of life support, power of attorney in financial matters etc. I have no problem with separate but equal designations.

Now - if you got rid of these two wedge issues - what would the cable news companies have to talk about for 86400 seconds a day? Where would the voting demographics on either side of the issues go? These wedge issues stay the way they are because they give both parties power.

4. Agree, no arguments. I say personal contributions of no more than $100 a piece and federally financed elections (for major elected offices). I also say electronic voting with a full paper trail for audit.

5. I agree. But lets not just talk about individual families - conglomerates, shadow corporations, off shore tax havens. Fix the whole mess. Both parties say they want to do it - but neither does.

But lets be honest here. If you disagree with these practices, you have to recognize that while both parties have sucked - Obama has started the crack down on the tax shelters. He has pushed for a higher federal minimum wage. Guess which news agency slammed him for this?

And then you have the estate tax. I think this deals directly with family empires like the Waltons - and not paying their share. Find out who pushed most for repeal - is that he party you support?

Large corporations leverage public infrastructure and public resources. Have you read about the interior department's hooker and cocaine parties with gas executives footing the bill? Yeah the guys who hand out the rights to these same companies to tap the nation's resources...

I don't know dude... You're liberal or conservative. It seems to be you have an open mind - one that I think would see through the garbage that spews from cable news. Heck, television in general...

"Television, the drug of a nation

Breeding ignorance and feeding radiation"

For me, I listen to the radio (NPR, BBC World Service, Deutsche Welle, Aljazeera English, etc etc) and I read a lot of stuff online. Defending fox news or biased CNBC pundits is like defending the behavior of a racist old uncle "he's old, he just doesn't know any better". There's no excuse for poor behavior - or bad journalism.

Finally we agree on something.

I love wealth just as much as the next person but what I don't like is someone being exploited. People should be free to earn billions but not at the expense of paying someone an unlivable minimum wage. Minimum wage for example should factor in the area's actual living expenses. Unfortunately, I hate to say it but the republicans support measures to suppress this. Then you have Libertarians like Matt who have totally lost the plot. Just the other night I was watching a buy xyz and you can make millions off the internet infomercial and thought about Matt. Such snake oil shenanigans are banned there. Why? They protect the most vulnerable people who usually fall for that ####### from being exploit. Matt disagrees, he thinks have zero government regulation will magical prevent it.

I come from a fair go nation were we help one another and lift those down up. We either rise together or we fall together. That used to exist here prior to the 60's but faded with one of the reasons being some misconceived fear that unity equates to communism. Communist were not unified, they just had a totally flawed system and ideology. Unity means unity. Unity means when your nation is facing one of the worst financial crises, you band together rather than cry about Obama not using freagin ketchup on his burger.

What really pushed me over the edge is seeing some idiot senator push a gun bill into credit card reform. It's bad enough as it is that these dirty credit card companies gouge us daily. Just when I thought we were making progress, on par with the rest of the civilized world; no can do. Gun bill is more important. After all, what do you do if yogi bear attacks you right?

What the hell is wrong with these idiots we have as senators?

Edited June 10, 2009 by Constellation

[Heracles 417]

Gussy - you've no doubt noted that you'll not get too far presenting fact based evidence with the likes of the Constellation here. But others among us will be happy to wade deep into these waters with you.

Right Right. The only thing you "wade deep into" is the ####### that comes out of your mouth.

[Ban Hammer 14,003]

Well my conclusion is that VJ slants far right & if Obama gave every single family in the USA a million dollars (not practical I know, just an extreme example) the VJ hardcore wouldn't approve. I think you're take is just a tad different

from my perspective, it's more left.

Hey, Chuck!

Many of the Americans on VJ are leftist, but I don't get the same vibe from many of the immigrants who post.

agreed. and i see you have a new name

[mawilson 2,133]

Except the most senior bondholder inline is the US GOVT. The company would be insolvent without the loans from the gov.

The company would be insolvent with or without the government loans.

They were insolvent 50 billion dollars ago and they are still insolvent today.

Also, the medical and pension guarantees come *before* the bond holders.

Pensions are only partially guaranteed by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation

(a quasi-government agency which insures pension plans.) The taxpayer being on

the hook for these pensions is likely the reason equity was given to the UAW ahead

of private bond holders.

Health care is another story - it's not guaranteed by the PBGC at all.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well my conclusion is that VJ slants far right & if Obama gave every single family in the USA a million dollars (not practical I know, just an extreme example) the VJ hardcore wouldn't approve. I think you're take is just a tad different

from my perspective, it's more left.

Hey, Chuck!

Many of the Americans on VJ are leftist, but I don't get the same vibe from many of the immigrants who post.

agreed. and i see you have a new name

Chuck is it? Good to know.

