Conservatives Side With BP: Hannity & Gingrich

[mw2000]

'It's like GM and Chrysler'

What, so it'll work out fantastically in the end with everything being fixed and the plan being a roaring success? Sorry Newt, but fuck you.

[arenor]

@flyingrocketdaisy because you're a flying rocket daisy, duh. How do you know you're not the crazy one? You fat bitch.

[2222554]

On this issue of a 'shakedown' I amke my stand with BP, Hannity & Gingrich!

[oliveraldama]

Hannity is a major corporation shill.

[luvcheney1]

@flyingrocketdaisy BP is guilty, and should be sued, in a court of law. If the President can coerce payment, without due process, the US is nothing but a 3rd world dictatorship, proving it has no respect for the law. Thats scares capital, and loses jobs and tax revenue we need. Obama also confiscated the capital of bondholders in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, inserting the Govt, and UAW in front of bondholders. They are first in line after sale of assets, and instead were given only 10%.

[YOURINQUIRER]

@luvcheney1 Please point out the point of law where the President of the United States cannot negotiate, however forcefully, the means by which a foriegn corporation will assist disaster victims. There is STILL a criminal investigation at hand. I, and most Americans, certainly hope irresponsible companies will be scared of us. Please also cite the source of your claim that GM & Chrysler's bondholders assets were seized. The rest of us understand these companies to be the recipients of billions.

[luvcheney1]

@YOURINQUIRER I heard Obama say, "We will MAKE B P put $..." in the account. The 5 th Amendment to the Constitution states .."deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process". With due process, an entity being sued has the right to due process in court regarding claims against it. Since the Federal Govt is going to administer these "claims", BP has not had due process, nor is there a settlement awarded by a court in this matter, so far.

[YOURINQUIRER]

@luvcheney1 So you could not find anywhere the President could not negotiate assistance to disaster victims. Thanks for admitting it. They were "deprived" of nothing and you must prove otherwise. All this was done with the consent of BP. Case closed.

[sclf]

@YOURINQUIRER If BP was given a trial anywas, the victims are not seeing that money for another 10 years, if only a fraction.

[luvcheney1]

@YOURINQUIRER Govt "bailed out" GM, then assigned ownership, 60% to US govt, 12% Canada, 17.5% Union, 10% bondholders. Unions paid zero. Bankruptcy Law means SELLING GM for cash, the profitable parts. GMC and Chevy SUV & trucks, larger Chevy cars, Buick. Keep GM Daewoo Korea, and GM in China, the most profitable part. of GM. Dump small car divisions, and Hummer, the losers. Bondholders denied due process to get sale proceeds, and Unions GIVEN FOR FREE 75% larger share than bondholders.

[luvcheney1]

@luvcheney1 Forgot Cadillac, another good part.

[YOURINQUIRER]

@luvcheney1 The government was under no obligation to bailout any private institution. If it chooses to do so, it may set it's terms & conditions unless those can be established to be a violation of law. Bankruptcies can & do take many forms sometimes with no return of funds at all. Your "SELLING" conditions are arbitrary as any performed by the Adminstration & putting it in ALL CAPS DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. Bondholders were denied nothing since no bailout would have meant a complete loss.

[luvcheney1]

@YOURINQUIRER Perhaps you can show me where it says in the constitution that the govt has any authority whatsoever to bailout anyone. GM`s stock was worthless, and bondholders are legally in front of stockholders. So, Obama bailed out GM, the US govt and the unions, and Canada got ownership. BNondholders were given 20 cents on the dollar. NO BAILOUT would have meant the GOOD parts of GM would be sold, proceeds to bondholders. What a dope.

[YOURINQUIRER]

@luvcheney1 Please show me where it is NOT allowed. We live in a democratic republic. You don't like that what BOTH parties (Bush & GOP = $700 Billion) did in the bailout? Vote in new people. The govt DOES NOT have ownership in the sense that stockholders do & you have yet to prove otherwise. How does the unions own GM? The proceeds, by & large, would have gone to their debtors (banks). I thought you didn't want to give them anymore money? Pull your head out of your FOX.

