Allahpundit: Have Bailout Opponents Considered the Ramifications of Their Opposition?
Allahpundit on the auto industry bailout:
Is anyone in the GOP leadership weighing the costs of action versus the costs of inaction or are we running on pure dogma here? I keep thinking about Mitch McConnell saying yesterday that he’ll oppose the bailout even though it’s “impossible to know” what the consequences of bankruptcy would be. Hey, Mitch? Not good enough. No one’s asking for absolute certainty on the outcome, which really is impossible; what I want is a good-faith attempt at assessing costs, benefits, and probabilities of all courses of action. If they’re convinced that economic catastrophe is inevitable and don’t want to burn any more taxpayer money trying to deflect the asteroid, that’s fine. If, on the flip side, they think the consequences of letting the Big Three fail and losing a million jobs in this economic climate won’t be that bad, that’s fine too. Both are good reasons to oppose a bailout. But make the case. Explain to me why, in the middle of a global economic crisis, propping up a failing industry to save jobs at least until the crisis is over is a worse option than pulling the plug now. The prospect of being taxed to support a $100 billion rescue of the auto industry is awful, but not nearly as awful as the cascade effect of consumer purchasing power drying up and me losing my job as part of a $500 billion hit to the economy. Is that what we’re looking at here or is it something less, or more? My sense is that both sides are uninterested in exploring the question, and that our side is content to repose religious faith in the divine market to arrive at the least painful solution. Can I at least see some numbers before I take communion?
I have my own take on this. I’m interested in predictions about the numbers, because I think Allahpundit is right: we should have some idea where our actions will lead us. But I’m even more concerned about arguments concerning whether the free market is the way to solve this crisis.
I don’t feel qualified to offer a firm opinion on whether a bailout like this should happen; I felt the same way about the bailout of the financial industry. But I do believe in certain principles.
I’m skeptical of government intervention in economic affairs, because I believe they can lead to unintended consequences that are hard to predict. And I’m generally a believer in free-market principles. The idea is that the free market is the economic system most compatible with freedom, because rather than putting our trust in government to manage the economy, I believe we should trust the collective wisdom of consumers to make whatever decisions are best for them. As those decisions multiply, markets form as if by magic — and (in theory at least) it causes the best businesses to flourish while less useful ones fail. Put simply, a collection of choices, freely made, forms our markets.
At the same time, I’m not 100% “religious” about markets in the sense that Allahpundit means. There are market failures, because what is good for the individual is a) not always best for society as a whole, and b) is often not best for the future of humanity. So I don’t trust markets to protect the environment, for example. (By analogy, similar laissez-faire attitudes in government provide politicians with incentives to grab cash for their districts, without concern for the harm to the country as a whole, or the harm to future citizens caused by increasing debt.)
The question is this: standard free-market dogma says that the Big Three are failing because they aren’t producing cars that people want, for the prices that people want to pay. And if they’re not doing that, they need to fail, so that something better can take their place.
Is there a reason that outlook is wrong? I tend to think it’s not, but if someone wants to argue that it’s a market failure, I’m open to listening.
As for the numbers, I’m quite sure they would indicate that inaction would lead to extreme short-term economic pain. When businesses fail, it’s always tough; when big businesses fail, it’s tougher.
But what’s the alternative? Prop up businesses who aren’t properly meeting demand and turning over power to a “car czar”? (Shades of the Soviet Union.) If it takes some short-term pain to avoid that, then maybe we need some short-term pain.
My preference: let them fail if they’re going to, but work on training the workers who are hurt by it for new jobs, and relocate them if necessary.
This gets us the economic benefit of allowing companies which deserve to fail to do so, while mitigating the effect on the people who will be hurt by it.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 12/12/2008 @ 1:15 pmAssuming facts not in evidence: where’s the support for a million lost jobs and a $500 billion hit to the economy?
Of course GM, Ford and Chrysler, their unions, suppliers and dealers and Democratic allies are going to peddle that number, it’s in their interest to make the cost of not bailing them out as high as possible. But just because they use numbers with no support doesn’t mean that the rest of us are obligated to play by the same numbers.
For example, those numbers assume that ALL car manufacturing shuts down, not just Ford, Chrysler and GM. But why presume that? Heck, why presume that even Detroit will shut completely down, that they won’t keep factories open that make cars people will buy? And that flawed model also presumes that all workers sit on their duff, with none of them finding work anywhere else. Possible? Likely? Maybe, but not a given.
And it’s not that my side (the anti-side) is uninterested in exploring the number, they key is that no one has a way of knowing. All anyone can do is throw numbers into a computer and see what comes out, and like what happens with climate control models, the output is going to reflect the assumptions factored into the model.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 12/12/2008 @ 1:26 pmMake them seek Chapter 11 protection instead. Chapter 11 was designed for situations such as this. The “Big Three” does not want to go into Chapter 11 because they will have to expose too much to the Bankruptcy Court and might end up under receivership if they try to play games with the Bankruptcy Court. Under Chapter 11, the company will survive but the management may be replaced.
longwalker (dda662) — 12/12/2008 @ 1:30 pmThe Democrat’s bailout of the UAW does nothing to make the Big 3 viable businesses. Bankruptcy reorganization will.
That’s the bottom line.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/12/2008 @ 1:38 pmBankruptcy courts deal with these problems everyday. The scale may be different (although the airlines and Texaco were big cases, too) but the problems are the same no matter how big the business is. There are several issues but here are a few:
DRJ (b4db3a) — 12/12/2008 @ 1:45 pmIn your calculus, remember that “investing” $25-$100 billion in these failing car companies is removing $25-$100 billion of capital from other companies thereby reducing their ability to hire more employees, raise wages, provide benefits, etc.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 12/12/2008 @ 1:47 pmNot to mention, Perfect Sense, that the bailout is in no sense an “investment” at all. The money goes to the Big 3’s high operating burn rate. The funds build no capital assets at all, no factories, no machinery, zipola.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/12/2008 @ 1:49 pmMy sense is that both sides are uninterested in exploring the question, and that our side is content to repose religious faith in the divine market to arrive at the least painful solution. Can I at least see some numbers before I take communion?
What happened to United and Continental Airlines in bankruptcy ? Well, here is some of it.
Feb. 13, 2003 — United says it intends to shift 30% of its U.S. capacity to a new low-cost carrier to compete with Southwest Airlines and other discount carriers.
April 21, 2003 — United starts charging for meals on flights.
May 1, 2003 — New labor contracts go into effect reducing labor costs by $2.56 billion annually for six years.
Feb. 12, 2004 — United launches its new Denver-based discount carrier, Ted.
June 28, 2004 — United loses third and final try for a government loan guarantee, forcing it to seek new financing.
Aug. 19, 2004 — United says in a bankruptcy filing that it likely will terminate and replace its employee pension plans.
Oct. 6, 2004 — United cuts domestic flight capacity by 12% and increases international capacity 14% amid intensifying discount-carrier competition in U.S. and more lucrative routes internationally.
Nov. 4, 2004 — CEO Glenn Tilton says record-high fuel costs mean United has no choice but to eliminate pensions and cut wages further to gain an additional $2 billion in reductions.
May 10, 2005 — Bankruptcy Judge Eugene Wedoff approves United’s plan to terminate employee pensions, clearing the way for the largest corporate-pension default in American history.
July 21, 2005 — United completes second round of negotiated labor cuts in bankruptcy, adding another $700 million in annual labor savings.
How did they get there ? In 1989, to avoid salary cuts and other cost saving measures by management, the pilots union led an employee buyout. That avoided the pain and kicked the can down the road by 13 years. They eventually lost their pensions and maybe, if they had allowed management to cut costs in 1989, they would have their pensions today.
What we have now with Detroit is the same plan, avoid the short term pain by subsidizing the losing business plan for a few more years. Unfortunately, the UAW is not offering to buy the company. They want the taxpayers to do it.
I don’t think it will work and I think our greatest risk is massive inflation once all this printed money gets going in circulation. The people who got us here, Franks and Dodd and the rest, will be in charge of the bailout. That certainly is promising, don’t you think ?
Here is another discussion of the consequences of a bankruptcy.
MIke K (ee3203) — 12/12/2008 @ 1:53 pmUnder normal circumstances, I might be willing to tolerate the idea that the free market way may not be the method to set the economy aright. But with cryptosocialist ideologues who say “You never want to see a good crisis go to waste” and who promised “fundamental transformation” of the nation waiting to receive the baton, forget about it.
L.N. Smithee (9c1fce) — 12/12/2008 @ 1:53 pmThis was a stupid question on Allah’s part. Nobody ever thinks about the consequences of their policy positions, EVAH!!!!
What evidence is there that the current proposals are anything more than a temporary bandaid? I haven’t seen any compelling evidence from the supporters of the bailout that it is the right thing to do.
I think the government should consider lending the money to Toyota, Nissan and Honda to expand their U.S. production facilities instead of giving it to the Big 3. Heck, they could even buy plants from the Big 3, but they probably wouldn’t want to without clean slates on labor and management. Those carmakers can decide whether or not to hire UAW member on their own terms and parts suppliers can retool if they want to meet the terms and conditions of the foreign manufacturers.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/12/2008 @ 2:00 pmTo quote today’s NRO editorial “Telling Detroit No”
The “Big 3” are not the entire auto industry in America. Their complete liquidation wouldn’t end the auto industry here. And bankruptcy reorganization is really the only chance they have turning back into viable companies. Otherwise the “bailout” is just going to fund the never ending burn rate of the “Big 3”, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars a year.
LarryD (feb78b) — 12/12/2008 @ 2:15 pmLet’s call it by the correct name. This is a bail out of the UAW, not the Big 3.
And the greed of the UAW shot the “bailout” down.
JerryT (47be52) — 12/12/2008 @ 2:19 pmReagan: there are simple answers, but there are no easy answers. WWRRD? (What would Ronald Reagan do?) My guess is bailout, but only after driving a very hard bargain on union concessions, so that the automakers had a chance to compete and thrive. And he would explain with great clarity to the American public why both the bailout and concessions were the right choice.
Bud Norton (29550d) — 12/12/2008 @ 2:19 pmThe automakers are only the most obvious example right now. Here’s somebody who thinks the banks bailout is stupid.
“Without giving specific names, most of the significant American banks, the larger banks, are bankrupt, totally bankrupt,” said Rogers, who is now a private investor.
“What is outrageous economically and is outrageous morally is that normally in times like this, people who are competent and who saw it coming and who kept their powder dry go and take over the assets from the incompetent,” he said. “What’s happening this time is that the government is taking the assets from the competent people and giving them to the incompetent people and saying, now you can compete with the competent people. It is horrible economics.”
I agree.
Mike K (ee3203) — 12/12/2008 @ 2:40 pmNo on the bailout, mostly because our financial institutions are true “utilitarian” systems which cannot fail, at least not if we hope to allow the rest of the free market to implement the necessary disinfectant. While I have great distaste for the reality of bailing out kleptomanics like the goons who ran AIG into the ground, they have more importance than the auto industry does at this point in time. As Mike reiterated regarding the UAL history, the UAW deserves what it gets in this scenario.
Dmac (e30284) — 12/12/2008 @ 2:43 pmI’m in the process of starting up a small auto company and my success will only be possible as the failed and obsolete companies go out of business. If the government is going to prop up the failed companies, I won’t be able to get my non-nationalized venture off the ground.
The ramifications are wonderful if failure is allowed to fail and success is allowed to succeed. If I’m not allowed to realize my American Dream because of deals between my competition and the government, then god damn America. They are even using my money to screw me over.
jcurtis (9b1ea9) — 12/12/2008 @ 2:44 pmThe one piece of the puzzle that I believe Pat is getting at is the subsidies that the Korean and Japanese carmakers enjoy. How can we factor that cost benefit into any future cost structure in the U.S.? If we don’t we have the same problem we have today – fundamentally uncompetitive costs. Do y’all really think Toyota can manufacture a Camry and make a profit at price points under $20K absent subsidy?
Boy, do I hate accepting a union argument, but they are absolutely correct when they scream about the trade agreement cost imbalances.
Having said that, the only hope the Detroit Three have is to lop off all of their legacy costs and to bring their operational costs online with the factories in right-to-work states.
Finally, so long as the suppliers are paid in the Chapter 11 proceedings, I am convinced that the massive job losses forecast simply will not happen. Going forward, the suppliers are actually a part of the solution. Detroit is already enjoying the same costs that the other non-Detroit carmakers have.
Bottom line: a 10-20% job loss, but not the 35% + the socialists would have us believe. Followed by a reinvigorated domestic car industry that will kick some serious bootay.
Ed (f063fd) — 12/12/2008 @ 2:46 pmAt least one ramification should be the end of Republican complaints about misuse of the filibuster for at least a generation.
There was a link in one of yesterday’s posts to the NYT story regarding how precarious the position of many of the parts suppliers actually is. It should be noted that these suppliers supply not only the Big 3, but also the domestic foreign car plants and that all are going to be seriously affected if they start going down….
I also think there needs to be more discussion/focus on Japan & Korea’s auto trade restrictions.
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 12/12/2008 @ 2:48 pmI agree with SPQR. The issue is that the Big3 business model is not working. Giving them $15B now without forcing them to restructure their business is insane. They will burn through that money and then need more.
The problem is not that they cannot sell cars, they just lose money on them.
GenM 2007 NA Sales: 9.369M Vehicles
Toyota 2007 NA Sales: 9.366M Vehicles
GM Edges Toyota in 2007 Sales
GM 2007 Income: $-1.1B
GM Reports Loss for 2007
Toyota 2007 Income: $+13.9B
Toyota 2007 Investor Report
Selling more cars means more loss. That needs to be fixed.
DetroitRhino (4e4404) — 12/12/2008 @ 2:56 pmUAW workers DO cost Big3 $70/hr
As someone who actually has stepped into a bankruptcy court representing clients, I can say that the process is not always that easy; a lot depends on the quality of the judge.
The real problem for GM and Chrysler is that there is no debtor-in-possession financiers likely to take the risk of funding through Chapter 11.
One of the academics who testified before Congress stated that the companies should enter bankruptcy but that the US should provide the DIP financing. It also would give the “Car Czar” or Treasury secretary some leverage in the restructuring.
Cyrus Sanai (aa741d) — 12/12/2008 @ 3:01 pmDon’t you think a bankruptcy judge would be appointed just to handle GM’s case? I would expect it to be a judge on senior status with experience handling Chapter 11s and probably experience handling a large case.
DRJ (b4db3a) — 12/12/2008 @ 3:04 pmEd @2:46pm
If we are to believe the UAW worker=$70/hr contention, those legacy costs have already been accrued in previous years. Now if the legacy funds have been underfunded or outright looted, that is a whole other accounting issue.
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 12/12/2008 @ 3:05 pmCyrus,
If a Car Czar is needed, the judge can appoint a Trustee instead of letting it proceed as a DIP. However, I like the idea of the government providing DIP financing, but only if gap financing is unavailable. FWIW I think it will be available.
DRJ (b4db3a) — 12/12/2008 @ 3:09 pmbut they are absolutely correct when they scream about the trade agreement cost imbalances.
That’s only a small part of the problem here – when given the opportunity, Congress has always sided with the UAW in every potential showdown with management. That, in turn, led to the hopelessly ineffective CAFE rules, which led to Detroit not being able to make money on anything other than their SUV’s, which conveniently Congress allowed to skirt under those same CAFE requirements. They have to blow up the industry in order to help it survive, and not even Volcker can save them at this piont.
Dmac (e30284) — 12/12/2008 @ 3:14 pmBob – If the legacy costs are factored in, it is $105/Hr/current employee. The $75 vs. $48 cost is for current operational costs, excluding legacy costs.
You are correct to question the ongoing legacy costs. As you alluded, the companies have failed to fund the legacy (retirement) costs. They put everything off. So, the cost today is far more than it would otherwise have been. On the other hand, if the retirement costs had been paid for along the way, market share would have plummeted further than they have. Would Americans have paid an extra few thousand/car against the import offerings?
Ed (f063fd) — 12/12/2008 @ 3:35 pm“Having said that, the only hope the Detroit Three have is to lop off all of their legacy costs and to bring their operational costs online with the factories in right-to-work states.”
