The Conservative Thread: Back to Basics. Pass the Lasagna and Have a Flower!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michelle, I think she called it a night but, YES, dude got fired! Woo hoo!!!

By the way, you and I were born the same year and you're a grandmother and I own two dogs...what's up with that?!!?

:lmao:

Well, and my sister's name is Debbie. Well, she spells it Debi...but it's Deborah...but anyhow.

Good on the guy getting fired! I don't think I ever saw exactly what he did, but it was clear that she was really upset by it, so I'm thinking he deserved at least firing, if not tar and feathering.
 
I'll bring the feathers!

I'm a 66 model Debbie/Deborah! I tried to change my "name" to deby in fourth grade and my parents said I could live in the tree out back. I decided the tree didn't look good and spelled my name correctly after that. LOL
 
I got this from the Family Research Council
http://www.frc.org/

A number of us were surprised yesterday to hear that Republican Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) was stepping down from his leadership position in the House. Congressman Blunt, widely respected as a man of wisdom and experience, has been a good friend to me and to the family. He was the main architect of several of the GOP's biggest legislative successes this year, including provisions that protect U.S. taxpayers. It is expected that Congressman Eric Cantor (R-Va.) will succeed Blunt as Whip, who we believe would be a good choice. Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) is also stepping aside from the third highest ranking minority position, Republican Conference Chairman, and may well be replaced by a good friend, the well-respected Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.). Finally, there is talk that former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele is in line to take over the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee. Each of these conservatives has shown a commitment to the values that were once the GOP's guiding light. By embracing these leaders, perhaps the Republican Party will rediscover its true voice and return to the fundamental principles that brought it such success.

Thanks for posting, blestmom. So the ninnies in charge seem to want to dig in their heels and cling to Boehner like a rat going down with a ship. Let's see... If over 20% of people I supervised at work were fired over a period of 2+ years, I wonder what would happen to me? Hmm... I know! :idea: I'd be *le gasp* fired too!

Well y'all, I'm off to bed. 8:30am class tomorrow.... blah. I'll check in later.

:grouphug:

Night Soarin!

I'm about to go to bed myself. My soar throat turned into a head cold, yippee. Of course, when I lie down it makes it that much worse. :sad2:
 
:lmao:

Well, and my sister's name is Debbie. Well, she spells it Debi...but it's Deborah...but anyhow.

Good on the guy getting fired! I don't think I ever saw exactly what he did, but it was clear that she was really upset by it, so I'm thinking he deserved at least firing, if not tar and feathering.

I'll bring the feathers!

I'm a 66 model Debbie/Deborah! I tried to change my "name" to deby in fourth grade and my parents said I could live in the tree out back. I decided the tree didn't look good and spelled my name correctly after that. LOL

:rotfl: :rotfl:

I'm a purist, too -- Debbie/Deborah all the way. Teachers always spelled it wrong back in the day [Debi/Debby/Debra????] and it's still spelled wrong most of the time.

Debbie - your parents sound like they are as funny as you are!
 

I'll bring the feathers!

I'm a 66 model Debbie/Deborah! I tried to change my "name" to deby in fourth grade and my parents said I could live in the tree out back. I decided the tree didn't look good and spelled my name correctly after that. LOL

Too funny...I'm a 64 model Deborah!
 
I hear some people say that if McCain had voted "NO" on the bailout, that he would have won. I don't know if he would have won, but my DH was furious at him for voting for the bailout.

What do you think?:confused3

I think it would have helped a LOT if McCain had not only voted against the bailout but if he had very loudly opposed it. We were on a track to win until that happened. That is exactly the moment we lost our shot.
 
:rotfl: :rotfl:

I'm a purist, too -- Debbie/Deborah all the way. Teachers always spelled it wrong back in the day [Debi/Debby/Debra????] and it's still spelled wrong most of the time.

Debbie - your parents sound like they are as funny as you are!

NO... I think they meant it! I can still remember my mom looking at one of my papers where I wrote my name Deby. She was MAD! You didn't cross mom, and if you did, you had to "Wait until your father gets home." That was fate worse than death!

DH and I grew up the same way, in very strict households. We've both combated that by throwing humor into parenthood. It seems to have trickled down into our children. We also spend/ have spent A LOT more time with our kids and their activities than our parents did, while still making them grow to be good citizens, have manners, and be grateful/thankful. I think we moved in the right direction.
 
/
I think it would have helped a LOT if McCain had not only voted against the bailout but if he had very loudly opposed it. We were on a track to win until that happened. That is exactly the moment we lost our shot.

I agree <---this coming from someone who was totally against the first bailout, but is rooting for the big three bailout. I have my regional reasons.
 
I'll bring the feathers!