[luvcheney1]

@YOURINQUIRER See, Constitution of the United States, Article 1, section 8. You will find the list of the powers granted to the Federal Govt. Many things happen all the time, the tobacco lawsuits, Drug lawsuits, Ford Pinto, Toyota, etc, etc, and these things are settled in a court of law. Legally, proceeds go to bondholders FIRST, leftovers goes to preffered stock, then common stock..UAW was given 17.5% of the Stock shares, US govt 60%. I wouldnt have the govt give one cent, we have laws.

[YOURINQUIRER]

@luvcheney1 Total copout. Show WHERE it says it or admit you were wrong. You're no going to weasel out of it like you did on BP above. Many other matters are handled outside of the courts. I thought you guys were all against our overly litigious culture, trial lawyers & legislating from the bench. I guess that's only when YOUR GUYS aren't on the recieving end. GM gave that to the UAW as a OUTSIDE of bankruptcy settlement-NOT by gov't order. When your'e a crap company, you have to pay the piper.

[luvcheney1]

@YOURINQUIRER sec.gov/investor/pubs/bankrupt­.htm ( Fed law) "creditors and bondholders become owners of the new shares(chap 11 BK law). "investors with least risk paid first", "bondholders have greater potential to recover losses than stockholders" ( chap 7 BK). BTW, I have no obligation to do research on facts YOU ought to have before spouting B.S. I agree we are overly litigious, but that doesnt mean the PRES can ignore, steal GM from bondholders, but he did.

[YOURINQUIRER]

@luvcheney1 Glad you could admit you can't show where in the Constitution he cannot do the bailout. You're making progress. Also, you seem to admit the UAW had an agreement with GM, not government mandated. That was research YOU should have done sooner. However, you still refuse to learn bankruptcies take many forms. The US was a creditor (debtor-in-posession). GM filed Chap 11 & in US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of NY. Unsecured bondholders own 10% of the new formed GM.

[luvcheney1]

@YOURINQUIRER I already explained "Bailouts" are not in the Constitution. The Constitution of the US, in Article 1, sect 8 lists ALL the things the Fed CAN do. Those items listed is what the Constittution grants powers for the govt. If not listed, and not illegal, states may do. As Far as GM having an agreement with UAW, I never said that. Obama bailed them out, and TOOK an ownership stake. He TOOK ownership stakes in financial inst, also. He has no legal power to nationalize industries.

[YOURINQUIRER]

@luvcheney1 Where in the Constitution does it say the govt can only do what's stated in it? You are contradicting yourself because you know that it is nowhere prohibited. Art. 1 covers the Congress, Art. 2 covers the President, LOL. Even in Art. 1, it is Sec. 9 that limits it's powers. This is pretty tragic. I know you never said that UAW had an agreement with GM. That's because it's true & you didn't bother to do your research. Nationalize is your spin. The Treasury was a debtor-in-possession.

[luvcheney1]

@YOURINQUIRER The constitution is a document limiting the powers of Govt, It "enumerates" in article 1, sect 8, the powers the people are granting to Congress. As for the powers of the President, they also are listed, but Bankruptcy is covered in LAW, Congress passes law. UAW were given their ownership share of GM in the bankruptcy. GM mgt, after bailout, is OK with anything. The problem is that creditors of GM had rights to proceeds of sale, and the govt has ignored their rights.

[YOURINQUIRER]

@luvcheney1 It's good to see you're finally reading the Constitution instead of parroting what you've been told. Still, don't repeat what I've just taught you as though you just said it. Just do some research for a change & you'll see the UAW deal was BEFORE the filing as part of restructuring OUTSIDE bankruptcy. It had to be part of the filing. Youre backpeddling on your own citation of the law. As GM's ovewhelming creditor, taxpayers were entiled to what the LAW says they should have, not you.

[luvcheney1]

@YOURINQUIRER NEWS FLASH!! The President ordered everyone to weal a TIN-FOIL hat when outside, and our faces must be painted green. When the people objected, he reminded them, "Where in the Constitution, does it say I cant require Tin- Foil hats, with green faces:.

[YOURINQUIRER]

@luvcheney1 Tin Foil Hats = 1st Amendment on freedom of expression, 8th Amendment on cruel & unusual punishment, etc, etc. See how great the Constitution is when you actually read it.

[luvcheney1]

@YOURINQUIRER Walking down the street naked, Freedom of expression. Hats arent cruel, and when everyone does it, its not at all unusual.