I wish I could just lop off the ‘legacy costs’ of my house. Ie, my mortgage.
imdw (7c85b9) — 12/12/2008 @ 3:54 pmSo, absent hard numbers and certainty we are not allowed to let big businesses fail? What about the pernicious and chronic depletion of non-UAW Americans’ incomes due to the policies that got us here, i.e. CAFE and collective bargaining law? If the leg has gangrene—cut it off! It may be painful but it is foolish and short-sighted to think we have not been paying a high price in lost jobs and lost income all along. The costs of propping them up will always exceed the costs of letting them fail. But, no matter, nothing can be done if it threatens Allahpundit’s job!
hoglet (d63e2b) — 12/12/2008 @ 4:03 pmAlso, if we prop them up now, when do we let them fail? The answer, of course, is never.
“Selling more cars means more loss. That needs to be fixed.
UAW workers DO cost Big3 $70/hr”
That link counts the employer’s share of payroll taxes as a “benefit”
imdw (1d0ada) — 12/12/2008 @ 4:04 pmLeveraging Billion Dollar Connections In Congress
For Chrysler, if the bailout was Structured effectively, the Cerberus share position would be rendered irrelevent.
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/12/leveraging-billion-dollar-connections.html
The Deal Structure is always, always the key.
James Raider (1679cd) — 12/12/2008 @ 4:19 pmI wonder what imdw thinks the employer’s share of payroll taxes is.
Karl (eacece) — 12/12/2008 @ 4:20 pmAs a guy working for a financial institution currently seeking TARP assistance, and which is affiliated with two of the Big Three, I’m personally conflicted on this issue too many ways to count. That said, the biggest difference for me between TARP and the auto industry bailout is that financial institutions and utilities are one thing, and everything else is another. If an unregulated insurance company goes belly up, voilà, your insurance policy just became worthless. If an unregulated bank, not a member of the FDIC goes under, there went your life’s savings. And if the institutions don’t go under but none will lend to anybody, that’s basically the equivalent of everyone’s power going out at once. But if the Big Three all went bankrupt, my Chevys and my dad’s Chrysler would still run just fine, and your Ford still wouldn’t.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/12/2008 @ 4:43 pmSorry Ed, that’s just bad accounting. The Big 3 are either accruing for future legacy costs or they aren’t – you can’t have it both ways.
The $70/hr wage cost that seems to be generally accepted is the cost of a current worker’s wages (approx. $30-$35/hr avg.), plus current benefits (health care etc. – certainly NOT $35/hr), plus their future retirement & health care coverage (i.e. their legacy cost). That means that all current retired employees have already had the costs of their retirement and health care costs accrued over the span of their working lives – the only current “costs” on the books would be if those legacy costs had been under-accrued (which is possible given the dramatic increase in health care costs, but it shouldn’t be a huge amount). Now if the companies did not set aside adequate cash for the legacy costs they were accruing, you can end up with a cash flow problem (but that’s balanced against current accrual cash funding), but it doesn’t magically end up back on the books – or for the purpose of the current discussion, added to the “costs” of per unit car production or per hour labor cost.
What’s missing from the equation (for me anyway) is what the foreign car producers provide for their workers for the $45-$48/hr figure that I see widely used. Do they provide health care coverage and pension benefits? How much of that figure is current wages? I’m not quite sure what the benefit difference between the two workforces is.
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 12/12/2008 @ 4:54 pmXrlq, the discussion of the auto-bailout that I’ve been trying to follow is whether allowing the Big 3 to fail will push the current recession into a full blown depression. Unfortunately, of course, all anyone can offer up is complete speculation. Is putting up $15-$30-$50 billion now to put off a potential depression worth the price? At that cost how long are we actually putting off that possibility? That is the nub of the question for me.
And yep, the pontiac is running fine 😉
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 12/12/2008 @ 5:13 pmXRLQ,
I agree, plus you made me laugh. That makes it a win-win comment in my book.
DRJ (b4db3a) — 12/12/2008 @ 5:17 pmSome of the numbers Allah wants, from his own headlines:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWQzNzExYzI2ZDY1ZDhlYzk5ZmNlMzE0N2Y1OGFiNmY=
Anwyn (a130c1) — 12/12/2008 @ 5:33 pmSilly me I always thought that the onus was on the people proposing to spend huge-a$$ sums of public monies to do the legwork of explaining why the benefits will outweigh the costs. And, failing to do so, such proposals should be DOA.
Apparently I’m wrong. It’s up to the opponents to “make the case” for *not* spending large-a$$ sums of public monies on… whatever. Which is fascinating.
Sonic Charmer (8c1456) — 12/12/2008 @ 5:35 pmAllahpundit:
I don’t think market solutions are the least painful options. If anything, they may be more painful in the short-run, precisely because the cure is compressed into a shorter period of time. The reason it’s still a good solution is that it’s more likely to be effective and it’s relatively quick.
Addressing the problem is going to hurt. Period. The choices are between a 10+ year government-sponsored solution or a 3-to-5 year tax-cuts & market solution. The former was what happened in the US during the Depression and in Japan in the 90’s. The latter is what Reagan implemented in 1980 in response to the Stagflation of the Carter years.
In an interesting footnote, Congress helped bail out Chrysler in 1979 during the Carter Administration as we experienced what Carter termed a national economic malaise. The Carter years saw unemployment increase dramatically, especially in the rustbelt of the Midwest, and by the early 1980’s business bankruptcies had doubled to levels unseen since the Depression. However, with the Reagan tax cuts, the US economy essentially recovered by the mid-80’s to the point that Encyclopedia.com described the 1980’s as a period remembered as “pleasant and prosperous.”
DRJ (b4db3a) — 12/12/2008 @ 6:01 pmHere’s another link that illustrates that NOBODY knows what would happen in the absence of a bailout. I in particular like the line “A bankruptcy filing by General Motors Corp. or Chrysler LLC MIGHT send the U.S. economy into chaos within weeks IF it led to a shutdown at the companies“. (emphasis mine). Sure, it MIGHT do that, or it might not. Sure, it MIGHT lead to a total shutdown or it might NOT. Obviously, the automakers and their allies have an interest in painting as dire a picture as possible, what is surprising and disappointing is that nobody is calling them on it (as an aside, just as very few people are taking on the global warming alarmists). Don’t opponents know that you can’t let your opposition control the message?
steve sturm (3811cf) — 12/12/2008 @ 6:17 pmAt least one ramification should be the end of Republican complaints about misuse of the filibuster for at least a generation.
I don’t know what this sentence means but the complaints about the use of the filibuster concerned using it in the “advice and consent” function of the Senate with appointments of judges, rather than legislation. I think that was a valid concern. You apparently don’t or else you don’t know what you are talking about. Either is possible.
MIke K (ee3203) — 12/12/2008 @ 6:55 pmI see Allahpundit is having the same questions I’m having about you guys. You want us to believe in your faith, yet you demand stupid GOPers like me back up your faith when the chips are down and the crapstorm is coming at you.
At what point does responsibility take root with the average conservative pundit?
Brad S (b5b919) — 12/12/2008 @ 8:33 pmMike K: Well I guess we’ll see in the new year if the Republican Senators refrain from filibustering the “advice and consent” function. But I will admit I had always considered the filibuster to be designed to be used in matters of principle. When it is used simply because the UAW, who had already made concessions and agreed to wage parity with non-union auto producers within three years, refused to a further compromise that parity be reached by next year, I hardly consider that a principled position.
I must also admit, that I kinda like the irony of seeing the party that desires less government interference, filibustering over their inability to reset the terms of an employer’s contract with its employees to their own satisfaction.
For those interested, I found the information I was looking for on wages and benefits of the domestic foreign manufacturers: Here. It also seems that $70/hour UAW figure may be a little outdated at this point.
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 12/12/2008 @ 8:34 pmBob Loblaw,
If it’s not a matter of principle, why didn’t the UAW give? After all, it was only 3 years …
DRJ (b4db3a) — 12/12/2008 @ 8:58 pm“I must also admit, that I kinda like the irony of seeing the party that desires less government interference, filibustering over their inability to reset the terms of an employer’s contract with its employees to their own satisfaction.”
Bob – There’s no irony if you see it from the perspective of wanting to see that government interference actually be successful. Must knowledgeable observers agree that without competitive labor costs, the Big 3 can’t be successful. There’s no irony, just a desire not to waste taxpayer money, but it’s not unusual for you to try to color it that way.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/12/2008 @ 9:23 pm“I see Allahpundit is having the same questions I’m having about you guys.”
Brad S. – Allah is not a member of the purity patrol.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/12/2008 @ 9:24 pmI think the market is going to ‘shutdown the companies’ no matter what the Washingtonians say.
Unions mean less work – except for government and health care where virtual monopolies prevail. Competition means adding a union worker ‘benefit’, giving the non-union producer a cost advantage. It’s so simple a 5th grader and about half the Democrats can get it.
When folks talk about foreign subsidies, does that mean the government of Japan is paying for the retirements of American workers? Really? Or is the whole argument a false one, comparing Japan built apples to American built oranges?
East Bay Jim (802704) — 12/12/2008 @ 9:29 pm“If an unregulated insurance company goes belly up, voilà, your insurance policy just became worthless.”
Xrlq – There ain’t no such thing as an unregulated insurance company doing business, at least not legally. You should know that.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/12/2008 @ 9:33 pm“Is there a reason that outlook is wrong?”
The competition that the Big 3 is losing out to are subsidized by their government and benefits from their government’s willingness fix it currency. We are not rewarding the best producer. We are rewarding the better Corporate/Government team up.
But even if that wasn’t the case, the US needs its own industrial base for reasons of national security. Most US industry has been crushed, and the auto industry represents the last big block of it. If it fails, so does US steel and so does the same infrastructure that supports our peacetime defense manufacturers.
And in another time, the auto companies were our wartime defense manufactures because only they had the mass production capability and know how. Are we all so sure the next big war we are involved in will be a 5 minute war? Because the number one lesson about war is that the war you expect is not the war you get.
jpm100 (b48b29) — 12/12/2008 @ 9:42 pmBut even if that wasn’t the case, the US needs its own industrial base for reasons of national security. Most US industry has been crushed, and the auto industry represents the last big block of it. If it fails, so does US steel and so does the same infrastructure that supports our peacetime defense manufacturers.
With that argument, these companies can become as pathetic as possible and it still argues for continued bailouts for eternity. They can triple wages and salaries and the argument doesn’t lose any steam.
In other words, it’s a bullshit argument. If these three companies go out of business, why won’t three new fresh start American automakers appear in their place? Be careful, you might sink your own ship by answering that one.
And in another time, the auto companies were our wartime defense manufactures because only they had the mass production capability and know how. Are we all so sure the next big war we are involved in will be a 5 minute war?
There you go again. You can make this argument after the twentieth bailout and after wages are increased to one thousand dollars an hour and CEO salaries are increased to one billion dollars a year.
jcurtis (c1e05a) — 12/12/2008 @ 10:18 pmDRJ:
Because for a union, its members’ wages is absolutely a matter of principle – that’s kinda their whole raison d’etre. For the Republican Senators this was simply politics:
Now I realise that most on the right have a natural aversion to all things union, but really think of the implications. Members of your own government are obstructing a majority of the Senate from providing a bailout strictly in order to reduce the wages your employer is prepared to pay you – and they are doing it for political reasons.
Daleyrocks: Check the Reuters link in my post above, the UAW workers aren’t far off parity now. If it’s a matter of cost cutting now to gain competetiveness, I suggest they drop their lobbyists…and maybe some of the stupider chunks of their management.
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 12/12/2008 @ 10:37 pm“The competition that the Big 3 is losing out to are subsidized by their government and benefits from their government’s willingness fix it currency.”
jpm – Can you be specific about those subsidies please?
Also what % of content in Hondas, Nissans and Toyotas produced in the U.S. is imported versus produced here?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/12/2008 @ 10:39 pm“If it’s a matter of cost cutting now to gain competetiveness, I suggest they drop their lobbyists…and maybe some of the stupider chunks of their management.”
Bob – When the UAW is still talking about buyout to get to parity, it means they haven’t gotten the message. I understand leadership talking tough for the benefit of the membership, but when a parasite kills it’s host, the parasite dies as well. I think the UAW understands what a judge can do to their labor contracts in bankruptcy, so it is just brinksmanship on their part.
Suggesting a cut in lobbying activities is bold move, Bob. I’m sure that is almost as big a cost component as organized labor for the Big 3. As for management cuts, why not add them up over the past few years, I believe they are substantial.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/12/2008 @ 10:52 pmI should reiterate, I’m not entirely sold on the bailout either. As I stated upthread I see it primarily as a timing issue – it may be worth spending $15 billion now just to avoid the collapse until we get some footing under us from the current financial crisis. I don’t disagree with Jcurtis, that something will likely grow in its place – but when? You can’t get cash flowing in the current crisis.
Certainly their is $15 billion worth of equity in the firms that can be recouped?
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 12/12/2008 @ 10:54 pmDaley, Shouldn’t it be the businesses that determine where they’ll cut their costs – instead of a minority of the government?
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 12/12/2008 @ 11:05 pm“Daley, Shouldn’t it be the businesses that determine where they’ll cut their costs – instead of a minority of the government?”
Bob – If the business is demanding a government bailout shouldn’t the party providing the money set the terms? What’s tough to understand about that?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/13/2008 @ 12:37 amI’m impressed how many here see the value of the bankruptcy process. I agree. I strongly encourage each of you to write to President Bush, your Congressman and two Senators. Here is the letter I wrote:
Dear President Bush,
Please consider the following “bail-out” approach in future actions designed to help the general economy. I feel this plan successfully addresses all the issues that should drive any plan.
1. It must actually help get the economy back to normal levels of activity.
2. It should not (to the extent possible) assist people who were irresponsible/reckless at the expense of those who were prudent.
3. It should minimize the added control/influence the government exercises over free market activities.
4. Dealing with businesses: It should cause resolution of business problems for the long run, rather than allowing businesses to get by without fixing the problems.
My plan has two components:
1. A general effort to stimulate normal levels of economic activity.
2. Assistance to specific businesses in distress.
General effort to stimulate normal levels of economic activity:
More disposable income must be placed in the hands of the citizens. A certain amount of this extra money would be just saved or used to pay down debt, but some would certainly be used for transactions that wouldn’t have otherwise taken place. All of these uses would benefit the economy.
I believe a “tax holiday” is an excellent way to do this. It could be modified somewhat by dispensing a floor amount so that even those who don’t normally pay taxes would have some extra money available. The tax revenue not collected during this tax holiday would be offset by reductions in the TARP funds (assuming that this plan would reduce the need for TARP).
This would successfully satisfy the first three points listed above. It is particularly good because it keeps the power in the hands of the citizens making spending decisions, rather than with a few bureaucrats who decide who “wins” and who “loses”. Also, prudent people would benefit as much as or more than those who were reckless, thus avoiding the “moral hazard” problem.
Assistance to specific businesses in distress:
No one wants to see businesses fail. However, assistance to businesses must be prudent, given in cases where a business has a reasonable chance to meet future challenges by making necessary adjustments. The proper mechanism for this process is bankruptcy for the purposes of reorganization. The bankruptcy procedures have been refined over many decades to effectively deal with distressed businesses. Allowing a bail out without going through the steps of bankruptcy allows a business to circumvent steps that should be taken to heal that business, allowing problems to be ignored instead of confronted. Another advantage of requiring the bankruptcy path is a reduction in the number of businesses that will ask for a bail-out. Only businesses that have problems serious enough that they are willing to go into bankruptcy would be asking for a bail-out.
“Bail-out” funds from the government should only be given to a business if it has gone into bankruptcy, followed all the normal steps of a bankruptcy, and devised a plan of survival (the plan might include the need for “bail-out” funds). The government would then decide whether the plan looks viable, how much government funding would be needed, and under what terms it would be provided. All funds would be expected to be eventually recovered with reasonable interest or appreciation, and any bail-out agreement would be structured accordingly.
