Gussy

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?

]

This is where we are going to part views. The media is not to blame for this countries endless woes. The few things that I have observed and noticed while living here are:

1. System of government. Sorry guys but the presidential system and county oriented approach is flawed.

2. Legal system. One that allow me to sue for something trivial like spilling hot coffee on myself or one that permits a group like the ALCU to push their own agenda, by means of the inefficient US legal system and ultimately affect our lives. Change should come via democratic means, such as voting or a referendum, not by the ridiculous power of US courts or the people who exploit it. That is, the power of a judge whom we do not even appoint.

3. Obsession with irrelevant issues. such as Gay rights, marriage rights, abortion rights. Give it a rest. Focus on the real issues for a change, like crime and poverty.

4. Influence of lobbyist, private conglomerates and special interest groups.

5. Mega rich raping the country for their own benefit. Like the waltons. Pay people who work 40 hour weeks minimum wage while you pay negligible tax on the billions you earn for doing absolutely nothing.

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.

I apologize I didn't actually read it all at first. I assumed it was another Obama is the best fan club post; while fox news sucks.

Fox News does suck. All cable news sucks. The commentary is either driven by an ideological agenda or designed to create conflict and scandal. It spoon feeds opinion as fact, or news, instead or presenting facts and letting you make your own decisions.

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. I think Obama is continuing a legacy setup by the second Bush administration and pushed by the media (for which Fox News was a major contributor).

For those who wanted four more years: congrats - you got it. The democrats elected it for you. Politics in america is always more of the same, but some have been fooled into thinking there's a huge riff between two parties which are both built on such large internally competing agendas that they have no way of being effective at any one thing. We are stuck with mediocrity.

I want an America where all people are awarded due process. What happened to habeas corpus?

I want an America where the government has to prove a case before it can invade someones home.

I want an America where the government is open and transparent.

I want an America where the elected official work for the people who elected them, and not special interest groups.

I want an America..... that could go on forever.

I believe that would be strawman. The best argument is the fallacious one!

Obama could burn down the country and your likes of Keith Olbermann would still be tossing over him.

Wow... Ad hominem... Perhaps you could read what I said, and decide whether you agree or disagree? If you disagree then please tell me why. Start with a clause or two (perhaps more) and then build a premise of the argument. Perhaps I'm wrong. But I will never know if I am wrong because you have yet to build an argument against me.

What I think is really interesting, however, is just spent a ton of time arguing against both parties. Telling you why I think they're both bad, and why the media is bad. I cited sources and examples when possible.

Yet, your conclusion is that I'm the ardent Obama supporter. It seems to me, that the whole shades of grey thing I described in my post were either ignored or misunderstood.

Please, I ask you, convince me that you're right with real arguments, and refrain from trying to making your point with fallacious ones. This process will make you think, and thinking is something that makes us stronger as Americans, not weaker. After all, we are a nation built on great thinkers. Lets continue that tradition. It's better than recycling talking points, no?

I've seen some real bad posts come out of here (or from people who have been replying to other topics with political comments that had nothing to do with the topic at hand).

So here are some facts:

Obama Facts:

1) Most American's approve of Obama today - 56% approval (source: latest Marist poll)

2) A much smaller percentage disapprove - 32% (source: latest Marist poll).

Much like this hey:

Bush wins by 51% (country divided)

Obama wins by 52% (country united).

Translation: When presented with actual numbers throw in some rhetoric

I believe that would be strawman. The best argument is the fallacious one!

My 30 second attention span can't cope with that post.

I believe that would make you the prime demographics for cable news.

I've seen some real bad posts come out of here (or from people who have been replying to other topics with political comments that had nothing to do with the topic at hand).

So here are some facts:

Obama Facts:

1) Most American's approve of Obama today - 56% approval (source: latest Marist poll)

2) A much smaller percentage disapprove - 32% (source: latest Marist poll).

Fox News Facts:

I'll give that Fox news has the best cable news numbers (fact!). Since we're talking facts here I'll leave my reason why in the speculation part.

1) Scott McClellan admitted that the white house under GW Bush fed Fox Commentators white house talking points (source: wikipedia article on fox news).

2) There have been many leaked memos from inside of Fox News. Those memos confirm that the network as a whole had an agenda, and that commentators were supposed to push specific talking points (source: wikipedia article on fox news).

Real quick, I want to point out that while Wikipedia isn't a proper source for academic purposes, I'm sure anyone actually interested in the subject will type in a couple of google keywords to see the leaked memos and McClellan interview.