[YOURINQUIRER]

@luvcheney1 But your scenerio REQUIRES it. This why we have courts just like in the GM bankruptcy case.

[luvcheney1]

@YOURINQUIRER I thought we were through with GM, when you read what the SEC said. Stockholders own corps, vote for the Board, who appoints CEO, etc. Creditors, such as bondholders, are AHEAD of the owners in BK law. Bondholders were deprived of their right, under law, to receive the proceeds of the sale of GM`s assets. Bondholders come BEFORE, the owners! Now, everybody owns more than bondholders. These events were covered heavily in the financial media, while you watched SpongeBob.

[YOURINQUIRER]

@luvcheney1 We can't be through with something you failed to prove. Your own citation calls calls for the ownership of creditors. If it was a private creditor, you'd have no problem. Those deadbeats should pay up. But if it's taxpayers who's are lawful creditors, you swim in hypocrisy. Worse still, your own citation says "creditors and bondholders become owners", but since you forgot that the taxpayers were creditors, you change your story & say it's JUST the bondholders. That's NOT THE LAW.

[luvcheney1]

@YOURINQUIRER You must hear that someone raises the Constitutionality of a law. The question then becomes to find under what provision it is allowed. Libs want anything allowed, and most often hide behind the General Welfare clause, or the commerce clause. The question only is, if it is permitted. NEVER is it said"where is it NOT permitted". Well, except for you. GM was just a UAW payoff by a 3rd world dictator. BK law is the authority, not Barry Hussein, most laws are NOT in Constitution.

[luvcheney1]

@YOURINQUIRER It is not just bondholders. First pay creditors like the co you owe money for tire to. Then, bondholders. Then, preferred stockolders, then stockholders. The money to pay these folks comes from sale of GM assets. Bondholders gave money, without ownership rights, they are just a creditor. So, Barry comer along, gives money belonging to the US, and then dictates who gets what, against BK law.

[YOURINQUIRER]

@luvcheney1 You put in quotes the LAW above about paying CREDITORS. Now you're contadicting, not only the LAW, but YOURSELF saying "No, now it's all these new stipulations I just thought up because I forgot that taxpayers were the #1 creditor!" We invested the most money. We come 1st according to the law. Bondholders should have paid more attention to who was running (or ruining) their investment. The court, according the rule of law, in the greatest democratic republic in the world, came along!

[luvcheney1]

@YOURINQUIRER WE came along and shoved billions to save a company, telling Bondholders what they HAVE to take. That is not a lawful bankruptcy. Today the finacial bill passed, and in it it says the govt can waltz on in and take a corp over, if it feels it is in trouble. There is no end to this pathetic, banana republic action. Many states are challenging constitutionality of the HC bill, requiring people to buy a product. The govt has to show, where it is allowed, not where it says it cant!

[YOURINQUIRER]

@luvcheney1 Shoved? GM asked for that money with bondholders knowing ALL about it. The decision was made by a court, according to the rule of law, in the greatest democratic republic in the world. The only bananas are the historical revisionists incapable of a simple Google search to learn the facts, preferring to be spoonfed the fascist propaganda of those who nearly bankrupted this republic, lost nearly a decade of our existence, entered us into two wars & became even wealthy than ever.

[mzettley]

@YOURINQUIRER GM should of been allowed to fail. The secured creditors got screwed they are the ones that should got the money from bankruptcy NOT THE UNION! You should learn how this country works.

[YOURINQUIRER]

@mzettley The unions got a far lower percentage than the taxpayers. You should learn how reading works.

[luvcheney1]

@YOURINQUIRER Taxpayers, the govt, own 60% of the stock of GM now. That makes taxpayers or govt owners, distinct from creditors. You may refer back to the SEC website explaining this.

[YOURINQUIRER]

@luvcheney1 Your rationalizing would also distinguish bondholders since they ALSO own in the company. You just don't think these things through, do you?

[luvcheney1]

@YOURINQUIRER Bondholders own debt, not the corp.

[mzettley]

@YOURINQUIRER How about the3 fact that the majority of the PEOPLE disagreed with the bailout? Shouln't that matter? I guess it doesn't in this admin. THey do whatever they want even when the overwhelming majority don't want it. Healthcare bill, suing AZ over immigration, bailouts, Stimulous, etc....