In order to prevent the problem of the government choosing winners and losers in selecting which bankruptcy plans to support and fund, institutional investors and venture capital outfits could be enlisted to take a portion of the “action”. If private sector investors were willing to invest in a bankruptcy plan, then the government would approve “bail-out” participation by the government on the same terms.
An extremely important concept in any business bail-out agreement would be that the government would have absolutely no control over management after the agreement was signed (other than the legitimate interest that the business comply with the terms of the agreement). The point is, a bail-out agreement should never dictate details of the business such as what kind of car to build, in the case of an auto manufacturer. If the government is allowed to manage businesses, it will destroy the very free market that made the USA so successful. No matter how bad one thinks the management of a business has been, government management would be worse (except in cases of management fraud where the managers should go to jail and be replaced by private sector executives hired by the business the regular way).
I believe these strategies will help solve the problem, and avoid following a path that effectively nationalizes some of our industries.
Thanks for considering my thoughts.
Ken in Camarillo (aa2192) — 12/13/2008 @ 1:52 am52
I don’t disagree with Jcurtis, that something will likely grow in its place – but when?
Consider this. Bush is talking about using 15 billion of the bank money as a temporary relief for the 3 companies. You could divide that money into three piles and give three random people on the street 5 billion each and tell them to start their own auto companies while letting the three failed companies go under. GM stock is worth 2 billion total. Loblaw Motors would buy up all of GM’s manufacturing plants and dealerships and hire their best and brightest. All the good is kept and the crap is tossed aside. Curtis Motors would do the same with Ford, etc.
jcurtis (54b520) — 12/13/2008 @ 2:38 am#55 – A tax holiday? Too Newtish. Too diffuse.
Rather than bailing out banks and auto firms from the top down, try the fix from the bottom up. Builds a good foundation. Establish 2 debit accounts. One for every American with a SS# over 18 and/or one registered automobile and another for every American over 18 with a SS# for bank debt relief. Have Paulson’s Treasury boys funnel $25,000 into each account. Let individual Americans purchase only a GM, Chrysler or Ford vehicle through the account and bank/credit card/mortgage debt with the other. That way, the American public controls the recovery and the funds go directly to the problem. Only the Southern conservative senators would complain.
No matter what, the auto industry will not be selling much product in 2009, especially with banks buying other banks with TARP funds rather than lending it out.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/13/2008 @ 3:06 amI look at it from an optimistic viewpoint.
If these companies go out of business, then Toyota and Nissan and Honda of America will have a trained work force of 1 million people to choose from, and an incentive to expand.
otcconan (d6afba) — 12/13/2008 @ 6:45 amI’m waiting for the bailout proponents to show me a government intervention that actually worked.
DCSCA
That is ridiculous. Look at the fraud in the Katrina giveaway and multiply that by a factor of 10,000. The whole bailout plan is throwing good money after bad. Are we all Socialists now?
One more thing, we’re asking a Congress with an approval rating lower than Bush’s to fix problems they helped cause. Wake up people!!
Bill M (217373) — 12/13/2008 @ 7:07 am#41 But I will admit I had always considered the filibuster to be designed to be used in matters of principle. When it is used simply because the UAW, who had already made concessions and agreed to wage parity with non-union auto producers within three years, refused to a further compromise that parity be reached by next year, I hardly consider that a principled position.
The UAW doesn’t plan wage parity anytime. They are buying time to avoid it:
Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama all house auto assembly plants from foreign automakers, and union officials contend the senators want to drive UAW wages down so there would be no reason for workers at the foreign plants to join the union.
The UAW, and maybe you, Bob, don’t seem to understand that, if the Big Three don’t get their house in order before 2011, there will be no jobs to argue about. In fact, I am convinced that the plan is for the federal government to subsidize the industry for as long as it takes. That would be decades, as I see it.
Mickey Kaus, gets it better than you do.
Under the Wagner Act, management manages. What the union does is complain, and negotiate for a rule limiting management’s right to do what the union doesn’t like. A worker protests that his job should be classified as “drilling special and heavy” instead of “drilling general.” The parties butt heads, a decision is reached, and a new rule is deposited like another layer of sediment. At some GM plants, distinct job categories evolved for each spot on the assembly line (e.g., “headlining installer”). In Japanese auto plants, where they spend their time building cars instead of creating job categories, there is only one nonsupervisory job classification: “production.”
Yes, faced with successful Japanese rivals, Detroit and its union have been trying to reduce the number of work rules–but the process has been slow, like pulling teeth, especially because the UAW defers to its locals, New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn:
“Ford led the way years ago by reaching site-specific “competitive operating agreements” with locals at different plants, rather than sticking to one national agreement.”
Cohn’s trying to put the best face on things. But of course it would be much simpler to wipe out work rules in one national agreement–if Ford could do it. Thanks to the UAW’s structure, it has to negotiate plant-by-plant. Who’s going to win the race–Ford, or a foreign carmaker that can set up a factory in a green field and not have to deal with any of the UAW’s preexisting work-rule chazerai?
Sorry, this is a race the UAW can’t win unless they succeed in getting the government to win it for them. Card check and subsides might do it but then the auto industry would look like US shipping. When was the last time you saw a US flagged ship ? Do you know why ? The Seaman’s union would rather have no jobs than lower wage jobs. Answer ? No US flagged ships.
Actually, there are 250 in the world. Out of 40,000 cargo ships total.
Mike K (ee3203) — 12/13/2008 @ 7:46 am“Daleyrocks: Check the Reuters link in my post above, the UAW workers aren’t far off parity now. If it’s a matter of cost cutting now to gain competetiveness, I suggest they drop their lobbyists…and maybe some of the stupider chunks of their management.”
Also, ifs its the UAW’s fault, how come Ford aint asking for money? They got as much UAW as the other 2, no?
imdw (d252cf) — 12/13/2008 @ 8:26 amIn other words, it’s a bullshit argument. If these three companies go out of business, why won’t three new fresh start American automakers appear in their place? Be careful, you might sink your own ship by answering that one.
Why would they?
Primarily during the 80’s the Big 3 lost 50% of its market share to imports. There are empty plants, engineers, managers, just sitting around. The suppliers won’t turn away your business. Yet, it hasn’t happened (unless you count Delorean). You don’t just turn on an auto company. Unless you have tons of market protection and capital, both of which would have to come about from direct ro indirect government involvement. Just like Japan did after WWII.
jpm100 (b48b29) — 12/13/2008 @ 8:59 amimdw – That Reuters piece Loblaw linked shows what, a 20% wage differential assuming a 20% level of new hires? Is 20% new hires a realistic assumption for the Big 3 given UAW employees in job banks? Also 20% is a large figure even ignoring rigid work rule inefficiencies put into place over time outlines above.
My impression is that Ford, with heavy family voting stock control, seems to have been willing to take stronger medicine than the other Big 3, but that could be wrong. They have already agreed to forego management bonuses and merit increases for 2009.
“Mulally said Ford has completed much of the restructuring that Congress is demanding of the other two, slimming down its brands by selling Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston Martin and studying the sale of Sweden’s Volvo.
Ford, he said, has cut its factory capacity to match demand, and it anticipates no further cuts will be necessary as long as the U.S. auto market doesn’t worsen considerably. The company has announced the closure of 17 factories and eliminated 50,000 jobs since 2005, many through buyout and early retirement offers.”
What’s your explaination?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/13/2008 @ 9:16 amTwo years ago Ford was in major trouble, ahead of GM and Chrysler.
They put everything into hawk. From the buildings, the car brand names, and to the big blue oval itself. They did this 2 years or so ago before the credit market froze up.
Now that GM & Chrysler are in trouble, the credit market is frozen.
My analogy is the Ford got sick a while ago and got medicine to help the pain. Then GM got sick and the pharmacy was closed. Ford was just lucky wrt to the condition of the credit market.
jpm100 (b48b29) — 12/13/2008 @ 9:27 amjpm100, you argue that automakers don’t appear from nowhere but in fact, they often do and have.
The factories do not appear from nowhere, but globally automakers have merged, divested, partnered etc., quite a bit in recent decades. Chrysler being but one example. If the Big 3 were put into Chapter 11, we could expect that their ownership and corporate structure would change radically but that the useful assets would emerge from bankruptcy still producing cars under the existing market channels.
Look at how many airlines are currently either in or recently exiting Chapter 11 and are still operating.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/13/2008 @ 9:36 amI want them to fail. I want them to go into receivership. They need to exit the current model, and get out of the UAW death spiral. I want the government to have nothing to do with the auto industry.
If they are dead set on a bailout, then I think the bailout money should be given to those who pay taxes (60% of us?) so that we can buy CTS-V’s at toyota corolla prices. I do not want to buy BFUVs (Barney Frank’s Useless Vehicles).
anti-car-czar (51da0c) — 12/13/2008 @ 9:45 amjpm100 – Last night you were arguing that government subsidies to foreign car makers put the Big 3 ar a disadvantage. I asked you for more information about that and you haven’t provided any.
Were you just spitballing or do you actually have anything to back up your statement?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/13/2008 @ 9:51 am“standard free-market dogma”
Any sentence that starts like this needs to be rethought.
“Standard principle of charity dogma” says you don’t attack motives you deal with evidence and arguments.
There is evidence and arguments out there. Deal with it.
Greg Ransom (ff5e16) — 12/13/2008 @ 10:05 amApologies if this has already been stated…
Why even have bankruptcy laws if they are going to be avoided at all costs?
Or, rather than all this time debating the pros and cons of bailouts, why not discuss potential improvements to the bankruptcy process?
ThomasD (1659da) — 12/13/2008 @ 10:17 amIf the UAW would stop fighting this in Congress, maybe a bankruptcy program could be designed. They want everything and will accept nothing less. The UAW has funded Democrats and blocked modernization for the past 25 years and now they are mad at Republicans because they don’t vote with them.
Tell me again the definition of psychosis ?
The crisis is now yet they promise wage cuts three years from now. I guess if I could convince someone to loan me money on the promise that I would pay it back someday, even though I have no job and no assets, I’d take it.
Oh, that’s how we got here.
Mike K (ee3203) — 12/13/2008 @ 11:23 amdaleyrocks:
Of course I know that. That was the point. Duh.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/13/2008 @ 11:30 amHere’s a plan:
(1) Let the “Big Three” go into chapter 11;
(2) UAW files an adversary proceeding seeking to boot-out competition by imports made in countries lacking laws related to EDAP, ADA, OSHA, minimum wage, slave labor.
(3) To ensure UAW wins the above adversary proceedings, Obama and our Dem. Congress pass a “Judiciary Reorganization Act of 2009” upping the number of S. Ct. Justices to 15 (adding 6 liberal justices).
Problem solved. Libertarians die-off and wither.
David F. Petrano Esq. (128820) — 12/13/2008 @ 12:18 pmCorrection:
David F. Petrano Esq. (128820) — 12/13/2008 @ 12:20 pm(2) UAW files an adversary proceeding seeking to boot-out competition by automotive imports made in countries lacking laws related to EPA, ADA, OSHA, minimum wage, slave labor, Sherman Antitrust, collective bargaining, etc.
jpm100 – Last night you were arguing that government subsidies to foreign car makers put the Big 3 ar a disadvantage. I asked you for more information about that and you haven’t provided any.
Were you just spitballing or do you actually have anything to back up your statement?
Nationalized medicine and Pensions lift off most of that legacy burden burden that is currently crushing the Big 3. And that pretty much takes the wind out of the sales for any union activity. A double plus. Is that enough?
How about Japan’s currency manipulation:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/004402.asp
And GM’s assessment of the impact on itself from such practices
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=3798
BTW, that’s a feebee. because you just ordered me to do something like I was going to be paid. For next time, please e-mail me your billing information.
I mean you do have a point in calling me out for an explanation the first time. But I visit this site occasional with not all the time in the world when I am here. After looking at your posts in this thread, being a douche about making people back up their claims is something you really shouldn’t be inviting.
jpm100 (b48b29) — 12/13/2008 @ 1:20 pmWow.
It’s like you were completely unaware that such a move would require a Constitutional Amendment…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/13/2008 @ 1:51 pmI wonder if some of the opponents of the bailout will sing the same tune when their car’s warranty isn’t honored. Don’t think buying foreign will save you — most extended warranties are from 3rd party US firms that WILL be affected.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 12/13/2008 @ 1:58 pmScott–
There is no set number of SJ justices — it’s purely up to Congress. FDR tried to increase the Court’s size, but failed due to public outrage. But that is all that would stop it.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 12/13/2008 @ 2:00 pmUmm… SC Justices.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 12/13/2008 @ 2:00 pmBut I visit this site occasional with not all the time in the world when I am here.
Then don’t bother posting in the first place. Problem solved.
Dmac (e30284) — 12/13/2008 @ 2:18 pmScott Jacobs said:Wow.
It’s like you were completely unaware that such a move would require a Constitutional Amendment…
Hey sweety-puff, stay-off Article III legal blogs if you don’t know what your freggin’ talking about.
Nine Justices has been the magic number since the Judiciary Act of 1867. Since then, the population of the U.S. increased at least a dozen-fold.
Besides, things have gotten so out-of-control at the S. Court, the current Chief-Justice refuses to carry-through his Article III duty to swear-in Biden. I guess Roberts has a problem with swearing-in a V.P. that initially opposed his nomination. Talk about judges-with-grudges?
It’s bad enough the last Chief Justice, Rhenquist was committed in Walter Reed Hospital’s loony-bin for being an out-of-control, flaked-out, junkie. Another six justices will assure some robed-heads are out-of-the-clouds when serious decisions need to be made. Ya think?
Besides, after the royal libertarian screw-job they gave us in Bush v. Gore, it’s time for an Article III enema, so-to-speak . . .
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/13/2008 @ 2:39 pmCorrection:
The Judiciary Act of 1867 set the number of S. Court justices at only six.
The Circuit Judges Act of 1869, set the number of S. Court Justices at nine, where for some pathetic unknown reason, it has remained at nine, despite the huge population growth and related increase of cases seeking to be heard there.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/13/2008 @ 2:53 pmjpm100, you argue that automakers don’t appear from nowhere but in fact, they often do and have.
The factories do not appear from nowhere, but globally automakers have merged, divested, partnered etc., quite a bit in recent decades. Chrysler being but one example. If the Big 3 were put into Chapter 11, we could expect that their ownership and corporate structure would change radically but that the useful assets would emerge from bankruptcy still producing cars under the existing market channels.
Look at how many airlines are currently either in or recently exiting Chapter 11 and are still operating.
Mergers & acquisitions aren’t the same as new which is what I was responding to.
There are two choices in this bankruptcy situation. The first is effectively a liquidation in which anything would be like starting from new. The other is a restructuring bankruptcy. The latter requires capital. Which is GM’s problem right now. They can’t leverage capital from anywhere. The banks are all gun shy. That means the government would supply the financial support. They will effectively need the same money they were asking for as well as money to float them through a disruptive restructuring. There’s a price tag to that I believe many of the people who call for a restructuring bankruptcy are not aware of. If the government doesn’t come through or it becomes another series of what in my opinion are congressional show trials, they might as well liquidate.
As for airlines that are bankrupt, an airplane commitment is days. So I would like to change that analogy. Would someone want to take a flight with an airline that will declare bankruptcy in the middle of their vacation?
Another think I loath about that analogy is that some airlines have de facto monopolies in many of their hubs. So if you want to fly Friday afternoon from Detroit to Minneapolis non-stop, you are taking Northworst or you’re walking.
jpm100 (b48b29) — 12/13/2008 @ 2:56 pmThe reason the GOP opposes this plan should be clear. Historically, recessions last around 12 months. This one will be deeper and probably will last closer to 2 years, measured from the December 2007 beginning point. So that means in early 2010 we should start to see some light ASSUMING we have the system stabilized now. And that is what the Big Three (and presumably the auto parts manufacturers who supply them) seek: status quo type stability,where they can service debt and pay suppliers and pay employees for the next year. Because what SHOULD happen about a year from now? Daylight.
The GOP is the opposition to Obama and only have a chance in 2010 and 2012 if Obama fails. Daylight in early 2010 is bad news for them because the voters will give Obama and the Dems credit for steering a good course. So the GOP has no incentive to help them along, do they?
