RaZor

Critic, still dating? Of course. Been married. Done that. Won’t do it again. The thought that half of all marriages – last forever – is a little too daunting to me - at this juncture. Responses (or the lack thereof0 to questions – you noticed that too, eh? I have never had the arrogance to profess that I know all (about any subject) – I just attempt to try and present ideas and thoughts in a manner that may get others to consider that there are more than two sides to every story. I come here not to inform, convince, convert – or anything else. Seems like there are many that are, tho’. If presenting a different light on a particular subject can illuminate a subject – then I am content. I suppose the reason that many do not directly answer questions – is because they haven’t considered that viewpoint – and do not have an answer – and, it is just easier to deflect and/or ignore.

It seems to me that there is more than enough evidence in the history of man on earth, that man does indeed have free will, and that God interferes very little with the doings of man. That thought is totally abhorrent to many religious people because they need the feeling that God is guiding them through every step of life and is involved with their lives - and that God has a plan for each and every one of us - and will be there to make it happen. The denominations that often recruit large numbers are the ones who push this concept - that God is guiding you at all times. It gives great comfort to many. They also tend to like dogmatic deeds (acts) that they can do to show God that they are obedient etc. What I have noticed over my 6 decades, is that most people that get wrapped up in those dogmatic deeds - never do much in the way of introspection and expansion of their spirituality. . . which, of course, is much more difficult, but totally in tune with Christ's favorite method of teaching -- the parable. Designed to make one think. . . not just go through deeds/actions . . . to absorb the meaning of being Christ-like. A perfect example (to me) is a study just released today showed that: the more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists -- with the group that showed the greatest approval of torture -- Evangelists. I guess that they did not stop to think, "Would Christ condone torture?" Maybe that's because their religion is not part of their spirituality? Or, is it that they have bombarded with so much fear . . . Oops, gotta hit the shower . . . I've got a hot date.

Lemme git dis straight . . . you actually thought that Wash DC could be changed in 100 days? You're kidding (out of frustration I presume), right? By the way,l I'm an Independent - a moderate - which I recognized a decade and half ago, that the Reps had great disdain for. Either you get in step with them, or else. . . back to their base . . . means they won't be able to win a nat'l election for decades. . .maybe even a generation. . . just the opposite of what Heir Rove predicted back in 2003. Yes, the Dems have their problems too (the far left) . . . as a matter of fact, the more one moves to either extreme, the more removed they are from our populace.

Oh yeah, you're correct - and I might also point out that the "debt" does not take into account the true debt cost of the Iraq/Bush war (which is over $3trillion when all costs are counted - more than 3x's that counted in the debt), nor does it take into account the IOU's of the money borrowed from Soc Sec. during that period. But then that would be taking "personal responsibility", wouldn't it? Oh wait . . . that only applies to common folk, doesn't it? You're also right Critic, what was I thinking? Defections from the GOP are mounting . . . I heard it is down to 25% (nat'lly registered) now -- just yesterday. I should just shut up. Sorry. Funny thing about it is I ought to call a (well known) Rep national activist that I told, "This party is going to self-destruct!" and he blasted me - when I left them more than a decade ago. Whoa, would that be fun.

Interesting to note that the writers failed to point out that the Fed deficit went from $5.1 tillion to $10.7 trillion during the Bush admin and that even though the Dems had a bare majority in Congress the last two years, the Reps exercised of 100 filibusters to keep anything that was not in their line from proceeding for passage.

Apparently the Ch11 reorganization bankruptcy became necessary because a few minority stake holders, hedge funds that were bond holders, refused to accept the lower (in their opinion) settlement that the major bond holders/creditors JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley accepted. The hedge funds would rather see a higher payout that they may get from Ch11 and/or Ch7 liquidation – even though a couple of them typically invest in “distressed companies”. Those hedge funds are Oppenheimer Funds, Perella Weinberg, & Stairway Capital. The interesting part of it appears to be that Cerberus will loose 100% of its stake/ownership of the company, Daimler gives up its stake and will contribute to the pension fund and the UAW trust will get 55%, Fiat 35%, US gov’t 8% and Canadian gov’t 2%. Those, of course, are approximates, subject to change. One thing that it will do (Ch11) is make it every easy to eliminate dealerships immediately without any cost to Chrysler as a judge can just eliminate them by directive. It also appears that provisions of the plan will mandate a specific minimum as far as domestic manufacturing and sales volume. Interesting. A key issue that is still unknown is who will appoint the board of directors (possibly 9 members) – and it does appear that Fiat will take over management of the company. In any case, Ch11 appears to be a new lease on life for Chrysler