I'm a 66 model Debbie/Deborah! I tried to change my "name" to deby in fourth grade and my parents said I could live in the tree out back. I decided the tree didn't look good and spelled my name correctly after that. LOL

:lmao: One of my mother's favorite stories is that I went to VBS under an "alias." I really did. Obviously it wasn't "our church" (we actually didn't have one...my parents had different religious upbringings and just didn't do church with us at all), I'd been invited by a neighbor girl to go, and my mother had let me. She went at the end to collect all my little glue and macaroni and bean art, and couldn't find mine anywhere. She finally asked someone, and they said, "OH, Shelly's things are right over here." I NEVER ever went by Shelly. My father wouldn't let anybody call me anything but Michelle. But not only was I "Shelly" at VBS, I gave myself a new last name too. :rotfl2: My mother loves this story...the only six year old ever to go to VBS under an alias.

SD, hope you feel better soon. :hug:
 
Well, check me out!!!

mr3000.jpg


3000 posts, and I only got 10 point deducted from my Good Conduct medal to get it!

I'm like Solomon......or somebody else by that name.....

:)

Swwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetttttt!
 
:lmao: One of my mother's favorite stories is that I went to VBS under an "alias." I really did. Obviously it wasn't "our church" (we actually didn't have one...my parents had different religious upbringings and just didn't do church with us at all), I'd been invited by a neighbor girl to go, and my mother had let me. She went at the end to collect all my little glue and macaroni and bean art, and couldn't find mine anywhere. She finally asked someone, and they said, "OH, Shelly's things are right over here." I NEVER ever went by Shelly. My father wouldn't let anybody call me anything but Michelle. But not only was I "Shelly" at VBS, I gave myself a new last name too. :rotfl2: My mother loves this story...the only six year old ever to go to VBS under an alias.

SD, hope you feel better soon. :hug:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: I can totally see the 6-year-old you doing that!
 
too funny! My oldest, when she was about eight, told the lady down the street that I was her mean step mother because I wouldn't let her spend the night at this person's house. (I didn't approve of many of the things her kids did, then she'd turn around and say someone else did it even though the entire neighborhood saw it!)

One day I got a call saying that my child had thrown dirt in her pool two days before, but she knew I was the step mom so maybe her father would be who she should talk to. (all said very snidely) OHHH My blood was boiling on that one. I let the lady have it over her accusing kids of doing things, let her know that our DD had both her parents in THIS house, and that we were in Disney for the past week so maybe she should look closer to home.

They moved a few years ago and everyone cheered! They only got worse as they got older.
 
I think it would have helped a LOT if McCain had not only voted against the bailout but if he had very loudly opposed it. We were on a track to win until that happened. That is exactly the moment we lost our shot.

I know several people that threw McCain over at that point. He was too much of a RINO but, they were going to hold their noses and vote for him. The "YES" on the bailout was the defining moment.
 
Tink - I should have clarified -- I meant bashing against those who set themselves up as leaders of churches/Christian organizations, then act immorally/unethically. Yes, grace is needed - and I'd love to see it more in churches.
Okay, that makes more sense. :rotfl: I don't think bash, per se, but a solid scolding ought to be administered.

Stop being mean and accusing. Give the poor man a chance to show you how wonderful he is. He is trying to get your mortgage and your gas paid, you ungratious...

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
:rotfl2: I'm ungrateful, too. Where's my check?
 
I agree <---this coming from someone who was totally against the first bailout, but is rooting for the big three bailout. I have my regional reasons.

i was also for the big 3 bailout (for the same reason as you), but i think it's wrong to just throw another 50 billion at them and let them burn it and come back for more in a few months...

one of the things they want the money for is to pay for the health care trusts for retirees...what is that going to do for the health of the big 3?

they have to completely reorganize those companies if they want more money...
if we just give them money as is, it's just throwing good money after bad...

here's an article from yesterday's wall street journal:

Detroit Auto Makers Need More Than a Bailout
By PAUL INGRASSIA

As President-elect Barack Obama prepares to enter the White House, he must ponder what to do about the world's trouble spots: Iran, Iraq, North Korea, the Caucasus. And, oh yes, Detroit.

On Friday, General Motors and Ford announced more multibillion-dollar losses in the third quarter; closely held Chrysler doesn't publicly report results. When GM, which seems in the worst shape, was 45 minutes late releasing its results, rumors spread that a bankruptcy filing was imminent. It wasn't, but the company says it could run out of cash in the first half of next year. Make that the first quarter if the current cash bleed continues. GM is lobbying furiously for emergency federal assistance, with Ford and Chrysler close behind.

Let's assume that the powers in Washington -- the Bush team now, the Obama team soon -- deem GM too big to let fail. If so, it's also too big to be entrusted to the same people who have led it to its current, perilous state, and who are too tied to the past to create a different future.

In return for any direct government aid, the board and the management should go. Shareholders should lose their paltry remaining equity. And a government-appointed receiver -- someone hard-nosed and nonpolitical -- should have broad power to revamp GM with a viable business plan and return it to a private operation as soon as possible.

That will mean tearing up existing contracts with unions, dealers and suppliers, closing some operations and selling others, and downsizing the company. After all that, the company can float new shares, with taxpayers getting some of the benefits. The same basic rules should apply to Ford and Chrysler.