In addition, the current UAW contract expires in 2011 and the union wants to negotiate any changes in the new contract to come. Hmm . . . contract . . . rule of law . . . why do the GOPers now all of a sudden not respect contracts? Because the LAST thing they want is the UAW and the Big Three in the White House in late 2011 signing “a historic new agreement” that restructures the Big Three and leaves the companies, the suppliers and the UAW all smiling and drinking shots with Obama and his Sec. of Labor. Nope . . . can’t let that happen in 2011, on the eve of the 2012 presidential election. Which is why the GOPers want the deal now, or they will let the Big Three go under. Lucky for them, Bush doesn’t want his legacy to be “Iraq, Katrina, $15 trillion in debt and the begining of the Second Great Depression”. So expect the BUsh WH to step in and tide the Big Three over a couple months until the new Congress gets seated . . . with fewer of the obstructionist GOPers on the House and Senate floor . . . thank God!
B-Rob (5a8ace) — 12/13/2008 @ 2:56 pmseeking to boot-out competition by automotive imports made in countries lacking laws related to EPA, ADA, OSHA, minimum wage, slave labor, Sherman Antitrust, collective bargaining, etc.
Aside from Korean imports, all the auto makers that are competing with the Big Three build their cars here in the good ol’ USA. The fact that bailout proponents don’t seem to understand that Toyota, Honda, BMW and Volkswagen are MADE IN AMERICA suggest they don’t know anything about their subject.
Do you people realize that some of those Japanese car companies build cars here and export them back to Japan? Now I realize that some parts are made in Japan but there is the solution for all those parts suppliers threatened by bankruptcy. Compete for the parts business.
Mike K (ee3203) — 12/13/2008 @ 3:00 pmB-Rob, as I stated above, alls the UAW has to do is sit tight until Chapter 11s are filed.
Even a C- bankruptcy student could draft a UAW adversary proceeding to throw a wrench in the entire foreign auto unfair competition scheme.
Such an adversary proceeding timely filed subsequent to filing the respective “Big-3” Ch.11s would shine light to the fact our U.S. auto factories cannot compete with countries that sell cars cheaper because they employ use of slave labor as they blow-off occupational, environmental, disability and labor union laws.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/13/2008 @ 3:05 pmMILE K said:
Aside from Korean imports, all the auto makers that are competing with the Big Three build their cars here in the good ol’ USA. The fact that bailout proponents don’t seem to understand that Toyota, Honda, BMW and Volkswagen are MADE IN AMERICA suggest they don’t know anything about their subject.
Mike, are all the PARTS that make-up Toyota, Honda, BMW and Volkswagen are MADE IN AMERICA?
Besides, VW and BMW are not among the countries that blow-off the laws I am speaking of. Those companies compete fairly.
It’s the losers that use slave labor and blow-off occupational, environmental, disability and labor union laws that need to be dealt with in a UAW unfair trade practice adversary proceeding when the “Big-3” Chapter 11s are filed.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/13/2008 @ 3:13 pmPetrano —
You may be a bankruptcy atty. I am not, but as a banker in my former life, I actually worked on workouts from the bank side. To think that the bankruptcy of GM, let’s say, and them settling their parts tab for 22 cents on the dollar, is the “preferred” alternative, macroeconomically speaking, to buying time now seems to me to be insane. Exactly how low does the GOP want the economy to go? How many people have top be out of work before they say “OK, it’s good now”? How many bankruptcies? In medicine, there is the concept of triage. You stop the bleeding.
The idea that GM or Chrysler could definately do a “packed restructuring” is nuts in this credit environment . . . UNLESS the government guarantees the bank or private equity investments that would be required to recapitalize them and get them out of bankruptcy. Otherwise like Pelosi said the other day, we are playing Russian roulette with that portion of the economy.
B-Rob (5a8ace) — 12/13/2008 @ 3:14 pmDaleyrocks @ 12:37am (btw, do you have a cot tucked away in the corner of some obscure thread here? 😉 ):
Clearly we are now so deep into the semantic bullshit part of the discussion, that it’s pointless to respond (hint: Bush administration; majority of congress). If you want to contend that the Republican Senators were acting on high principles of good governance rather than mere venal politics, I say: fine, I disagree but peace be with you. I’ll just throw it over to Nick Gillespie and the raving libertarians to make my closing argument:
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 12/13/2008 @ 3:15 pmIn 2007, Toyota sold 9.37 million vehicles.
In 2007, General Motors sold 9.37 million vehicles.
In 2007, Toyota made $17.1 billion.
In 2007, General Motors lost $38.7 billion.
Do these numbers mean anything? If so, what?
DrDeano (695f35) — 12/13/2008 @ 3:19 pmB-Rob, I imagine you are correct in spades; I only mention BK because I have heard the subject matter be discussed ALOT this past week reagrding “Big-3”.
I am merely speculating what a “think-outside-the-envelope” UAW key player might recommend after a taking a wee-sippy of that fine scotch whiskey usually hidden in the closet for those special occasions . . .
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/13/2008 @ 3:22 pm#59- Bill M- You must be a banker waiting for your TARP check.
The Treasury controls the accounts. It’s quite realistic. In Katrina, the Bushies handed out debit cards willy-nilly amidst a crisis with sloppy control and poor restrictions. My proposal is pretty straightforward. The accounts can only be access via a GM, Chrysler or Ford purchase through the U.S. Treasury, and has a TBD window of validity. You wanna a new car, buy a GM, Chrysler or Ford vehicle and the U.S. will pay up to $25,000 for it. Same idea with the mortgage/bank debt account.
They can keep track of your SS# every year and funnel you a $300 check, so they can do this as well. But Republicans in Congress dont want individual Americans to really fix the problem, do they. They want it fixed from the top down… to ‘trickle down’ as it were, corporate style. Speaks volumes.
Some leakage is inevitable. Americans are good at many things- even crime. But the chief objective is to move cars off lots and service debts from the bottom up, not the top down. Paulson & Bush have shown they’re incompetence.
Joe Garagiola’s Chrysler pitch from the 1970’s still rings true: “Buy a car, get a check.”
And yes, socialism has finally arrived. Where you been? Chinese communists have been propping up western capitalism for over a decade now. America is just late to the party. It’s been a socialist planet for decades.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/13/2008 @ 3:27 pmDrDeano —
Toyota made $17.1 million, huh? Have any idea what their investments are in China as compared to GM? How much do they pay for health care, as compared to GM? What kind of pensions do they pay their employees? And how much advantage do they have having just started building int he US in the 1980s, as compared to GM, where some plants date back to the 1950s? Who has to deal with more environmental problems?
Your comparison is like saying “One guy is 6 foot 1 200 pounds and the other is the same size. So why does the first one run the 100 meter dash in 10.9 seconds and the other one can’t finish? at all” You may attribute the difference to laziness. But if I point out that that the second guy is 30 years older and carrying a 24 pound garment bag, I think you would have your answer.
B-Rob (5a8ace) — 12/13/2008 @ 3:28 pmDr. Deano, the numbers speak for themselves. They SCREAM:
If the “Big-3” did not have to compete with losers that employ use of slave labor and blow-off occupational, environmental, disability and labor union laws, the “Big-3” would have 90% of the market share.
Remember that easy stuff in Economics 101. The more you make, the cheaper you can make it per unit, thus, the higher the profit?
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/13/2008 @ 3:29 pmB-ROB, RIGHT ON M/FCKER!!!!!!!!
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/13/2008 @ 3:31 pmRun the numbers. Which is cheaper?
Is it better to bridge loan the Big Three or let them collapse and have the Federal government bailout state social services when the 2 million unemployed overwhelm them in an already collapsing economy. The bridge loan is as much a matter of national security as charging the 3 planned aircraft carriers (adding to the ELEVEN or so already active) on Uncle Sam’s credit card.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/13/2008 @ 3:40 pmBob Loblaw:
Unions are there to protect their members’ interests. Sometimes that’s wages and benefits but overall the point is to protect employees’ jobs. The way the unions have acted in this event reminds me of that old saying “Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.” Apparently the union leaders have never heard this saying.
DRJ (b4db3a) — 12/13/2008 @ 3:54 pmDCSCA SAID:
The bridge loan is as much a matter of national security as charging the 3 planned aircraft carriers (adding to the ELEVEN or so already active) on Uncle Sam’s credit card.
Exactly correct. Few posters here know “BIG-3” and their skilled-labor, manufactured the war machine that defeated Hitler.
If we let “BIG-3” poop-out, we lose our No.1 military deturrent/defense strategy, MORE so the the H-Bomb.
Look folks, we cannot compete in a boxing match with barbarians that hit us in the balls.
Same goes for competing with auto manufacturers that manufacture cars cheaper than “Big-3”, simply b/c they blow-off occupational, environmental, disability and labor union laws that we hold so dear.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/13/2008 @ 4:00 pmDRJ —
You are pontificating. Let me ask a simple question that I have heard none of the GOPers answer or ask. One of the secretaries I work with has a husband who is a 30 year employee of Ford who recenbtly retired. So let’s say the Big Three get rid of their future liabilities to him: pension, benefits, etc. So what happens to him? How much will his medicare or medicaid cost the US government? And what will he do for money, since the pension will not pay off? If it gets shucked over to the Pension Benfits Guarantee Board (that’s you and me) how much will that cost?
These are the real questions that we need to know an answer to if we are to go the “screw the UAW” route. Because their “intransigence” on behalf of the retirees keeps you and me from having to pony up personally!
B-Rob (5a8ace) — 12/13/2008 @ 4:02 pmI’m not against the UAW, B-Rob. A reorganization bankruptcy doesn’t necessarily make everything disappear, other than investor equity. The rest is a process of working through the legal and equitable allocation of assets and liabilities.
By the way, were you equally concerned about employee pensions in the Enron case?
As for pontificating, that’s why I hang out at Patterico’s Pontifications.
DRJ (b4db3a) — 12/13/2008 @ 4:08 pmDRJ SAID:
A reorganization bankruptcy doesn’t necessarily make everything disappear, other than investor equity. The rest is a process of working through the legal and equitable allocation of assets and liabilities.
Perhaps you are correct, then again, perhaps a “Big-3” BK will trigger UAW Chapter-11 adversary proceedings to the extent the “reorganization” you speak of will change the entire unfair competition dilemma that put “Big-3” in the conondrum they are presently in.
“Big-3” can compete with Western European countries that manufacture cars/parts for Mercedes, BMW, Porche, VW, Audi, Fiat, Rolls-Royce, Peugeot, etc., BECAUSE THOSE GUYS PLAY BY OUR RULES.
“Big-3” cannot compete with cars made in China, Japan, Korea where they flush toxic solvents down the drain to cut costs, as they pay their employees piss-wages w/no benefits.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/13/2008 @ 4:26 pm“Nationalized medicine and Pensions lift off most of that legacy burden burden that is currently crushing the Big 3. And that pretty much takes the wind out of the sales for any union activity.”
jpm100 – No reason to be a dickhead about not explaining your points. Drive-by lefties love to make unsubstantiated claims here all day long.
I’m not buying the explaination on nationalized healthcare or pensions as a subsidy. Somebody has to pay for those. If the company isn’t paying, the workers are through their taxes or other mechanisms. There’s no free lunch. If you want to argue that foreign workers are willing to accept lower wages that’s another matter. The comparison on the the table though, is U.S. produced vehicles of foreign nameplates versus the Big 3.
If the Big 3 want to point to currency manipulation by Japan as a reason for lost market share over the past 30 years, I suggest that’s about as believable as blaming 70 years of bad harvests for the fall of communism in Russia.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/13/2008 @ 4:58 pmThis is hilarious. In one line, the Petranos loon writes: “Hey sweety-puff, stay-off Article III legal blogs if you don’t know what your freggin’ talking about.”
Then writes: ” the current Chief-Justice refuses to carry-through his Article III duty to swear-in Biden. ”
I’m hurting myself laughing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:00 pmThe production of automobiles for the retail consumer market has no national security implications at all.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:02 pm” I’ll just throw it over to Nick Gillespie and the raving libertarians to make my closing argument:
…I find it troubling that Republicans are also interested in dictating terms to any business”
Bob – If government could run businesses succesfully, communism would still be thriving in Russia. You are arguing in circles.
Why don’t the Democrats legislate that Detroit make cars that get 50 miles per gallon instead of only 30-50 as part of this bailout? That would make us a lot more energy independent and be better for the environment. Isn’t that kind of thinking dictating to business as well?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:03 pmActually the Democrats version of the bailout does dictate to the Big 3 many things, including forbidding them from opposing new regulations upon them like greenhouse gas limits.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:06 pmDFP- Careful agreeing with anything I pontificate. Your sanity will be challenged. Problem is, conservatives are still locked in a mindset of ideology,not burdened with the pragmatics of practical thinking. Scroll back and you’ll read some of these droids are actually asking ‘what would Reagan do?’ Considering he’s dead and his trickle down economic theory thoroughly discredited, going back to that well is drinking sand from a dry well drilled in another century. A century when he needed the automaker base to beef up his anti-Soviet defenses.
Conservatives conveniently forget that a big reason Chrysler was loaned money in the 70s was because it happened to be a prime contractor for American army tanks then… and at the time, it has an avionics and missile division.(indeed, Chrysler built the Redstone missile that lanuched Explorer 1 and Alan Sherpard.) Chrysler was part of the MIC. Todays ‘automakers’ are yesterdays — and tomorrows plane, tank and munitions builders. Its as much a part of national security as the K-ration was.
As a refresher course, conservatives should visit a library (if they’re still open) and flip through some old copies of a ‘liberal media rag’ called ‘LIFE’ from the 40s, 50s and 60s (it has pictures so it will be easy for them to absorb) and peruse the multitude of corporate ads placed by automakers in time of war making everything from B-24 bombers to tanks, canteens, rifle barrels, jeeps, generators, engine blocks, fighter planes and assorted parts. All paid for by government through bond sales and loans. All this on top of consumer products for the public. It’s easy to see why conservatives, weaned in the Reagan era, have no comprehension of this.
As this 30-year virus of free-market conservtivism is finally expunged from the nation’s body, sanity and balance will be restored. But the pain of it will be harsh.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:18 pmSPQR SAYS:
This is hilarious. In one line, the Petranos loon writes: “Hey sweety-puff, stay-off Article III legal blogs if you don’t know what your freggin’ talking about.”
Then writes: ” the current Chief-Justice refuses to carry-through his Article III duty to swear-in Biden. ”
I stand corrected.
While tradition dictates that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court administers the oath of office to the President-elect, a variety of officials have administered the oath to Vice Presidents.
Since World War II, Vice Presidents have chosen friends and associates to administer the oath of office.
That stated, I stand by my proposition a “Judiciary Reorganization Act of 2009” needs to be passed to increase the number of S. Court Justices from 9 to 15, as a means to weed-out libertarian wackos-in-robes (like you) from flushing us further down the toilet than we already are.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:23 pmDCSCA – Still watching Loony Toons reruns I see. You were screeching before about credit cards during Reagan’s administration. You have found kindred spirits with the Petranos.
Courage!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:23 pmNonsense, DCSCA, the assembly lines for consumer automobiles have nothing to do with aircraft, tank or munition production and are not going to produce such. The producers of military equipment today are distinct entities whose survival has nothing to do with mass market automobile production.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:24 pmSPQR, what’s so funny? I’m sure there’s something in the emanations and/or penumbras of Article III requiring the Chief Justice to swear in any President of the Senate who doesn’t think he’s the President of the Senate. It must be true, as some guy who signs his name “Esq.” said so.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:24 pmActually, Petrano, you do not stand corrected. You stand ridiculed for your ridiculous attempts to pretend to expertise you utterly lack.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:25 pmXrlq, you can’t say “comically pretentious and perennnially incompetent” without “Petrano”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:27 pmOops, I see our comments crossed in the mail. I actually agree with Petrano that it would be good idea for the Democrats to try to pack the Supreme Court, but for the opposite reason. What better way to piss off every American to the right of Dennis Kucinich?
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:29 pmMKDP and David – How are these crappy underpowered green cars that the Democrats want Detroit to produce going to help you folks out. I doubt that they would have the towing capacity to haul MKDP’s service horse around, let alone the vast casy of characters that live in her head.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:30 pm#103 SPQR- “The production of automobiles for the retail consumer market has no national security implications at all.”