You guys are brutal! I like it and agree and remember that when I had a couple of veedubs, there were still a couple gas stations that still had service and I would always say, "Fill the oil and check the gas"

I suspect that you are not very well versed in the fossil record and most likely shun much of that information Just a couple of comments: 1)It was a very simple question that I asked : Are you a creationist or an ID’ist? I figured that you a creationist based on your earlier posts although you don't seem to be too sure about it as in several paragraphs you discount C's & ID'ers and then later on state one of their positions as your own. It appears that you are confused. It also appears that you are a “Young Earth Creationist” – where the interpretation of Genesis 1, days are taken to be 24 hour events and that animals reproduce based on exclusion of evolution. (An Old Earth Creationist is one who believes that the Genesis 1 time frame days are taken as figurative lengths of time, and that time scales, as documented by geologists, are generally correct, but that the creation of man was special and precludes common descent). Personally, I am of the mindset that evolution is a scientific principle – just like gravity, electricity, and is based on the scientific method. Specific tests can be made to determine whether or not the “theory of evolution” has validity. Literally thousands and thousands of these tests have been made – and current theory has passed them all. Religions are based on revelations and cannot be verified using OBJECTIVE tests – and are more concerned about why – and not how. Religious beliefs are generally resistant to change, and typically make claims of exact indisputable accuracy – neither of which, are things that science ever claims (or even strives to achieve). With the possible exception of mathematics, science does not require absolute proof and as it matures, it adapts and/or refines itself, accounting for valid theories that preceded it. For instance, Einstein proposed the theory of relativity and some of Newton’s theory of the laws of physics were replaced and/or refined. But Newton’s theory was based on huge numbers of tests and observations and so Einstein’s theory incorporated (and further validated) Newton’s theories. I do not believe that evolution denies the existence of God – or that he/she/it was not a guiding force behind evolution. The only thing that is denied is the literal interpretations of the Bible – and even though I was brought up in a long line of ancestors that believed that way, I realized long ago that there are actually many different literary styles used in the Bible and the most of them do not lend themselves to a literal reading of the text (parable, simile, metaphor, hyperbole, anthropomorphism, irony). Basically, I don’t see any conflict in what the Bible tells me about God and what science tells me about nature and our planet – it’s a simple as that. Evolution (and science) does not say what is right or wrong – merely what has happened. If one has a belief in a small God, then I can see where that would be a problem. I guess you did not comprehend the part in which made reference to the last election. I was not speaking of religion at all – what I referred to was about Republican policies, however, multiple independent studies have shown that Americans that identify themselves as (dogmatic) Christians has dropped substantially recently (see the tail end of my post #583). There is even a fissure developing (generationally) amongst right-wing Christians (link) to draw back from their obsessions with political change (towards their beliefs). It will be interesting to see what develops as Meghan McCain said that Rep higher ups are scared $hitless and even Steve Schmidt (former McCain campaign manager) stated only a couple weeks ago that painted a rather dire portrait of the state of the Republican Party, arguing that the GOP has largely been co-opted by its religious elements. Whether the fundamentalist right wing can pull back from their culture war on this country could determine whether or not Republicans will be elected in the foreseeable future. In any case, I don't see it that anyone is belittling you for your beliefs - unless you attempt to force your beliefs on them - or to portray them as "the truth" (or as Ranger put it:"If you believe my relationship with God is dependent upon your or any other man's interpretation, I would ask by what measure are you qualified to come between me and God?"). You do realize that when you proclaim "Don't just stand up and shout about truth. Shout The truth" -- that you open yourself to confrontation? You might want to read what I posted in #583 again - you seem to be an example of what I stated in that post. To the best of my knowledge, only evangelical/fundamentalists are the only one's that are, and have been, attempting to force the rest of their culture (society) to adopt their beliefs. When that happens, you can best bet that you are going to come under scrutiny. One's religious beliefs are/should be a private matter -- and kept that way. <that's in response to your Obama reference and the persecution reference> I'll add one last thought that I have come to firmly believe: Christ was crucified, at least partly, for being a modernist and an ethical relativist. If Christ came to live among us in the 21'st century, the so-called 'christian right' would have him crucified again, not because they hate Christ, but because they would not recognize him.