Analysis & Speculation:

I think anyone would draw the logical conclusion, simply by watching, that Fox News has a political Agenda. But little more is needed than some simple research to confirm it. The memos are a dead give away, the McClellan interview adds wood to the fire, and Fox's own actions cement it.

One simple, and obvious example would be the case of Jeremy M. Glick. He was the son of a victim of 9/11. In an interview with Bill Oreilly, he expressed a view that differed from that which Fox News and the White House were pushing. Bill Oreilly attacked him for those views. The following are quotes from the interview:

"O'REILLY: That's a bunch of #######. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do. "

"O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people. "

"O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up. "

I don't know if anyone can attribute such comments as "Journalistic Excellence". Certainly my middle school paper had better journalistic standards than that. But more importantly, what it shows is a specific interest and view point in the topic at hand. In a position of journalism, the journalist can either ask questions or moderate between opposing views. Fox News, despite its name, is for the most part not news - it's agenda driven ideology. That's fine, but lets be honest.

So, the obvious statement that comes out of this is: "Well CNBC - Keith Olbermann". And it's true, Olbermann is a partisan hack. He doesn't bring journalism - he brings a counter point to OReilly. But the thing is, when I turn on CNBC (which is almost never) - I find it contains more fact driven news than political commentary.

So what about Fox's Ratings? Looking at the state of the republican part - how is it that so many people Flock to Fox? Pure speculation here, but I think it's the same reason so many people bought guns and ammo when Obama won. They're afraid. Their ideology had almost total control of the country for eight years. That's gone now, and they're uncertain what's to come - so they're running to what they know.

My Grandma, for instance, has never owned a gun. She votes for republicans without really knowing why. She tells me "I want to buy a gun." I ask why and she says "because Obama is going to take them away." Hmm - "Why do you think that?" "Because they said so - on Fox News." She keeps Fox tuned in 24/7. And after sometime watching it with her I began to realize something: watching fox news makes her scared of the world - really scared. She knows nothing else, so she watches what she knows with even more intensity because the world as it is isn't proving to be the world as she understands it - based on what she sees on Fox news. So she watches, looking for the comfort that maybe soon the world will be as black and white as presented on Fox. There are no shades of grey.

I think this is true of a lot of people, old and young. People clinging to their guns, because they've been told someone will take them away. They're told there are only two sides to every conflict "good and evil" - "with us or against us" - "right and wrong". The infinite shades of grey fall only on a single side of the extremes of the spectrum.

And when you apply this to Fox News and its ratings, I think what we're seeing here is that farthest right of the republicans and moving more right. They're becoming more extreme in their ideology - and they're more interest in what the other extremes have to say. In short, they're watching more fox news.

The liberals and moderates on the other hand are tuning out. They're not proving to be the watch dogs over their new administration that they should be. While I personally think Obama is doing a "good job" given the cards that were dealt to him, for me he has proven to be nothing more than an acceptable politician. He's not a game changer. He has back tracked on too many issues. At least to the most hardcore of the right, GWB stuck to what he believed in. Of course the moderates abandoned him - these are the people who can see the shades of grey - they are the shades of grey.

And where does this leave us? It leaves us with democrats who aren't interested in political commentary because they believe their guy is doing good. As well, it leaves us with republicans who desire nothing more than validation of their beliefs - so they're tuning into the place where they can get that: fox news.

At the end of the day, the back and forth punditry and false journalism only serves a system of corruption for the benefit of two parties: and I bet not a single person here is really, truly, a member of those parties. The republican party is a mixture of federalists, libertarians, whigs, religious conservatives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, people who just simply want to be able to own big guns, rich people who dont like taxes, small government people, fascists and that Pax Americana crew (aka the PNAC). You have the democrats made up of rich people who feel guilty about being rich, socialists, communists, liberals, reverse racists holding hands with dixiecrats, greenies, women who don't shave their legs, pot heads (they don't count as they always forget to vote), the "copyright should be forever" hollywood crowd, womanizers, protect the unions people, outsource to india people, personal freedoms people, and halfricrats (Joe Liberman).

I bet there isn't a single person here who would would him or herself with all of the characteristics of either of the parties. So why defend the machines that keep all of these groups connected into two bi-polar parties? Certainly it has to be pretty patently obvious for everyone to see the conflicting plurality of the parties:

Republican Example: fiscal conservatives, the guys who hate paying taxes, and the Project for the New American Century. Clearly you can't conserve money, cut taxes and dominate small dictatorships that you created cause they pissed you off! Not all at the same time at least... Errm, wait, they did: they just mortgaged the country with a sub prime loan from China...