‘Jeep’ers, that’s one ‘hummer’-dinger of a mistatement.
Conservative lesson #4: 4+4=8, not 44.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:36 pmSPQR SAID:
Actually, Petrano, you do not stand corrected. You stand ridiculed for your ridiculous attempts to pretend to expertise you utterly lack.
Even other monkeys in your cave can figure-out it’s time to increase the number of S. Court Justices to 15, from nine set through the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, in light of the fact the population had grow at least a dozen-fold since then.
Besides, what do you know? You are an anonynous nobody. I have the courage to post under my own name. You are a coward loser who posts anonymous b/c you know you are totally full-of-#hit most of the time, as you attempt to hoodwink people here.
Perhaps you feel warm and cozy knowing only nine Justices in our S. Court cannot possibly rule over the number of cases filed which possess requisite merit to be it heard in all respects.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:42 pmAM General is owned by a privately held investment company and does not have publicly traded stock.
General Motors does not own any part of AM General. In December 1999, AM General and General Motors Corporation finalized an agreement to jointly pursue product, marketing and distribution opportunities for HUMMER®. Under the final agreement, GM acquired the exclusive ownership of the HUMMER brand name worldwide and the original civilian HUMMER was renamed the HUMMER H1. Since 2002, AM General has produced the HUMMER H2 as a contract assembler for GM. GM has responsibility for marketing and distributing all HUMMERs.
Humvees are manufactured in AM General’s HMMWV/H1 Assembly Plant in Mishawaka, Indiana, just east of South Bend, Indiana.
The HUMMER H2 is assembled at the new state-of-the-art HUMMER H2 Assembly Plant just to the east of the HMMWV/H1 facility.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:42 pmSeriously? Are you that new here?
We don’t question his sanity… We know he and his wife are fucking insane.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:44 pmPetrano, go back to inventing constitutional duties that don’t exist while claiming that I’m full of it.
I need the laughs.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:45 pmdaleyrocks – I believe that the Hummer product line is just variation of GM truck chassis these days, since the H1 is out of production.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:46 pm#109- “…the assembly lines for consumer automobiles have nothing to do with aircraft, tank or munition production and are not going to produce such.”
Suggest you contact Boeing and ask them about their subcontracts to auto companies for component parts and vica versa. Was a popular hobby with them during… for example… WW2, Korea, Vietnam.
“The producers of military equipment today are distinct entities whose survival has nothing to do with mass market automobile production.”
Again, ‘jeep’ers… a ‘hummer’dinger of a misstatement.
Conservative lession #5: 5+5=10, not 55.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:48 pm#109- “…the assembly lines for consumer automobiles have nothing to do with aircraft, tank or munition production and are not going to produce such.”
Suggest you contact Boeing and ask them about their subcontracts to auto companies for component parts and vica versa. Was a popular hobby with them during… for example… WW2, Korea, Vietnam.
“The producers of military equipment today are distinct entities whose survival has nothing to do with mass market automobile production.”
Again, ‘jeep’ers… a ‘hummer’dinger of a misstatement.
Conservative lesson #5: 5+5=10, not 55.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:49 pmWhat are you advocating, Petrano? That a nominal Supreme Court of 15 actually serve as three de facto Supreme Courts of five members apiece? If not, I don’t see why you think 15 Justices can handle more cases than 9 (or for that matter, 1) can.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:50 pmSPQR <- probably drives a jeep and enjoys M&Ms. Both created for national defense.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:52 pmDCSCA, how about I show you a blueprint for a P51 Mustang and you show me how much commonality there is between it and an F/A 18 fighter bomber.
While many automakers built war material in WWII, it was often done so in completely newly constructed facilities like Ford’s Willow Run aircraft assembly plant.
Modern automobile assembly plants are very specialized and are not going to be easily adapted to constructing main battle tanks.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:56 pmScott Jacobs SAID:
We don’t question his sanity… We know he and his wife are fucking insane.
What’s insane is the fact you and your fellow libertarian losers still believe only nine S. Court justices are capable of hearing the number of commerce-related cases that truly need to be heard.
No wonder why we are facing economic chaos.
It’s almost impossible to attain S. Court review over decisions made by our Circuit Courts, following Judge Kozinski’s brain-dead decision to eliminate the WebSense firewall.
Eliminating the WebSense firewall has allowed federal judge law clerk to play on porn sites all day, as they make ex-parte communications among themselves trashing litigants they believe thwart their libertarian take-on-things.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:56 pmreally? It’s because of libertarians?
Really?
I’m not sure you noticed, but libertarians tend to be in minority, crazy-person…
HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERE we go.
Come on, show me where the mean judge touched you…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/13/2008 @ 5:59 pmDCSCA, I also fire an M1 Garand. However, both it and the Jeep are obsolete by six decades.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/13/2008 @ 6:00 pmWe are in an economic crisis because the US Supreme Court does not hear enough cases?
And I thought I had seen the stupidest comment from the Petranos clan before …
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/13/2008 @ 6:01 pmYou draw this comclusion from personal experiance, do you? Or were you told this by your wife’s horse?
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/13/2008 @ 6:02 pm__________________________________________
As this 30-year virus of free-market conservtivism is finally expunged from the nation’s body, sanity and balance will be restored.
What the hell does “free-market conservatism” have to do with what, in actuality, has been decades of irresponsible, nonsensical leftism emanating from unions like the UAW. After all, most unions out there (including the UAW) invariably are run or greatly influenced by people — be they union bosses or activists — of the left.
Mark (411533) — 12/13/2008 @ 6:04 pm__________________________________________
125- SPQR-
“While many automakers built war material in WWII, it was often done so in completely newly constructed facilities like Ford’s Willow Run aircraft assembly plant.”
Actually, that just not true. Most facilities were converted at the cost of making consumer goods. And no, many plants were converted from automobile production and made components and then shipped by rail for final assembly. Willow Run is a famed exception for final assembly work(and closed by the way).
“Modern automobile assembly plants are very specialized and are not going to be easily adapted to constructing main battle tanks.”
Actually, it would be easier today. But ‘modern’ is a relative term, isn’t it. ‘Modern’ in 1941 was the Spitfire– all metal. The Hurricane, wood– cheaper to build and they built more of them… in converted factories. You’re learning.
No conservative lesson for you this posting.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/13/2008 @ 6:08 pmDCSCA, well we better save the Big 3 so we can build a 1941 armored division equipped with Dodge weapons carriers, Willys jeeps and Sherman tanks in our next defense crisis.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/13/2008 @ 6:11 pmXRLK Said:
What are you advocating, Petrano? That a nominal Supreme Court of 15 actually serve as three de facto Supreme Courts of five members apiece? If not, I don’t see why you think 15 Justices can handle more cases than 9 (or for that matter, 1) can.
Perhaps 19 would be better?
Maybe we should request a seperate blog discussion to iron-out issues in drafting a comprehensive “Judiciary Reorganization Act of 2009” increasing the S. Court justices in a manner that would allow more cases to be heard.
The fact is, we really have grown alot in population since 1869, when we set the number at nine justices.
I suggest we could start by sorting-out the economic cases (intellectual property/banking/admiralty/securities/bankruptcy, etc.,) from the Amendment 1-10 cases.
Two groups of nine justices could be assigned either economic or Amendment 1-10 cases, leaving room for one stand-in for the usual abstentions, and enough time for both groups to be randomly assigned the 11-27 Amendment cases.
If what’s bothering you is the En Banc dilemma, I think the Senate Judiciary guys can flush that out?
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/13/2008 @ 6:36 pmScott Jaqcobs said:
No wonder why we are facing economic chaos.
really? It’s because of libertarians?
Really?
I’m not sure you noticed, but libertarians tend to be in minority, crazy-person…
Maybe so.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/13/2008 @ 6:42 pmThe problem is, so many of you libertarian retards end-up getting Article III jobs. I notice here and on “Blolokh Conspiracy” libertarians seem to muddy-things-up to the brink if insanity.
The judiciary is filled with crypto-libertarians …
what a loon.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/13/2008 @ 6:50 pmWell, you would be the go-to authority on insanity, wouldn’t you?
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/13/2008 @ 6:57 pmSPQR SAID:
The judiciary is filled with crypto-libertarians …
what a loon.
I’m not the “loon” #hit-for-brains that eliminated the WebSense Firewall on September 10, 2001, so that you losers who work for Article III judges can spend all day long playing on porno web-sites, as you make ex-parte communications among yourselves to further your wacko agenda of allowing illegal surveillance on Americans.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/13/2008 @ 7:14 pmI’m not sure what a “crypto-libertarian” is, but with only a bare majority of today’s Supreme Court finding that the Second Amendment exists at all, that’s one hell of a crypto.
Either that, or Mr. Esquire is crypto-stupid.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/13/2008 @ 7:15 pmXrlq, by “crypto-libertarian”, I was implying that Petrano’s mythical judges were secretly libertarian ala the libertarian version of the Illuminati.
Evidently my attempts at satire are dwarfed by the reality of Petrano’s delusions.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/13/2008 @ 7:20 pmWRIQ SAID:
Mr. Esquire is crypto-stupid.
Seriously speaking, I don’t know what “crypto” means beyond something that sounds like that stuff that makes “Superman” sick as Hell.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/13/2008 @ 7:23 pmThere’s no “crypto” about that one, Xrlq…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/13/2008 @ 7:23 pmWell, I guess one way to be cryptolibertarian is to issue a series of rulings that are unlibertarian on their face. Only the true Messiah denies his divinity.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/13/2008 @ 7:23 pm#133- SPQR- Again, ‘modern’ is a relative term, isn’t it. Lots of C-47/DC-3s still in the air. Right now some of that simpler, boilerplate equipment might be pretty useful in certain places to pick up the slack– especially, if it was still made of Pittsburgh steel and not importated petroleum-based plastics.
I’d enlighten you on the 40 year success of the Russian Soyuz and how ‘it’s old, ugly technology but it gets you there’ works, but then I’d have to talk about the VW and that comes back to sucessful car companies again and we’re running late, so good night Mrs. Kalibash, wherever you are.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/13/2008 @ 7:33 pm131- Mark-
If you gotta ask, then you’ve never had grease under your fingernails; never had to shower after your shift or appreciated what secured you the 8 hour day, employee healthcare and a living wage.
Conservative lesson #6: 6+6=12, not 66.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/13/2008 @ 7:46 pmDCSCA, your attempts at coherence are getting more and more threadbare. And given that your belief that the C-47 and the Willys jeep are not obsolete, I doubt you have much of a chance to improve.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/13/2008 @ 7:49 pmActually, if it’s true that EMPs from nuclear weapons wipe out electronics, C-47s and Willys jeeps might be good things to have in reserve.
nk (094d4d) — 12/13/2008 @ 7:54 pmActually, no they wouldn’t. Nothing with a loop of wire that hasn’t been hardened (surrounded by many loops of wire that are then connected to a ground circuit) will survive. It’s the induced current that fried stuff, and that effects any loop of conductive metal.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/13/2008 @ 7:58 pm131- Mark-
Henry Ford, that famed arch-conservative; the pro-Nazi businessman as late as 1940, was the first to realize it didnt make much point in building his cars if he didnt pay his workers enough to buy them.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/13/2008 @ 7:58 pm^ Yea, but I’m sure he was wise enough to not want to pay employees to do nothing but sit around on their asses all day long — or screw up on the job without any repercussions from management — and, upon retirement, provide them with benefits that greatly exceeded what was appropriate and reasonable, and what many other people in various other professions received.
Mark (411533) — 12/13/2008 @ 8:15 pm“Suggest you contact Boeing and ask them about their subcontracts to auto companies for component parts and vica versa. Was a popular hobby with them during… for example… WW2, Korea, Vietnam.”
DCSCA – Got an idea. Suggest you back up one of your own assertions for a change, or even a first.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/13/2008 @ 8:30 pmHenry Ford, that famed arch-conservative; the pro-Nazi businessman as late as 1940, was the first to realize it didnt make much point in building his cars if he didnt pay his workers enough to buy them.
Mebbeso, but as the second prong of his strategy he kept making his cars less expensive to buy.
nk (094d4d) — 12/13/2008 @ 8:32 pm#147- SPQR: and here I was hoping you were learning.
Low tech can be quite effective. Ask Bin Laden. The score: 19 guys with $500,000 beats multi-trillion dollar defense system on home turf.
Conservative lesson #7: 7+7= 14, not 77
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/13/2008 @ 8:48 pmConservative lesson #7: 7+7= 14, not 77
DCSCA – Your scorekeeping is very unique since virtually everything you say gets debunked.
Liberal Scorekeeping = Strawman + Strawman = Declare Victory, run and hide
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/13/2008 @ 9:18 pmI’d love to. I would also like permission to ask the question using interprative ass-kicking.
Seriously, you and the left need to stop keeping score for the other guys…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/13/2008 @ 9:30 pm#150- Mark- you seem to have a keen, bitter knowledge of day-to-day foul-ups on an auto assembly line.
Were you furloughed from GM, Chrysler or Ford?
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/13/2008 @ 10:03 pm#151 daley-
Conservative lesson #8:
Assertion that’s fact in Base 10:
8+8=16, not 88
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/13/2008 @ 10:07 pmSPQR SAID:
DCSCA, your attempts at coherence are getting more and more threadbare. And given that your belief that the C-47 and the Willys jeep are not obsolete, I doubt you have much of a chance to improve.
If we are “Pearl Harbored” again, I imagine you would immediately advocate locking-up Americans in Rex-84 camps for fear of home-grown “sleeper-cells” from within.
In the meantime, where would you acquire your war machine? from cheap labor and factories in Korea/Malaysia, Indonesia/China/Japan/India?
We can all rest assured brain-dead, tax-cutting, out-sourcing libertarian morons like you would permit the “Big-3” to wither away believing Ronald Reagan will somehow return from the dead to save you if/when we need to assemble a world-war machine.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/13/2008 @ 10:17 pm“8+8=16, not 88”
Aren’t you glad mom saved your flash cards?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/13/2008 @ 11:01 pmMark- you seem to have a keen, bitter knowledge of day-to-day foul-ups on an auto assembly line.
And I sure hope you’re not one of those phony-baloney liberals who goes around trying to sound so populist — so egalitarian — about the American proletariat in Detroit, sweating under the rule and thumb of the greedy capitalist system, while looking dreamy eyed at autos designed and built in Japan or Europe. And buying cars from there, not here.
Or sort of a variation of Obama talking green — and wringing his hands over CO2 and global warming — but saying he favors driving around gas-hogging SUVs.
Mark (411533) — 12/13/2008 @ 11:19 pm#160- My. Worried, aren’t you.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/14/2008 @ 12:13 am#159- daley
Here’s a flash just for you: if wishes were horses beggars would ride.
Conservative lesson #13: 13+13=26, not 1,313
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/14/2008 @ 12:20 amOk, were you ever going to make a point here? Do I need to get Patterico to place infront of you the same kind of challenge we had placed infront of Levi?
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/14/2008 @ 5:16 amPetrano seems to have forgotten that it was socialist-inspired Democrats who locked up people by race after an attack on our homeland for fear of sleeper cells.
Sheesh, the delusions are strong in that one.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/14/2008 @ 8:48 amSPQR (StupidPunQRetard?)SAID:
Petrano seems to have forgotten that it was socialist-inspired Democrats who locked up people by race after an attack on our homeland for fear of sleeper cells.
Maybe so; then again, the “Big-Three’ were on-line to manufacture a war machine.
Unlike your fellow retard “W,” during the last World War, FDR pushed for even higher income tax rates for individuals (reaching a marginal tax rate of 91%) and corporations and a cap on high salaries for executives. In order to fund the war, Congress broadened the base so that almost every employee paid federal income taxes, and introduced withholding taxes in 1943.