Ahhhh, have you not been paying attention? The dinosaurs entered the analysis when those that thump the Bible as the literal truth failed miserably to deal with question of creationism vs. evolution. The "creationists" demanded proof of evolution (beyond doubt) and, at the same time, tried to force their personal beliefs that Genesis is the ONLY accurate account of the creation of the earth, mankind, and all its life forms. Essentially, they ran into overwhleming proof to the contrary (the fossil record - findings that have been found just in the last century are truly staggering) and in their attempts to locate a valid path to acceptance of creationism (constitutionally – so that it could be taught in schools etc), and in an effort to promote fundamentalist-friendly “science” (even in a world where evolution has extensive proof via the huge fossil record – vs. a total vacuum of any semblance of proof for creationism) in public education and public discussion, fundamentalists launched a “new” interpretation of creationism with an explanation of that it was “Intelligent Design”(ID). Correct if I am wrong, but one of the proponents of ID is that the time element of Genesis may not be taken literally – in terms of 24 hour days (in relation to the everything was created in six 24-hour days – the 7th was for rest). Was it Romney , or was it Huckabee that suggested that in the debates in primaries last year when asked if he believed that humans walked the earth at the same time as dinosaurs? Of course, there wasn’t a follow-up on “how does one decide which parts (of the Bible) to read literally – and which one does not to take literally?”, but then, those poignant follow-ups rarely, if ever, seem to be asked these days. Of course, therein is where the problem lies, as I see it. ID’ers (and even “creationists”) seemingly want to portray themselves as a persecuted minority and, most often, choose offense as their defense, in that they attack anyone that questions (interesting to note that even ID’ers avoid scientific debate like the plague – but insist that their ideas should be used to convince school children instead of having meaning dialogue with scientists who are prepared to rebut and refute evidence) their contentions as atheists, secular, heretics, etc. Very much like what is going on now with all of the charges of socialism, fascism, communists, etc – because their (Rep) ideals have been rejected (overwhelmingly) by the American populace. So which are you? A creationist or a believer in ID?

I don't know, but, somehow I just can't see how the mgmt at GM and, especially Chrysler, can pull it off so that they would be able to put together such a scenario that they would be in position that ". . . the other guys come roaring out of Chapter 11 behind the wheels of finely tuned financial machines" Those last four words just does not fit. That and I keep thinking about the time lost whilst this C11 is going on and how that would delay products that would really be valued in the market place. That's not to say that if either can pull this off, that they wouldn't be a real competitor several years down the line. Even then Ford should have a big head start and should be a profitable company - which is all that is necessary. I don't think that they should even think about ever being #1. If it happens, so be it - but don't make it a goal or even think about it. Regulated growth and build huge reserves for any future downturns. . . don't squander any (like Yoda). Remember GM & Chrysler still would have to overcome the stigma.

Hmmm - that's not being a bleeding heart -- that's just good business. I did the same when I had a couple different businesses - with lots of employees. Depending on what kind of business one is in - it sometimes is real difficult to do that tho' -- ever since 1986 - when things changed drastically in the health insurance industry. In some industries it became more difficult with each year. Every year it became harder and harder to do just that as fewer and fewer of the competition even offered coverage - which puts one in a precarious position in terms of being competitive. But stuff happens and a healthy employee is a better employee and I always bvelieved in taking care of my employees.

So I take it that you don't think that people should be able to go see a doctor at least once a year? Or is that just for those who are well off? Sometimes it is better to go (for certain types of risks for some people) instead of falling for a "drug campaign" - that is often perpetuated by big pharma on our society. If you have young (pre-teen/teen) daughter(s), you might want to watch this and pay attention to the last part (after 7:20). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msoyRYSoSJk

+1 - it's hard to find one that even has the smaller 12 oz ones - unless they are cans - and most seem to have gone to the plastic 16/20 oz variety.

+1 - I wonder if it works - those ribs just outside the road edge lines will "wake" up many if they start to wonder off the pavement.

Whether we like it not, I am afraid that transportation that is used by the masses in the future, in our country, may be very different than what most of us imagine. Trains are going to play a greater part than what we envision, but most of us are resistant to change and want most things to stay just as they are . . . and some would like it to revert to the "good old days" of Ozzie & Harriet. There is very little chance that is going to happen IMO and for those that can adjust their attitudes will enjoy their life more IMO (instead of fighting with the inevitable). A greater use of public transportation is in our future - not for everyone, or every situation (like Ranger driving from Raleigh to W.Va.), but it will be there (where it will impact the greatest amount of peeps). Last year when gas shot through the roof, the commuter trains in So Fla (running north and south from West Palm Beach to Miami) zoomed to capacity over night. It made economic sense to everyone that could use such a service. Not everyone could because of connecting transportation to their jobs or destinations, but people were raving about it as a huge money saver. I remember seeing peeps being interviewed that were looking at gas cost of several hundreds of dollars per month to drive -- or $40-50 per month to use the train. It was very easy to make that decision, I would think. And for those that were smart enough to realize that gas cost is just one of the costs of driving a car . . . well, that made it even easier. It takes a long time to put such a network together and we might as well get started with the best candidates (connecting major cities etc) as shown on the map in post#1. Delaying it just means higher cost.