These are radical steps, and they wouldn't avoid significant job losses. But there isn't much alternative besides simply letting GM collapse, which isn't politically viable. At least a government-appointed receiver would help assure car buyers that GM will be around, in some form, to honor warranties on its vehicles. It would help minimize losses to the government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

But giving GM a blank check -- which the company and the United Auto Workers union badly want, and which Washington will be tempted to grant -- would be an enormous mistake. The company would just burn through the money and come back for more. Even more jobs would be wiped out in the end.

The current economic crisis didn't cause the meltdown in Detroit. The car companies started losing billions of dollars several years ago when the economy was healthy and car sales stood at near-record levels. They complained that they were unfairly stuck with enormous "legacy costs," but those didn't just happen. For decades, the United Auto Workers union stoutly defended gold-plated medical benefits that virtually no one else had. UAW workers and retirees had no deductibles, copays or other facts of life in these United States.

A few years ago the UAW even waged a spirited fight to protect the "right" of workers to smoke on the assembly line, something that simply isn't allowed at, say, Honda's U.S. factories. Aside from the obvious health risk, what about cigarette ashes falling onto those fine leather seats being bolted into the cars? Why was this even an issue?

When GM's bond ratings plunged into junk territory a couple years ago the auto maker sold 51% of its financing arm, GMAC, to Cerberus, a private-equity powerhouse. Then last summer Cerberus bought 80% of Chrysler from Daimler for just 25% of what the German company paid for the company a decade earlier. It looked like a great deal at the time, like buying a "fixer upper" house at a steep discount. Until, that is, you have to shell out big bucks to shore up the foundation, repair the leaky roof, etc.

Cerberus tried hard in recent weeks to sell Chrysler to GM, with government financial assistance. Controlling GMAC's lending to GM dealers and customers gave Cerberus enormous leverage at the negotiating table. Cerberus squeezed hard, say industry analysts and insiders, but the GM board balked. Last Friday the companies said the talks were off -- "for the moment," as the company's chief operating officer put it.

For the moment? How about, like, forever? Buying Chrysler would just give GM an excuse to delay the fundamental task of putting its house in order. Management would turn its energy to producing pretty PowerPoint slides with all the requisite buzzwords: synergies, transformation, downsizing, rightsizing and exercising. What's needed, instead, is exorcising.

A thorough housecleaning at GM is the only way to give the company a fresh start. GM is structured for its glory days of the 1960s, when it had half the U.S. car market -- not for the first decade of this century, when it has just over 20% of the market. General Motors simply cannot support eight domestic brands (Cadillac, Buick, Pontiac, Chevrolet, GMC, Saturn, Saab and Hummer) with adequate product-development and marketing dollars. Even the good vehicles the company develops (for example, the Cadillac CTS and Chevy Malibu) get lost in the wash.

Nevertheless, the current board of directors and management have stuck stubbornly to this structure. The lone exception was a dissident director, Jerome B. York, who resigned a couple years ago. He warned that without fundamental changes the "unthinkable" might happen to GM. Well, here we are.

Which brings us back to what the government should do. If public dollars are the only way to keep General Motors afloat, as the company contends, a complete restructuring under a government overseer or oversight board has to be the price.

That is essentially the role played by the federal Air Transportation Stabilization Board in doling out taxpayer dollars to the airlines in the wake of 9/11. The board consisted of senior government officials with a staff recruited largely from the private sector. It was no figurehead. When one airline brought in a lengthy, convoluted restructuring plan, a board official ordered it to come back with something simpler and sustainable. The Stabilization Board did its job -- selling government-guaranteed airline loans and warrants to private investors, monitoring airline bankruptcies to protect the interests of taxpayers -- and even returned money to the government.

As for Ford and Chrysler, if they want similar public assistance they should pay the same price. Wiping out existing shareholders would end the Ford family's control of Ford Motor. But keeping the family in the driver's seat wouldn't be an appropriate use of tax dollars. Nor is bailing out the principals of Cerberus, who include CEO Stephen Feinberg, Chairman John Snow, the former Treasury secretary, and global investing chief Dan Quayle, former vice president.

Government loan guarantees, with stringent strings attached and new management at the helm, helped save Chrysler in 1980. But it's now 2008, 35 years since the first oil shock put Japanese cars on the map in America. "Since the mid-Seventies," one Detroit manager recently told me, "I have sat through umpteen meetings describing how we had to beat the Japanese to survive. Thirty-five years later we are still trying to figure it out."

Which is why pouring taxpayer billions into the same old dysfunctional morass isn't the answer.

Mr. Ingrassia is a former Dow Jones executive and Detroit bureau chief for this newspaper.

Write to Paul Ingrassia at paul.ingrassia@dowjones.com
 
I know several people that threw McCain over at that point. He was too much of a RINO but, they were going to hold their noses and vote for him. The "YES" on the bailout was the defining moment.

That is what I 've been hearing everywhere also. Sooooo many people on this side were ticked at the bailout.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE














DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top