Contrariwise, “W” gets us in 2 wars AND seeks to cut taxes so morons like you can live in McMansions, drive imported cars and stuff your plastic-surgery faces to the brink of obesity . . . as “The Big-3” goes BK.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 11:05 amNo surprise that the delusional Petrano lauds FDR’s policies given that FDR’s mismanagement had extended the Great Depression for more than half a decade beyond when it would have ended without FDR.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/14/2008 @ 11:11 am“No surprise that the delusional Petrano lauds FDR’s policies given that FDR’s mismanagement had extended the Great Depression for more than half a decade beyond when it would have ended without FDR.”
People need to hang to what they got. Its tough to see capitalism getting rescued.
imdw (08102d) — 12/14/2008 @ 11:16 amSPQR (StupidPunQRetard?)SAID:
No surprise that the delusional Petrano lauds FDR’s policies given that FDR’s mismanagement had extended the Great Depression for more than half a decade beyond when it would have ended without FDR.
Maybe so; then again, the Supreme Court was the main obstacle to Roosevelt’s programs during his second term, overturning many of his programs. In particular in 1935 the Court unanimously ruled that the National Recovery Act (NRA) was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the president. Roosevelt stunned Congress in early 1937 by proposing a law allowing him to appoint five new justices, a “persistent infusion of new blood”.
Obama will face the same obstacle as FDR if he does not immediately work to enact a “Judiciary Reorganization Act of 2009,” increasing the S. Court to at least 15 judges with a liberal take on things.
Unlike you and the dead-beat-in-bred libertarian monkeys you hang with, I’m doing my best to get the ball rolling to ensure our S. Court has a “persistent infusion of new blood”. . .
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 11:27 am““The Big-3″ goes BK.”
Petrano – Do you want yo pay higher taxes so you can feel gooh about putting a bandaid on the Big 3 for their own mistakes?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/14/2008 @ 11:37 ammake that “good”
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/14/2008 @ 11:37 amDon’t bother Petrano, daleyrocks, he’s busy looking under his bed for libertarians.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/14/2008 @ 11:40 amdaleyrocks SAID:
Petrano – Do you want yo pay higher taxes so you can feel gooh about putting a bandaid on the Big 3 for their own mistakes?
I’m edging towards retirement. I gladly paid income taxes at a time when they exceeded 70% to help build an infrastructure which libertarians like you have run-down to ruin by cutting taxes.
I want punks like you to get off your fat-duffs, sell-off your foreign made toys, McMansions, and 2+ homes and pay higher taxes to “put a bandaid on the Big 3” for YOUR own mistakes.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 11:51 amSPQR (StupidPunQRetard?)SAID:
Don’t bother Petrano, daleyrocks, he’s busy looking under his bed for libertarians.
I don’t have to “look under my bed.” There are plenty of you losers here and on “Blolokh Conspiracy.”
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 11:55 am“I want punks like you to get off your fat-duffs, sell-off your foreign made toys, McMansions, and 2+ homes and pay higher taxes to “put a bandaid on the Big 3″ for YOUR own mistakes.”
— Well! You can’t get much more anti-libertarian than that. Telling private individuals what they should do with their private lives & possessions.
Icy Texan (b7d162) — 12/14/2008 @ 12:09 pmDo I need to get Patterico to place infront of you the same kind of challenge we had placed infront of Levi?
Scott, DCSCA hasn’t risen to that level of intervention of creating a new thread dedicated to the art of framing a debate, but is certainly traveling down the same road.
But I wouldn’t be surprised if Patterico simply challenges DCSCA personally if he happens to be watching the comments when another snarky “Hey! Look over there!” shows up.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (152589) — 12/14/2008 @ 12:13 pm– Well! You can’t get much more anti-libertarian than that. Telling private individuals what they should do with their private lives & possessions.
David F. Petrano = Dictator For life Permanently
Most Supreme High Overlord In His Own Mind.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (152589) — 12/14/2008 @ 12:22 pmPaul said:
Do I need to get Patterico to place infront of you the same kind of challenge we had placed infront of Levi?
I started debating here w/o insult until “SPQR” referred to me as “delusional.”
Moreover, I started-out politely debating here in July, ’08, until Patterico encouraged some guy named “Drumwaster” to refer to me as “goat#ucker” (his version included the (f”) when I criticized Judge Kozinski for eliminating the WebSense firewall so federal court employees could freely research litigants’ personal lives to determine who was going to win a case.
Patterico does not fool me. He uses you guys to trash anyone who disagrees with his right-wing “me/me/me I want tax-cuts” take on things.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 12:49 pm“I gladly paid income taxes at a time when they exceeded 70%”
Petrano – I don’t believe a loser like you ever paid taxes at a 70% marginal rate. Shoe salesman don’t make that kind of coin.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/14/2008 @ 12:51 pmPetrano – How long was that firewall that you and your freak of a wife make such a big deal about actually disabled?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/14/2008 @ 12:53 pm“Patterico does not fool me. He uses you guys to trash anyone who disagrees with his right-wing “me/me/me I want tax-cuts” take on things.”
Petrano – We all wear electronic dog collars. If we don’t obey Patterico’s orders, he shocks us. He’s a cruel master. Even worse than Judge Kozinski!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/14/2008 @ 12:56 pmdaleyrocks, there is no point to attempting to discuss facts and logic with the Petranos. Petranos has been blaming the firewall issue for everything from the heartbreak of psoriasis to global warming. The fact that the firewall had nothing to do with any of the harms Petranos ascribes to its absence never has slowed their delusional antics.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/14/2008 @ 1:00 pmSPQR – I want to hear it from the service horse’s mouth.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/14/2008 @ 1:03 pmrofl
Wrong end however.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/14/2008 @ 1:04 pmI started debating here w/o insult until “SPQR” referred to me as “delusional.”
You are delusional. The comment you quoted was me quoting Scott in response to his admonishing another commenter.
Petrano, it isn’t all about you.
He uses you guys to trash anyone who disagrees with his right-wing “me/me/me I want tax-cuts” take on things.
Oh yeah, we’re not allowed to challenge the Most Supreme High Overlord In His Own Mind.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (152589) — 12/14/2008 @ 1:25 pmPetrano – I don’t believe a loser like you ever paid taxes at a 70% marginal rate. Shoe salesman don’t make that kind of coin.
daleyrocks, I demand you apologize for your baseless slander and sullying of shoe salesman everywhere.
That’s above Esq.’s pay grade.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (152589) — 12/14/2008 @ 1:28 pmdaleyrocks SAID:
Petrano – I don’t believe a loser like you ever paid taxes at a 70% marginal rate. Shoe salesman don’t make that kind of coin.
I have paid income taxes at a 70%+ rate when Nixon was President. Unlike your anonymous coward self, I post under my own name so to back-up everything I say.
Like SPQR, you are a know-nothing, anonymous punk who does not dare reveal yourself because the one thing you do know is everything you post is a pack of lies to further your own “me/me/me I want tax-cuts” agenda.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 1:34 pmDrumwaster has been banned.
There’s a lesson there for you.
Icy Texan (b7d162) — 12/14/2008 @ 1:41 pmPetrano, you finished searching for libertarians under the bed already? Better check again, I bet they snuck back in.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/14/2008 @ 1:41 pmSo, if someone chooses to use the anonymity afforded them on the Internet, this somehow automatically renders their opinions as questionable or spurious?
Simple.
Icy Texan (b7d162) — 12/14/2008 @ 1:45 pmUnlike your anonymous coward self, I post under my own name so to back-up everything I say.
Or to let us know just who to avoid in public.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (152589) — 12/14/2008 @ 1:46 pmI have paid income taxes at a 70%+ rate when Nixon was President.
There were far more deductions available then. Are we to believe you didn’t take any of the deductions, you simply paid the highest tax bill possible?
I’d like to hear it from the service horse’s mouth.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (152589) — 12/14/2008 @ 1:58 pm“I post under my own name so to back-up everything I say.”
Petrano – Attaching your name to something doesn’t make it any more true. Sorry.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/14/2008 @ 1:58 pmWell, I am very glad to hear “Drumwaster” is out-ta-here.” My tone will gladly change.
I enjoy polite debate; but I will reply in-spades to comments attacking my veracity, patriotism, or mental capacity (suggesting “I look under my bed”).
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 2:11 pmmental capacity (suggesting “I look under my bed”).
Petrano – Check the cabinets too. I hear they like to hide there as well. And mind the snipers.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/14/2008 @ 2:14 pm__________________________________
Are we to believe you didn’t take any of the deductions, you simply paid the highest tax bill possible?
Yea, right.
And just as surveys indicate that a higher percentage of people of the left are, in fact, less generous when it comes to charitable contributions than people of the right, I have no doubt that scrutiny of the tax returns of most liberals would indicate anything but an “I’m OK, you’re OK” response to the IRS.
Moreover, what’s the one group that comes out ahead when enough people are gullible and foolish enough to wring their hands over — and buy into — the idea that our society has been pushed to “ruin by cutting taxes”? Government employees and, most importantly, their unions.
With that in mind, here’s a variation of the concept that a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged:
Mark (411533) — 12/14/2008 @ 2:31 pm
Well, Mark, Rep. Charles Rangel seems to have a non-libertarian view of his taxes, eh?
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/14/2008 @ 2:32 pmDalyrocks SAID:
Petrano – Check the cabinets too. I hear they like to hide there as well. And mind the snipers.
You’re out of your league in the art of insult sweety-puffs.
Before I was a lawyer, I was a hairdresser/barber for over 30 years. I am well trained in the art of dealing with every level of loser, especially those vain, perverted, semi-retarded judges that used to request I do their hair in closed quarters. Those judicial misfits (some of them comment here) made getting into law school and attaining a J.D., very easy for me.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 2:40 pmPetrano – My sincere apologies. I got your background mixed up with that of another loser. I forgot that you were a barber rather than a shoe salesman.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/14/2008 @ 3:00 pmdaleyrocks SAID:
Petrano – My sincere apologies. I got your background mixed up with that of another loser. I forgot that you were a barber rather than a shoe salesman.
Can you be so kind to expand on your theory barbers and shoe salesmen are losers?
In you response, please include other legally accepted professions you consider to be occupied by “losers.”
On topic, do you consider factory level employees at the “Big-3” to be losers too?
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 3:11 pmThat must make things easier when it comes to dealing with your wife…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/14/2008 @ 3:12 pmI don’t consider any profession to be “losers”. I consider loons who display their ignorance of basic economics and current events, their irrationality and a Sears catalog of delusions on other people’s blogs as losers.
I’d also include in the category people who use “libertarian” as an insult in ways that demonstrate their utter ignorance of the meaning of the ideology.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/14/2008 @ 3:15 pm“Can you be so kind to expand on your theory barbers and shoe salesmen are losers?”
Petrano – You are deluded. I did not call shoe salesmen or barbers losers. I called you a loser. Your prior employment has nothing to do with my opinion.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/14/2008 @ 3:18 pmScott Jacob SAID:
Wow.
It’s like you were completely unaware that such a move would require a Constitutional Amendment…
Well Scotty-pie, it seems you think the Constitution sets the number of S. Court Justices at nine?
Dealing with a loser like you is a pleasure. So far, the only commentor that caught me wrong was “SPQR” when I wrongly suggested the Chief Judge was required to swear in a VP.
At least I had the courage to admit I was wrong. You are too much of a coward-loser to do such a thing.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 3:25 pmDealing with a loser like you is a pleasure.
Probably because you surround yourself with them.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (152589) — 12/14/2008 @ 3:40 pmActually, Petrano, you’ve been spanked repeatedly over the past on a multitude of topics in a score of threads. Its gotten to be quite the comedy.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/14/2008 @ 3:41 pmSPQR SAID:
I don’t consider any profession to be “losers”. I consider loons who display their ignorance of basic economics and current events, their irrationality and a Sears catalog of delusions on other people’s blogs as losers.
What is the foundation of your knowledge regarding economics to make such a bold statement?
At least I can honestly state the wife has taught me alot about the subject matter. Most of what I say here regarding economics is stuff she has researched a great deal. Does your wife have a J.D. MBA and successfully passed the California Bar? Mine does/did . . .
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 3:49 pmActually, Petrano, both I and my wife have several degrees including a JD and we have both passed not only California’s bar but several other states as well.
None of which has anything to do with your ignorance of basic economics. Nor does it have anything to do with both of the Petranos’ failure in simple logic either.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/14/2008 @ 3:53 pmSPQR SAID:
Actually, Petrano, you’ve been spanked repeatedly over the past on a multitude of topics in a score of threads. Its gotten to be quite the comedy.
Unlike yourself, I have the courage to admit when I’m wrong. I’m not a fat-headed retard like yourself believing I’m never wrong.
Are you are related to the Captain of the Titanic? Maybe General Custer . . .
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 3:55 pmSPQR SAID:
Actually, Petrano, both I and my wife have several degrees including a JD and we have both passed not only California’s bar but several other states as well
It’s my experience most J.D.s are pretty #ucking stupid regarding economics. Does anyone in your cave have an MBA and voices economic opinions in your ear alot?
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 4:01 pmIn the meantime, Corker has gone over, the White house will provide the bailout money, and I have the feeling that the whole “debate” was nothing more than theatre.
nk (094d4d) — 12/14/2008 @ 4:17 pmnk SAID:
In the meantime, Corker has gone over, the White house will provide the bailout money, and I have the feeling that the whole “debate” was nothing more than theatre.
You are most likely correct. The only debate/hearings I ever witnessed that did not succomb to mere white-wash theatre was the ’73 Watergate Hearings.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 4:23 pmSPQR SAID:
Actually, Petrano, both I and my wife have several degrees including a JD and we have both passed not only California’s bar but several other states as well
Oh GAWD!!!!! any one of us who married a J.D. has suffered a bit of brain damage. I know of no exceptions.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 4:27 pmEsquire-Man:
Ummm …. Err… not exactly. I don’t doubt you had an easy time getting into law school, but that was because you applied to a fourth-tier law school (out of four) that will admit almost anyone with a bachelor’s degree and a pulse. I can scarcely imagine what anyone in this thread could have done to make your admissions process any easier, except in the sense that some of us never sought to become lawyers at all, while those who did generally focused on more elite schools, thereby keeping the competition at your shitty little school relatively light. You’re welcome.
That’s one hell of a spin. A less spun version is that you and Scott were equally wrong on the content of Article III, the only differences being that you were a colossal dick about it, and added a delicious level of irony in being such a dick about his ignorance in the very same post where you openly displayed yours. Oh wait, I almost forgot. Those weren’t the only differences after all. The other is that Scott is not a lawyer, and has never held himself out as one, while you not only do, but go to the tacky extreme of appending “Esq.” to your own name on every goddamned comment you post. I graduated from law school at approximately the same time you did, from one at least as close to the top of the heap as yours is to the bottom, got admitted much earlier in a state far more selective than Florida, went on to become admitted in three other jurisdictions, and am now lawfully practicing in a fifth. Shall I sign my comments as “Xrlq, Esq. Esq. Esq. Esq. Esq.?”
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/14/2008 @ 4:48 pmXRIQ SAID:
Ummm …. Err… not exactly. I don’t doubt you had an easy time getting into law school, but that was because you applied to a fourth-tier law school (out of four) that will admit almost anyone with a bachelor’s degree and a pulse.
Only an anonymous, fly-#hit on-the-wall wannabe lawyer would attack one’s law school as being “4th tier.” In sum, put-up or shut-up fool.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 4:57 pmPetrano – You dim bulb loser, where Xrlq says fourth tier he provides a link to a ranking from U.S. News & World Report. It’s their ranking, not his, loser.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/14/2008 @ 5:04 pmPetrano, I already did, dumbass. As anyone with internet access can easily determine, I went to Berkeley, while our equally non-anonymous host went to Texas. Yet we don’t run around acting like asses and calling ourselves “Esq.” Why do you?
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/14/2008 @ 5:13 pmdaleyrocks SAID:
Petrano – You dim bulb loser, where Xrlq says fourth tier he provides a link to a ranking from U.S. News & World Report. It’s their ranking, not his, loser.
I’m not questioning the fact my law school is ABA rated “bottom-of-the-heap;” to the contrary, I only reject the anonymous “XRLQ” ever attended any law school or possesses knowledge beyond spoken conferences made with his/her index finger dingleberries.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 5:15 pmThough as daleyrocks rightly notes, my identity is scarcely relevant, anyway. Even if I raelly were a fly-shit-on-the-wall-wannabe lawyer, St. Thomas would still be a bottom of the barrel law school (unless of course you define the barrel to include unaccredited schools, which US News does not rank).