You might "enjoy" reading this story - if one is into that sort of thing: LINK

One thing for sure is that Honda still has the ability to push the "feel-good" marketing push - about their company (the only other one doing so is Ford IMO) And I am sure that their (Honda's) exec's are damn glad that they have the motorcycle division. . . with profits down 84%

From autoextremist: Rest of the story That seems a tad bit extreme, but then who knows? Personally, I would like to see it cpme about that very few cars are exported and imported. Those conglomerates ought to manufacturer the cars for each area - in that area. For those that push for "free trade" there really isn't any such animal and certainly concerning inter-country trade - IF there exist ANY trade imbalance. We certainly cannot afford any more deficits and it doesn't matter if it is borne out of trade imbalance. It's the only way there will be enough jobs for people to be able to afford cars.

I suppose that if it were done on a stepped transition with a balancing point, it could be beneficial. Stepped transition over time so that everyone can plan - businesses as well as individuals. Balancing point so that instead of huge jumps, like what happened last year (even though the demand at the start of the rapid run up last year didn't exceed supply -- there actually was a surplus) -- that there is more a constant rate (esp if taxes can be adjusted to less if price of a barrel exceeds a certain point, and more if it is less that a certain point). That could have a calming effect on the economy. For instance, in Florida the utility companies are allowed to charge fuel surcharges. Of course, we all know that the fuel surcharge will go up MUCH faster...and stay MUCH longer...and come down MUCH slower than the market price for oil. My fuel charges are greater than the electricity charges - even now that the price of oil dropped months ago. There is another issue in there too and I guess it all falls on whether you trust (and believe the Saudis). If some well-informed experts are right, Saudi Arabia's oil reserves are a fraction of what they've been telling us. Why does it matter? Because everyone has believed for decades that Saudi Arabia's oil supply is virtually unlimited. That's what the Saudis have said over and over again for more than 30 years. According to some, the Saudi's and the top oil experts had a closed door meeting with Pres Geo W. many years ago. One of those experts was the same man that was a consultant to the secretive task force that drew up VP Cheney's energy plan in 2001 and that's basically what was disclosed. Whether that is true - who knows? One thing for sure is that the cheaply acquired oil days are either over, or we are very close, so IMO one would have to be awful trusting (of Saudi's) or delusional that the chance of oil/gas isn't going to rise in the fairly near future. A gas tax (done properly) might be a good way to force people to think about conserving (driving at the speed limit instead of 15-20 mph over) a little and possibly prolong that eventuality (and the possibility that there comes a sudden crisis that everyone would have to deal with again). I do agree that there should more stringent requirements on its (proceeds from tax) usage -- like a user tax -- for things that deal with roads etc and possibly alternative fuel development.

Yeppers . . . that's the way I read it too

I seem to recall that Chapter 11 term is usually 18 months - for re-organizing. Extensions are common tho'. My thoughts on the subject are that the term "quick" is a relative term. Realistically six months would be very, very fast when you consider that in the absence of prearranged concessions (which they have been unable to get so far - within the original 3 month time line and then an additional 3 month extension), this is could drag out for a long time. So for GM all of a sudden be able to gain agreements from creditors to wipe out debts, unions to change contracts, and perhaps dealers to alter franchise agreements is suspect IMO. If those groups (which includes the bond holders in the creditors portion) decided to stick a wrench in the gears of agreements (which so far they have shown an inclination for), and everyone decides that they want to have the court hear them out, then there could be thousands of claims from employees, retirees, parts suppliers, bond holders and others. That could take many months at the very minimum. But then again, it all depends on how they set it up. For instance if they do a couple go-arounds in mediation prior to any court hearings . . . well, then some parties may wise up when they realize that a long drawn out court process is going to cut their actual "take" with legal fees. For instance, bond holders. So far from what I've seen, they don't trust GM mgmt and have refused to take stock in lieu of giving up the debt (like Ford's BH's did - actually jumped at). If they (their lawyers often give them false hope - gee, I wonder why?) think that they are gong to xx% from bankruptcy and then in precourt mediation (which often times has more information available to it than individual negotiations), that is where it often (I have been involved in this process as a creditor) is a slap in the face of reality than your best hoped-for desires -- well, let's just say, it becomes apparent that you way (and your attorneys) over estimated your take and even your worse case scenarios. So if you figured that you are going to get 35%, and then realize that you'll be lucky to get 20% and then figure in that the lawyers will get 30-50% of that -- well, you can do the math. I don't recall ever hearing about real negotiations with the bond holders, other than individually, so they most likely have inflated ideas as to their take. So my guess is that the only way it would be speedy (6 months or less) is if they had all the agreements in advance, or get them in the first go around in mediation. I don't see that happening as as been pointed out here by several, GM's mgmt has not shown that they really know, or even understand, what it is going to take to reorganize/restructure the into a profitable company. As I recall the first step is always an assessment of the value of assets -- which ones are good and which ones are bum. That alone could take months but once that is even clarified/estimated, then those mediation meetings tend to become large doses of reality. Remember that the value of assets is what they can be sold for now - anyone know of anyone in the business that is looking to buy right now (except for a few pennies on the dollar)? Too bad their exec's couldn't get the job done by this time. The further it goes, the less control they will have over their own destiny (not that they have much now).