[Ban Hammer 14,003]

Well my conclusion is that VJ slants far right & if Obama gave every single family in the USA a million dollars (not practical I know, just an extreme example) the VJ hardcore wouldn't approve. I think you're take is just a tad different

from my perspective, it's more left.

Hey, Chuck!

Many of the Americans on VJ are leftist, but I don't get the same vibe from many of the immigrants who post.

agreed. and i see you have a new name

Chuck is it? Good to know.

just for her, because she's a friend.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well my conclusion is that VJ slants far right & if Obama gave every single family in the USA a million dollars (not practical I know, just an extreme example) the VJ hardcore wouldn't approve. I think you're take is just a tad different

from my perspective, it's more left.

Hey, Chuck!

Many of the Americans on VJ are leftist, but I don't get the same vibe from many of the immigrants who post.

agreed. and i see you have a new name

Chuck is it? Good to know.

just for her, because she's a friend.

What's funny is, you really think she is Anyway Charles, you be as name sensitive as you like, that is your prerogative.

[Ban Hammer 14,003]

Well my conclusion is that VJ slants far right & if Obama gave every single family in the USA a million dollars (not practical I know, just an extreme example) the VJ hardcore wouldn't approve. I think you're take is just a tad different

from my perspective, it's more left.

Hey, Chuck!

Many of the Americans on VJ are leftist, but I don't get the same vibe from many of the immigrants who post.

agreed. and i see you have a new name

Chuck is it? Good to know.

just for her, because she's a friend.

What's funny is, you really think she is Anyway Charles, you be as name sensitive as you like, that is your prerogative.

why thank you, i'm so glad i have your permission!

[Robert and Sun 0]

I think he's partially right. Right Wingers, in general, are not the ones you'll find in libraries or universities reading volumes of academic books. They like their TV and their cheap beer...and news shows that will take complex issues and dumb them down to emotional soundbites so it's clear which team to root for and which one to boo at.

Of course - right-wingers are all idiots

This is a hilarious caricature of the right-wing Wal-Mart set. Sadly, it's pretty accurate of the people I meet here in Texas. Especially about the god stuff. The remarks near the end about health care is supposed to make the left-leaning child look like and idiot, too.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_...ate_defender_of

Edited November 19, 2009 by Robert and Sun

[Robert and Sun 0]

I don't have a problem with the Electoral College system.

And you shouldn't. We live in a republic, NOT a democracy. The popular vote is to suggest to the EC members what the people they represent want - and in most cases they can still choose to vote for whomever they wish REGARDLESS of what the people want. It sucks, but such as life in a not-democracy.

[DEDixon 39]

i don't like fox because i really like hearing the opposing view. <-- this is when i watched TV, i've not watched any TV in nearly 2 years.

i like npr way better than conservative talk shows. i know what i'm going to hear on conservative shows so it is of no interest to me. npr, they say is liberal, but i think they do a fairly good job riding the fence.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

No, I'm not in the Obama fan club. I'm pissed that he's reversed himself on things like FISA and secret tribunals. I believe in my country, and the rule of law.

Selective rule of law, I presume?

Because... according to the rule of law, senior bondholders are to be first in line during any bankruptcy

process.

According to Obama's rule of law, senior bondholders (who have a contractual right to seize the assets

of the failed GM) will see their $27 billion reduced to just a 10% equity stake.

Except the most senior bondholder inline is the US GOVT. The company would be insolvent without the loans from the gov. Also, the medical and pension guarantees come *before* the bond holders. Those aren't new conditions, anyone who bought into these companies could have known about these guarantees.

Obama, nor anyone else in the gov forced these conditions down the throats of the bond holders. In fact, the bond holders had a vote and rejected the first offer. The gov reduced their take away to make a more lucrative deal. Had no deal been reached, then under law (bankruptcy law) the company would have been moved from chapter 11 to chapter 7. The trustee would have taken over, assets would have been sold - assets that in these economy are worth practically nothing, and the payout would have been like this:

Company liabilities (pension, healthcare)

Preferred bond holders (the gov)

Standard bond holders (the rest of the group).

By the time the liabilities were paid off, and the preferred bond holders were paid off, the guys who had $27 billion in outstanding bonds would have gotten..... wait for it.... $0

That's why when given the change to vote, they voted for the restructuring plan - it sure beats chapter 7!

Of course, you're blaming Obama (who I'm pretty sure is a little bit too busy to ink this deal) when in fact, under chapter 11 it's up to the debtor in possession to come up with a plan for getting the company healthy! Perhaps his administration made suggestions on how to structure it to get everyone to agree - but the alternative was chapter 7.

Of course, these pesky details may not fit into a convenient black and white picture that was provided via a 30 second sound byte on TV.

Just FYI, given that they're in chapter 11, the bond holders are part of the creditors committee, and they voted for the deal through the bankruptcy process - what exact law are you claiming Obama broke?

The claim stems from Faux News propaganda pieces...