Democrat Example: I don't even know where to start with these guys. Labor comes to mind. Clinton and the rest of the dems (and the repubs too) were all over NAFTA - but somehow are convinced they're protecting unions. Yeah, what a cloudy head there: to think we can be allover free trade and globalization and then get mad when "our jobs" (as if we have some right to them!) get outsourced. Hey, I'm in tech - I know any day my job could be outsourced to India, a country that doesn't even have an H1B VISA program. How bad is that? Even if I was willing to do skilled work for peanuts in India, there's no way that country would ever allow me to do it! No problem though cause union will save me right? Oh #######, no they just supported the guy who appointed CTO who favors outsourcing to India. #######!

Do either of these parties really represent anyone? Speaking of ####### - I just realized I spent a ton of time and nobody is going to read this.

My wife is from Romania - so I'll throw in a Sault from her! Sorry, she doesn't get into the forum thing si romanesti mea sunt nu bine!

Reminds me of a time I was inspected at the airport. My carry on bag when through the X-ray and it was flagged for hand inspection. They guy opened my bag, saw how tightly packed everything was and said he didn't have time to go through my bag. Really?!

I have a bag search story too. This one was probably my fault. At the airport in Montreal they have a US Customs division that pre clears you before coming into the US (its like a little US customers office inside of Canada). We were there in winter and he asked me if I had anything to declare and I said "Yeah, it's cold in Montreal." He didn't laugh and sent us to a little closed room for an extended search. The guy in the room was really friendly and asked us what we had done to get sent there ... "I declared it was cold in Montreal - but I think the jokes on you, the guy that sent us here doesn't have to search through dirty underwear." He smiled, handed me our stuff back and told us to have a good flight.

End of day, I think we should all be sad: the process is broken. Everyone here pays taxes on top of the extortion fees from the USCIS.

It's an awful process. Zero customer service, zero updates, zero consistency in the message they give you. I understand that for some the wait is longer and more painful than it is for others, but it sucks none the less.

For me, every time I call the telecenter I get a different message or instruction. I think the people answer our calls know less about the process than those of us who've done a little research on VJ and other sites.

It appears they've finally decided to start fixing the process, but it's not fixed yet.

I really hope everyone who has been waiting in line gets approved soon.

Congrats!!! One step closer to never dealing with USCIS again right?

wow! I hope that is right and you did get approved! Seems a little strange but sometimes it works out that way! I'll be interested to see if that is really how it is!

Thanks!

I'm actually shocked at the idea that it's approved already - all of my past experience with USCIS has been "file, hold breath, wait longer, get no answer, call senator, things start moving." The people at the Seattle office were really nice, and we literally were out of there before our designated appointment time. E.g. we arrived 15 minutes early and as soon as we walked in the room they called our number.

I was worried that with all of the transfers from VSC, CSC might be clogged up for many many months... Time will tell.

We sent the I-751 (2 day USPS) 3/3/09

Their system shows it was received 3/11/09

We never received the extension letter...

Sometime in April we got the biometrics appt.

4/22/09 Biometrics done.

...

Called the call center - where's the extension. They escalate to someone else as its outside of the timeframe.

The person tells me it can take a month after the biometrics before you get the extension; he says:

"Why would we give you the one year extensions before we run your finger prints with the FBI? Call back again in a month."

No, really, that's what he said...

Call back end of May. Again they escalate. The next person says "I don't know why you didn't get it - file an appointment with InfoPass."

6/1/09 - InfoPass appt. We're a little worried as we have a trip to Barcelona in a few weeks - would really like to be able to come back (ok, maybe not, Barcelona is a great city!)...

The guy looks at the computer for a bit. Scratches his head. Asks for the passport and tells us to take a seat.

He comes back... "Well I've given you a six month I-551. I doubt you'll ever use it. You were approved on May 30. You should receive your new card in around 30 days."

A few of odd things:

1) 5/30/09 is a Saturday. Well glad they were working OT on our 751 - I guess

2) The computer system still shows the case was received (no other update). No touches since 4/23/09.

3) 5/30/09 would be exactly 2 years from my wife's entry in the US.

So I guess I'll see if he's right in 30 days or less.