Basically, the Christian narrative is the story of humankind as chronicled in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament—the drama of creation, fall and redemption. The orthodox tend to try to live their lives in accordance with the general behavioral principles of the Bible (or at least the principles they find there of which they approve) and anticipate the ultimate judgment of God—a judgment that could well determine whether they spend eternity in heaven or in hell. Evangelical Christians have long believed that the United States should be a nation whose political life is based upon and governed by their interpretation of biblical and theological principles. If the church believes drinking to be a sin, for instance, then the laws of the state should ban the consumption of alcohol. If the church believes the theory of evolution conflicts with a literal reading of the Book of Genesis, then the public schools should tailor their lessons accordingly. If the church believes abortion should be outlawed, then the legislatures and courts of the land should follow suit. Fundamentalism in religion is a danger in most societies because Fundamentalist religions regard their missions with great seriousness and show little tolerance for any other religious belief – even though any religious belief is a “blind faith” – in that not one of them can provide any proof of their claims/beliefs. Many claim that the salvation of the world depends on them, and some will seriously contend that the earth will end without them. And this seriousness spans every religion, be it Muslim, Jewish or Christian. It is this overwhelming seriousness about religion that seems to be one of the hallmarks of fundamentalism. A fundamentalist (again, be they Muslim, Jewish, Pentacostal, J.Witness, or Baptist) is concerned not only with his own conformity to doctrine, but the conformity of the rest of society to it, too. Many fundamentalists will not hesitate to intervene in the political process to ensure that society is forced to conform to the behaviors their world-view requires, if not accept that world-view. Is that not what the Taliban (and other Muslim sects) have promulgated? Isn't that also what the so-called evangelical Protestants and Catholics have attempted to do here in our country? Of course it is. Why does fundamentalism have such a broad appeal? Besides the appeal to vanity (“join us and you can be one of God's chosen”), and its appeal to fear (“you can't be saved without us”), its broad appeal is because it offers an easy way -- a fundamentalist need not think deeply about doctrine or be highly educated in it – don’t think – just accept that this (the Bible, the Sharia, the Tora) is indeed the word of God. But recent polls have echoed other polls in that those that define themselves as Christian are on a decline and fewer people now think of the United States as a "Christian nation" than did so when Geo W was president (62 percent in 2009 versus 69 percent in 2008). Two thirds of the public (68 percent) now say religion is "losing influence" in American society, while just 19 percent claim religion's influence is on the rise. The proportion of Americans who think religion "can answer all or most of today's problems" is now at a historic low of 48 percent.

Restrictions? Could be it that they are concerned with restrictions only on one segment of their employees? Good grief, this is a day-by-day soap opera suitable for day-time television (not really unless you're a masochist) "Top officials at Chrysler Financial turned away a government loan because executives didn't want to abide by new federal limits on pay, according to new findings by a federal watchdog agency. "

Oh come on, you are an intelligent person . . . who "paid" for the redistribution of "wealth" to the top for the last 28 years? Many other business owners that I know are finally seeing the light that their own livelihood is severely dependent on the economic health of the middle class - otherwise, their businesses are in serious jeopardy. Even ones that do not "sell" directly to the public (rather bus to bus) are beginning to see that sooner or later the middle class IS their indirect consumer. Haven't figured that out yet, eh?