[YOURINQUIRER]

@mzettley Funny how you guys only care what people feel when they side w/ u. According to Pew & Gallup: 69% want the govt to care for those who can't care for themselves. 2 to 1, people want the govt to provide more svcs even if it means an increase in spending. 77% feel Congress should increase the minimum wage. 66% feel upper-income people pay too little taxes. 53% feel the Bush tax cuts failed, increased the deficit & cut govt svcs. 69% feel govt should ensure everyone has access to heathcare

[mcshobe2008]

@YOURINQUIRER great stats. can you message me a link to read this poll?

[mzettley]

@YOURINQUIRER No when you are a crap company you FAIL and go out of business!

[sclf]

@YOURINQUIRER Luv chenny is full of bias shit.

[freein2339]

Ging-bitch has also been a dickhead...and a nazi..... fuck him...

[MickMan211]

i would consider someone who would kill Sean Hannity to be a true American hero..a real patriot.

[58tkdmike]

hannity - the NATIONS COWARD. I was trying to recall which college hannity graduated from that makes him this huge expert....OHHHH YEA I remember HE DROPPED OUT OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE - FUKIN PUSSY

[MickMan211]

@58tkdmike you are so correct..hannity IS a true coward..he likes to be called a patriot and a great American.what a crock..he is a traitor and a coward of the highest order..the real patriots and freedom fighters arent the loudmouthed, pomp[ous jackasses like him, but the soldiers who go into battle to defend us. hannity defends nothing but the GOP, and would shit his garanimals if so much as a nerf gun were fired his way. You dont hear from real patriots, but the fakes are SO loud. like him!

[luvcheney1]

@MickMan211 This has to do with LAW, not whether BP is at fault. I think we all know that when you damage someone, you get sued, and a court of law settles things. BP is obviously guilty, and should, and will pay. This is for the Law to decide. Suppose someone murdered someone we all love, on camera.... can Obama just decide to hang him tomorrow? This kind of thuggery will scare capital, make the US more like a 3rd world dictatorship, where capital is not safe. We want investment and jobs.

[MickMan211]

@luvcheney1 I see your point..at the same time, we cannot allow corporate damage cases to linger in appeals courts for decades, while the people effected get nothing, which is exactly what happened with Exxon Valdez. You should check out a documentary titled "Crude", about the contamination of the Ecuadoran rain forest, rivers, and soil, by American Oil Companies.Yea, its still going through the courts, by law, and the victims havent got anything but a spoiled environment.Maybe the law is wrong

[luvcheney1]

@MickMan211 If you, and voters, would like a faster, better legal system, thats fine by me. But, the Law is what it is right now. I suppose we should have just hanged OJ Simpson, without a trial? If I am injured in an accident, can I go extort with threats those who hit me? Please! How silly! Defending a system of law is essential. And, Obama is a lawyer, he behaves this way because he is a common thug, caring about the politics of this matter. Nothing separates him from thieves, a disgrace..

[MickMan211]

@luvcheney1 Too bad, I say. I am glad that that we have circumvented the courts in this case. Too many times, corporations have trampled the common citizens, who have no recourse other than to wait years and years to be compensated, usually only a fraction of what they lost. The law is currently set up in FAVOR of he who has the most money, which is injustice, not righteousness. The thugs are the corporations, conservative policy makers and judges, who give leeway to big business every time.

[MickMan211]

@luvcheney1 Did you think it was okay to go around the law with the patriot act? torture?

[luvcheney1]

@MickMan211 Tsk, Tsk...... dont give up on YOUR point of view! Lazaro Cardenas, President of Mexico, in 1938 nationalized the petroleum industry, expropriating the assets of corporations that developed Mexico`s oil. Investment in Mexico was severely damaged, and Mexico`s economic developed was slowed, leaving it out of the great advances in living standards. You are "glad" that law does not apply in this case. Exxon pays no Fed taxes, because it chooses to earn in foreign countries. "Glad"?

[MickMan211]

@luvcheney1 i dont know why I am even bothering with you..your screen name says it all!

[luvcheney1]

@MickMan211 I wouldnt bother defending the indefensible either.

[walkermydawg]

@MickMan211 You think it is the dyke daughter posting, or the other one that dad sent out of her hole to justify torture?