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/14/2008 @ 5:16 pmXroq SAID:
Petrano, I already did, dumbass. As anyone with internet access can easily determine, I went to Berkeley
Are you freggin serious? any anonymous dimwit can make such a claim!
I post non-anonymous b/c I repeatedly beat on the same drum my outrage Judge Kozinski eliminated the WebSense Firewall.
I contend that by doing so, Kozinski knowingly allowed federal law clerks to chatter on courthouse computers exchanging ex-parte info about particular litigants’ personal lives to the extent their own work product is based on which party they personally dislike most.
You are too much of a coward to place your name and reputation on-the-line to voice any such concern. It’s much safer to join the anonymous flock and mock anyone who would dare speak-up . . .
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 5:31 pmD.F.P. ESQUIRE!!!! writes:
By contrast, a few months back, a certain D.F.P. ESQUIRE!!!! (no apparent relation) wrote:
This leaves three possibilities. The first is that the first Esquire draws a subtle distinction between tiers on “the ABA list” (which does not exist) and the US News one, which does. The second is that Mr. Esquire draws an even subtler distinction between those who single out a “you pays your money, you gets your degree” school for being part of the lowest tier rather than the fourth (when there only are four). The third is that the first Esquire thinks the second is, and I quote, “an anonymous, fly-#hit on-the-wall wannabe lawyer.”
Maybe the second Esquire can shed some light on this.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/14/2008 @ 5:34 pmPetrano, no matter how much you repeat it, your accusation against Kosinski remains a prime example of the combination of your delusions with your ignorance.
That you can’t understand that a federal network filter would not have prevented people from accessing whatever chat forum they wanted to after hours is quite amusing.
Of course, that does not even begin to describe my amusement at your failure to even understand which circuits were actually involved.
Ignorance and delusions – that’s all you’ve got to offer, Petranos.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/14/2008 @ 5:39 pmXrlq, me … I’m going with the theory that both “esquires” are just completely incompetent.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/14/2008 @ 5:40 pmXroq SAID:
Even if I raelly were a fly-shit-on-the-wall-wannabe lawyer . . .
Who gives a bloody #uck-all what you raelly believe! You are really anonymous.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 5:40 pmSPQR SAID:
Of course, that does not even begin to describe my amusement at your failure to even understand which circuits were actually involved.
At least you are admitting more than one circuit was involved. Perhaps you can define what you mean by involved, judgie-wudgie??
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 5:46 pmjudgie-wudgie?
Sheesh, what a loon. Paranoia like that must have chemical assistance.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/14/2008 @ 5:50 pmSheesh, what a loon. Paranoia like that must have chemical assistance.
Having to compete with a service horse for his wife’s affections …. It would take a very special man to withstand that kind of pressure.
nk (094d4d) — 12/14/2008 @ 5:56 pmSPQR Said:
Sheesh, what a loon. Paranoia like that must have chemical assistance.
Whatever chemicals I’ve got goin’ down on my end is surely less-toxic/harmful than the putrid excrement comprising your anonymous lame-brain.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 6:00 pmHey, how you take your chems is NOT something I need to know…
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/14/2008 @ 6:02 pmnk said:
Having to compete with a service horse for his wife’s affections …. It would take a very special man to withstand that kind of pressure.
O.K., I get it.
It appears you are intending to follow Circuit Court Judge Marcus’ former law clerk Elizabeth Oyer’s act of crossing state lines to injure my wife’s disability service horse?
Does my wife have a case pending in front of your judge as well?
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/14/2008 @ 6:09 pmLame as my brain may or may not be, I’m not wandering around blogs insinuating that commentators who criticize me are my judicial nemesis.
Paranoia like that has to have chemical assistance.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/14/2008 @ 6:10 pmAny anonymous dimwit can ask the California Bar to post a false record indicating that he (1) is a lawyer and (2) went to the law school displayed on that record, sure, but do you think that the bar would actually comply with such a request? Really? I wish I had known that in 1999; I’d have listed myself as a Yale grad instead.
And no, the fact that you advertise your true identity in every stupid, ignorant comment you post does not make your comments any less stupid or ignorant. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Yours fail on their merits. Attaching your real name to your dumbass comments doesn’t make you look like any less of a dumbass; it just makes it easier for the rest of us to identify the dumbass. And even that can be accomplished just as well by picking a pseudonym and using it consistently.
Many more than seem to care about what you believe, frankly, but no matter. Seeing as you posted this delusional crap even after I had linked to a government site identifying me by name in this very thread, you really are a dumbass. No wonder you couldn’t do better than fourth tier, and therefore feel the need to throw “Esq.” around to remind everyone you barely managed to become a lawyer at all.
As for harping on my “raelly” typo, haw haw, you got me there. One might think that the guy who brought us Chief Justice Rhenquist, ALOT, reagrding, deturrent, Porche and a gazillion misplaced hyphens might have given a bit more thought to what they say about people living in glass houses, but then again, one might be wrong.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/14/2008 @ 6:11 pmDoes my wife have a case pending in front of your judge as well?
Definitely.
nk (094d4d) — 12/14/2008 @ 6:14 pmreally? mocking you and your wife, and suggesting that your wife “really enjoys time” with the animal means he wants to hurt the horse?
Dude, really, what heavy drugs at you on? I want some!!! SHARE!
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/14/2008 @ 8:08 pmOf course it does. I enjoy spending time with my dogs, so it stands to reason that I want to hurt them, right?
Xrlq, Esq.^5 (62cad4) — 12/14/2008 @ 8:36 pmI think I’d better clarify for the sake of all meat carvers masquerading as sea captains and French frogmen with silenced rifles, everywhere:
In comment #229, Esquire wrote:
nk said:
Having to compete with a service horse for his wife’s affections …. It would take a very special man to withstand that kind of pressure.
O.K., I get it.
It appears you are intending to follow Circuit Court Judge Marcus’ former law clerk Elizabeth Oyer’s act of crossing state lines to injure my wife’s disability service horse?
Does my wife have a case pending in front of your judge as well?
Comment by David F. Petrano Esq. — 12/14/2008 @ 6:09 pm
O.K., I get it.
Good for you, but now the question is doesn’t that make the horse jealous?
It appears you are intending to follow Circuit Court Judge Marcus’ former law clerk Elizabeth Oyer’s act of crossing state lines to injure my wife’s disability service horse?
That “appears” only to a loony-tune like you. Along with little green men riding pink elephants and playing the Andorran national anthem on kazoos.
Does my wife have a case pending in front of your judge as well?
Definitely. (But you’ll never understand what I mean.)
nk (094d4d) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:12 amWhy a bridge loan to GM and the other auto makers? This is why. To young, myopic conservatives, weaned on the repeated failure of trickle down Reaganomics and the misguided half-truths of Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm and the like, this is why the auto industry is vital to the United States– and must be saved.
The following text is from a General Motors Victory ad, circa August, 1942, a mere 8 months after Pearl Harbor, when victory not a certainty.
“America’s armed might is making its inspiring strength felt around the globe. Wherever our soldiers take the field, Chevrolet-built equipment serves them well…”
“In huge plants the nation over– now expanded beyond their peace time proportions– skilled Chevrolet craftsmen work diligently for our country. Their output can only be measured in multi-millions of dollars– for war censorship prohibits revalation of actual production figures.”
“Sleek-winged bombers now are powered by Pratt & Whitney airplane engines. Rugged, durable, Army trucks which Chevorelet has engineered and built in multiple thousands for the past many months are aiding American fighting men in every ranch of the Service, everywhere in the world.”
“Armor piercing shells, produced in vast quantities by Chevrolet, scream defiance wherever man challenges freedom. An ever-increasing number of aluminum forgings for airplanes.. together with many other different kinds of parts for other war producers, both within and without General Motors… are flowing from great Chevrolet factories…”
It goes on. The industrial base of the American auto industry was, is and will be a vital element of national security.
GM and the others fought for this country as much as any airman or soldier in the field. They deserve help from the people of the United States as much as any veteran does today. Not a blank check, but help.
Shelby and his conservative ilk be damned. Your selfish, rabid, right-wing mentality brings damage, shame– and embarassment upon America.
We’re a better people than you.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/15/2008 @ 9:09 amConservative lesson #20– see #236
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/15/2008 @ 9:12 amXriq said:
I’d have listed myself as a Yale grad instead.
Please expand on your “Yale” comment.
Do you believe if you attended Yale:
(1) you would be smarter;
(2) non-lawyers/clients would think you were smarter with no real basis other than you attended “Yale.”
(3)#hit-for-brains judges and their law clerks would accept your legal ca-ca more so than if you were not Yale?
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 9:17 amDCSCA, you seem not to have learned your lesson. Chevrolet trucks are obsolete as military equipment. For that matter, so are Hummers – the military is not buying anymore. Pratt & Whitney is and was not an automobile manufacturer. And C47 transports and Willys Jeeps are even more obsolete.
The UAW should not have its failed biz plan subsidized based on arguments by you that are six decades obsolete.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/15/2008 @ 9:21 amDCSCA,
I buy-into your argument b/c I recall hearing as a kid (I’m pushing 60) the factory workers in my dad’s barber shop talk about working day/night during WWII building our war machine.
I guess the folks you are talking to not are not quite as long-in-the-tooth as I am. Maybe they think we can “outsource’ a war machine the next time we are “Pearl Harbored” again.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 9:29 amOf course, if we were “Pearl Harbored” again, the UAW would insist on waiting until the end of the current contract to renegotiate work rules.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/15/2008 @ 9:37 amSPQR SAID:
DCSCA, you seem not to have learned your lesson. Chevrolet trucks are obsolete as military equipment. For that matter, so are Hummers – the military is not buying anymore. Pratt & Whitney is and was not an automobile manufacturer. And C47 transports and Willys Jeeps are even more obsolete.
DCSCA is not suggesting we build chevys trucks, Hummers.
DCSCA is suggesting “Big-3′ factories and their skilled labor can build anything required of a modern war machine, better and faster than any other place on Earth; and as such, they perform a vital function in national defense, as well as a deterrent far more effective than a nuclear strategy.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 9:41 amBetter than the factories that are already building such things?
Pablo (99243e) — 12/15/2008 @ 9:49 amPetrano, except that they can’t. The “Big 3” assembly lines produce consumer autos and trucks, not armored vehicles and jet aircraft. DCSCA keeps citing to WWII when military equipment was buildable on consumer auto assembly lines. Today it is not.
The Army does not use Chevy trucks any longer, nor Willys Jeeps. It uses Stryker armored cars, M1 tanks and F22 jet fighters. None of which come off a Chevy Camaro assembly line.
The argument is specious and silly.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/15/2008 @ 9:50 amSPQR SAID:
Of course, if we were “Pearl Harbored” again, the UAW would insist on waiting until the end of the current contract to renegotiate work rules.
If we were “Pearl Harbored” again, the UAW would organize a work force that would amaze even brain-dead reality denialist like you.
I bet you spend enormous time on this blog (you ALWAYS here, year after year) as a result of being soooo bloated/over-weight from those anti-psychotic meds your take, you can’t get-off your fat, retarded arse and do anything else.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 9:51 amPetrano, the UAW can’t organize a picnic. They won’t renegotiate their contract in the face of the imminent collapse of the Big 3. Your claims for them fly in the face of their actions.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/15/2008 @ 9:52 am#239 SPQR-
Your homework for tonight- re-read #236.
When dawn arrives, this time touch your paw to the Monolith instead of raising your leg to it.
#241 SPQR- conservatives, liberals and rodents in between acknowledge September 11, 2001 was ‘another Pearl Harbor.’ Guess your cable TV was out that day.
Touch the Monolith, laddy.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/15/2008 @ 9:57 am#245-Petrano, he doesnt get it. Conservatives never have, at any age. They have always obstructed progress.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/15/2008 @ 10:01 amSPQR SAID:
Petrano, except that they can’t. The “Big 3″ assembly lines produce consumer autos and trucks, not armored vehicles and jet aircraft. DCSCA keeps citing to WWII when military equipment was buildable on consumer auto assembly lines. Today it is not.
If we had to IMMEDIATELY build a MASSIVE war machine to take-on a determined enemy desperately needing everything we have (think China), “The BIG-3” and their skilled labor are the ONLY hope we have.
Touch the monolith, don’t piss on it.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 10:16 amPetrano, the fact that both you and DCSCA are ignorant of modern warfare would only be amusing were it not for the all caps.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/15/2008 @ 10:18 amWhat DCSCA and Whackjob Esq. fail to realize is that the level of automation in today’s factories (not to mention the cumbersome procedures of the Big Three) precludes rapid change-over to even a new car-class on an assembly line. It takes MONTHS to even re-tool from sedan to truck. What in the WORLD makes you two think the Big Three could even come close to making the swap from sedan to Tank, or minivan to Jet Fighter.
Part of why the auto makers back the could produce tanks and planes was because they used engines very much like what cars used. Bigger and more powerful, but still ICEs.
There is now a HUGE difference in production between military vehicles and cars/trucks.
Again, just because you say it or think it doesn’t make it true. Cite specific examples to support your claim. For once, CITE EVIDENCE YOU THUNDERING BUFFOON!!!
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 10:19 amThere was also quite a bit less automation on the assembly line in the ’40’s.
Its just a completely frivolous argument. The manufacturing of military equipment is going on at plants that are nominally owned by corporations that include GM, etc., but those are independant operations whose availability won’t change if the Big 3 go into Chapter 11.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/15/2008 @ 10:22 amWouldn’t the American Honda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai and Subaru plants work?
Pablo (99243e) — 12/15/2008 @ 10:31 amAbout as well, Pablo, about as well.
And you would not have to wait 3 years after the emergency for the UAW to agree to negotiate new work rules.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/15/2008 @ 10:38 am“The Big-3” and their skilled labor can RAPIDLY build ANYTHING from:
(1) weapons,
(2) MASSIVE machinery required to assemble weapon factories,
(3) critical infrastructure needed to keep other weapon factories going. They can build a transportation infrastructure to transport mass labor to/from the weapon factories.
Moreover, we cannot allow the “The Big-3” skilled labor to wither and die; if we do, there will be no one to instruct others to tool-up when it’s time to immediately assemble a MASSIVE war machine.
In reality, I’m only a senior-citizen barber/hairdresser recently turned lawyer from a “tier-4” law school. What do I know?
I am merely parroting the lingo of Ross Perot. He warned us 20 years ago that outsourcing would shut-down our major factories to the point national security would be seriously threatened.
I have a hunch RP was right; if so, you are all #ucked-in-spades.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 10:47 amNo. They can’t. First off, the assembly of such items is so far outside their experience, they would only be marginally more effective than a brand new hire. Second, as I said, there is no way the Big Three’s facilities could be quickly converted to such production. The foreign auto-makers, however, have a re-tool time of less than a week compared to the month+ for the Big Three, and thus would be FAR better at such a transition.
The Big three fails the two big tests: Skills and Ability. They have neither, at least they do not possess either in any greater quantities than Toyota of Honda do.
Again, there is no way we COULD do such a thing. It wouldn’t be possible, for reasons I just listed.
Simply because you keep saying something – without any supporting evidence – does not make it true.
When it comes to modern war-fighting equipment? Very little, it seems…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 10:54 am“I’m only a senior-citizen barber/hairdresser recently turned lawyer from a “tier-4″ law school. What do I know?”
— How to give a wash, cut, & blow-dry whilst engaging in catty Andrew Sullivan-style gossip . . . and charging $90 an hour for it.
Icy Texan (b7d162) — 12/15/2008 @ 10:59 amIcy Texan SAID:
How to give a wash, cut, & blow-dry whilst engaging in catty Andrew Sullivan-style gossip . . . and charging $90 an hour for it.
I’m not advertising my services by any means whatsoever. Your commentary is rejected.
Likewise, I’m sharing my opinions which you have clearly rejected/mocked.
Perhaps I will live long enough to see you/yours freak-out to the extent you have to go on “SPQR’s” anti-psychotic meds the next time we are “Pearl Harbored.”
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 11:11 amGeez! Don’t get all
Icy Texan (b7d162) — 12/15/2008 @ 11:20 amprissypissy on us.Also, the time to build a nation’s war machine is NOT after it’s been attacked. The time is BEFORE you need the military, so it is fully equipped and trained on that equipment before you need it. This is a large part of the reason our military was “stretched to breaking” with Iraq and Afghanistan – Clinton reduced the military so much, when it came time to use it were barely had enough.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 11:21 amScott Jacobs SAID:
Also, the time to build a nation’s war machine is NOT after it’s been attacked. The time is BEFORE you need the military, so it is fully equipped and trained on that equipment before you need it. This is a large part of the reason our military was “stretched to breaking” with Iraq and Afghanistan – Clinton reduced the military so much, when it came time to use it were barely had enough.
Scotty-puffs, why are you even responding to me? I’m only “tier-4.” You have already embraced Xriq’s commentary “tier-4s’ are so sub-class, we are not worthy of anything but a losing opinion across-the-board.
I am very content to quietly sit-back and watch you/your fellow first-class passengers steam full-speed straight towards the iceberg.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 11:38 amEither back this claim up with a specific citation (including link), or stfu, idiot.
I don’t mock you because of the school you went to. I don’t even KNOW what school you went to.
I mock you because you’re insane. Completely and utterly insane.
What’s more, you pull this sort of trick when you have been shown to be utterly incorrect – you claim “we refuse to debate you” or some similar line of BS, and bow out.
I have countered your claim. Can you produce a response that is on-topic?
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 11:53 amThat reminds me. I need a haircut.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/15/2008 @ 11:56 amSPQR SAID:
That reminds me. I need a haircut.
Perhaps, but spare your barber/hairdresser your looney rants. Take your Risperdal before you go to the shop.
Also remember, it’s Christmas AND you are a blazing #sshole. Don’t forget to leave a VERY large Holiday tip! Otherwise, your barber/hairdersser will purposely make you look more stupid than you already are.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 12:06 pmIt seems that Captain Insane (Esq) is going to ignore my request he actually engage in a debate.
I’m shocked. Really…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 12:09 pmI think he should ask for the Mussolini cut, personally.
But I do agree that he should be as nice as possible to the hairdresser. Guys like him need all the breaks they can get, and a bad haircut would most certainly spell disaster.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 12/15/2008 @ 12:11 pmDid you ask him to debate by giving him a term paper to write?
truthnjustice (c313be) — 12/15/2008 @ 12:12 pmYou are a laughable fraud of a troll. That’s all.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 12/15/2008 @ 12:20 pmOh wait. I take that back. As a troll, you have true bona fides.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 12/15/2008 @ 12:21 pmScott Jacobs SAID:
We don’t question his sanity… We know he and his wife are fucking insane.
It seems that Captain Insane (Esq) is going to ignore my request he actually engage in a debate.
I’m shocked. Really…
Right-on . . .I’m gonna rush-the-door to hold a debate with you.
You, SPQR and “xriq” began communicating with offensive personality, not I. I sense you are a lawyer wannabe.
I remotely suspect SPQR is likely an unfit, ranting, insulting, vindictive nut-case on Risperdal, to the extent his robes are getting a wee-bit tight with the associated weight gain.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 12:31 pm“I remotely suspect SPQR is likely an unfit, ranting, insulting, vindictive nut-case on Risperdal, to the extent his robes are getting a wee-bit tight with the associated weight gain.”
Petrano – I always enjoy your fact-filled commentary.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/15/2008 @ 12:35 pmSo you’re admitting that you have nothing to back up your claims, and shall let stand as true my statements?
Ok then. Now we can move on to other matters, like how you felt the first day you came home early and found your wife enjoying some “special therapy” with her horse…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 12:43 pmdaleyrocks SAID:
Petrano – I always enjoy your fact-filled commentary.
What facts?
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 12:44 pmAre you somehow offended when I reply-in-kind to anonymous posters who refer to me as “insane” or 4th-tier-tainted while I merely sought to initiate a good-fath attempt at debate?
Damn, my dictionary is defective as its definition of “good faith” does not match Petrano’s at all.
But then, very little of my reality matches Petrano’s. And I don’t find myself very concerned about that.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/15/2008 @ 12:46 pmWhere’s MKDP? Is she still tied up getting her weekly brain douche?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/15/2008 @ 12:51 pmI would be far more concerned with the parts that do…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 12:51 pmScott Jacobs SAID:
Ok then. Now we can move on to other matters, like how you felt the first day you came home early and found your wife enjoying some “special therapy” with her horse…
I did not bring up the subject of my wife’s disability service horse, you did. Coincidence or not, whenever I post on this blog and someone mentions my wife’s horse, the horse always gets attacked, poisoned, cut, or even released to the open highway by suspicious opening of barn doors and street gates.
In sum, stay away from the horse topic. If you continue doing so, I will consider you as inciting injury to a disability service animal.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 12:55 pmYa know what? I’m willing to wager not only LOTS of money, but my life and the lives of everyone I actually like (4 or 5 people) that no one here sees mention of your wife’s horsey and then goes and harms it, attempts to harm it, or requests that someone else harm it.
And if they did, I would personally beat the crap out of them, because it isn’t the horse’s fault it’s owned by you two.
And I can talk about what I personally suspect (without any actual physical evidence, mind you) is a romantic relationship betwen your wife and her horse, and there is frankly not a damn thing you can do about it.
I am not, have never, and would never so much as wish bug-bite upon that animal. If you want to take my mocking you and your wife as something wholly different, you are more than welcome.
Lawsuits suggesting I have attempted to incite injury will be met with several counter suites.
I might not be a lawyer, but I do have one on retainer.
Have a nice day, Captain Crazy…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 1:09 pmScott jacobs SAID:
Ya know what? I’m willing to wager not only LOTS of money, but my life and the lives of everyone I actually like (4 or 5 people) that no one here sees mention of your wife’s horsey and then goes and harms it, attempts to harm it, or requests that someone else harm it.
I might not be a lawyer, but I do have one on retainer.
Maybe before you continue to talk about my wife’s disability service horse in any manner whatsoever, you should consider providing me with the name/contact info of your attorney on “retainer?”
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 1:21 pmScott jacobs SAID:
Ya know what? I’m willing to wager not only LOTS of money, but my life and the lives of everyone I actually like (4 or 5 people) that no one here sees mention of your wife’s horsey and then goes and harms it, attempts to harm it, or requests that someone else harm it.
I might not be a lawyer, but I do have one on retainer.
Maybe before you continue to talk about my wife’s disability service horse in any manner whatsoever, you should consider providing me with the name/contact info of your attorney on “retainer?”
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 1:21 pmReally? You wanna do this?
You realize he’s actually WON cases, right? And once he hears about you, he won’t even charge me?
He’ll fight you in court just for the laughs…
Feel free to e-mail me. I’ll gladly respond with his information…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 1:26 pmThat is, unless someone else here would like to poach this one for the giggles it would bring.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 1:29 pmA horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And no one can talk to a horse of course
That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous MKDP Service Horse.
Go right to the source and ask the horse
He’ll give you the answer that you’ll endorse.
He’s always on a steady course.
Talk to MKDP Service Horse.
People yakkity yak a streak and waste your time of day
But MKDP Service Horse will never speak unless he has something to say
A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And this one’ll talk ‘til his voice is hoarse.
You never heard of a talking horse?
Well listen to this: “I’m MKDP Service Horse.”
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/15/2008 @ 1:30 pmYeah. Sure it does, Dave. Have you considered that these may be suicide attempts?
Pablo (99243e) — 12/15/2008 @ 1:34 pmNothing says “I’m a faux attorney” like threatening to sue someone over an insult in a comment thread on a blog.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/15/2008 @ 1:35 pm“Have you considered that these may be suicide attempts?”
Pablo – Death is often not the desired end. Many times the attempt is just a cry for help. Being around those two loons I could understand the horse’s motivations.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/15/2008 @ 1:37 pmMr. Jacobs, feel free to e-mail me with your attorney’s contact info if you wish to continue discussing my wife’s disability service animal. Are you able to find my e-mail address?
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 1:42 pm“Nothing says “I’m a faux attorney” like threatening to sue someone over an insult in a comment thread on a blog.”
SPQR – Don’t be so tough on the barber. Remember he had that big admiralty case over the loose mooring lines on the boat in the next slip over during a storm. I think that one was laughed out of court.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/15/2008 @ 1:43 pmYou’re the one who wants it, you can find mine. It should be easy enough, as it was openly posted somewhere just today…
You get to make the effort, freak. I ain’t your dancin’ monkey…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 1:44 pmdaleyrocks, do you know if the courtroom flag had yellow fringe on it?
SPQR (72771e) — 12/15/2008 @ 1:48 pmMr. Jacobs, I cannot find a link to your e-mail address to enable me to enquire into name/contact info of your attorney “on retainer.” Perhaps you could be so kind to direct me where/how/when I can do so.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 1:50 pm“daleyrocks, do you know if the courtroom flag had yellow fringe on it?”
SPQR – I think it did, with red dingleberries hanging off.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/15/2008 @ 1:53 pmSPQR,
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 1:54 pmAre you supporting these uninvited inquiry/threats into the wife’s disability service animal?
I didn’t link it. I typed it out carefully to avoid spam-bots picking it up. maybe it’s unfair of me to say it, but I bet Daleyrocks could find it with less than 5 minutes of effort.
Then again, he has demonstrated that he possesses powers of observation, and problem-solving skills.
So I understand why it might take you a bit longer. But buck up, bubba. I know you can do it. I mean, you passed the bar exam at some point, so you can’t be a COMPLETE idiot…
Then again, Jock Thompson passed, so I suppose there’s that chance…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 1:56 pmMr. Petrano is a rather prolific complainer on the interwebs. This one was pretty funny:
re: Tampa News Topix “Foreclosures on the rise help for homeowners”
My name is David Petrano. I blog under “David Petrano”
…
There are currently blogger(s) named:
“katielynn”
“not tellin u shyt”
“David Petrano Esquirt”
The above named bloggers make numerous personal attacks containing false, malicious, reckless and defamatory content upon myself, my autistic wife and my reputation as an attorney in violation of 47 U.S.C. Sec. 223. The editor’s name is not known or available to me to redress this matter immediately.
This person is falsely stating I engage in teen sex. This person is also falsely claiming to be my client.
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 12/15/2008 @ 1:57 pmYou’re like the idiot-gift that keeps on giving…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 1:58 pmActually Mr. Jacobs, I tried to find your e-mail and I cannot do so.
In the interest of expediting the contact you have invited me to make with your attorney “on retainer,” perhaps you would be so kind to provide me with some direction as to what exact post, etc. I could find such contact info you suggest exists.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:00 pmJack – What reputation as an attorney?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:01 pmThey were sending, allowing to be sent, or creating child porn??
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:02 pm10 minutes isn’t “trying”. I realize you are unused to people expecting you to do your own work, but I’m afraid I do.
You have to EARN the right to embarrass yourself in front of my lawyer…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:03 pmI would love to be the attorney who asks “not tellin u shyt” to clearly state his/her name for the court to hear, at the beginning of their testimony.
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:04 pmI would change my legal name to that, JUST for that question…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:05 pmMr. Jacobs, are you going to provide me with a way to contact the attorney you claim is “on retainer’ or are you going to avoid doing so by branching-off to different subjects?
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:06 pmAlso, I can find the exact post in two clicks that tells you at the worst two messenger contacts for me, and thus two e-mail accounts, but only if you aren’t an idiot…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:09 pmIs Mr. Petrano a member of the Church of Scientology?
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:10 pmHaven’t you noticed? Mocking you has ALWAYS been the topic, starting from the moment you arrived…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:10 pmMr. Jacobs, it’s clear you do not intend to provide me with info regarding the attorney you claim to have “on retainer.”
Perhaps its best if you stay on-topic regarding Congressional bail-out of “the Big-3?” rather than continuing to expose yourself as a blow-heart for not expeditiously putting me in touch with your attorney’s contact info.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:14 pmCoincidence or not, whenever I post on this blog and someone mentions my wife’s horse, the horse always gets attacked, poisoned, cut, or even released to the open highway by suspicious opening of barn doors and street gates.
Motive, means, opportunity. Don’t try to shift suspicion, Esquire. The police are smarter than that.
nk (094d4d) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:15 pmnk – I think we should alert PETA.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:16 pmMr. Esq, if I were your wife’s service horse, I’d find a busy set of train tracks and lie down on them.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:18 pmMaybe they’ll have one of those naked “die-in” protests in front of his house. We can ask
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:18 pm“katielynn”
“not tellin u shyt”
“David Petrano Esquirt”
if they want to make the signs and papier-mache horse heads.
heh… Litterally 2 mouse clicks, and he would have two of my e-mail addresses virtually handed to him.
Captain Crazy, you are either very lazy, or very stupid.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:29 pmMr. Jacobs. I admit I lack the requisite internet/computer knowledge to figure-out your “2-clicks away” method of finding the e-mail you claim exists to put me in touch with the attorney you claim to have “on retainer.”
Would you be so kind to be more specific on what you mean by “2-clicks” or were you just kidding when you stated you wanted me to contact your attorney “on retainer?”
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:40 pm#251- Scotty- If you want to pay me $200,000 (in God we trust, all others strictly cash) for an education I’d be happy to help you crawl from the tidal pool to land. No guarantees.
Otherwise, discover the truth yourself. As you are no doubt a Fox Television devotee, I’ll phrase it in a parlance more familiar to you-
“The truth Is Out There.” Get out of the basement and find it.
DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:42 pmAnother “gentlemen’s ‘C'” in Torts, I guess.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:44 pmSo an idiot, then… Gotcha.
“Click”. you know… move the mouse pointed over something that links you to another page, and you depress the mouse button once. That is a single click. Once you do that, you move it to another item that links you to a new page and click again. And you’re there. You’ll be staring right at it.
Seriously, how DID you manage to pass the bar? Just probability, you took it enough times you were bound to pass? Pure luck?
I really am curious…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:44 pmWasn’t McCain savaged for his supposed lack of computer skills by the self-anointed enlightened ones of the Obama camp?
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:47 pmClick the mouse (right/left?) onto what Mr. Jacobs?
I am afraid you must be correct that I am devoid of computer savvy in every respect. That stated, please provide exact instructions on how I can contact the attorney you claim to have “on retainer.”
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:57 pmWe already have a bailout design, it is called Chapter 11. Force the UAW to the table and let them take it in the shorts rather than the rest of us who did not have a hand in destroying the auto industry. In addition, let Congress take some of their salary away or work 6 years for a ! a year since they are far more compensated than their salaries and let THEM put their money where their big, fat mouths are.
Follow the United Airlines model and restructure.
Remove the ridiculous CAFE standards and absolutely asinine enovirshackles that hogtie the industry and drive the cost of cars up.
Or just let them fail. Someone else will step in.
MelissaTX (95081c) — 12/15/2008 @ 2:58 pmMelissaTX SAID:
Remove the ridiculous CAFE standards and absolutely asinine enovirshackles that hogtie the industry and drive the cost of cars up.
No one will doubt you that during the non-“asinine enovirshackles” days, the “Big-3” routinely pumped toxic substances directly into rivers/lakes, etc.
U.S. and Western Europian car manufacturers have since progressed to the extent environmetal issues are considered global, not regional; as such, we have similar costly environmental manufacturing laws in place.
Contrariwise, we cannot compete with car manufacturers that manufacture cars/parts cheaper than us simply b/c they manufacture in regions of the world where there are no environmantal laws (China/Indochina/Korea/India/Malaysia).
The BK you speak of will likely involve the UAW to the extent UAW will file adversary proceedings in the respective BK cases to seek judicial decisions UAW cannot compete with countries that manufacture cars cheaper because they have no environmental laws, antitrust laws, disability rights laws, labor union laws, child labor laws, minimum wage laws, etc.
anonymous4now (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 3:22 pmanonymous4now, your claims continue to be utterly ridiculous. Toyota can manufacture cars at a profit in the United States with compliance to the same environmental laws as here. Toyota in Japan is subject to environmental laws just as strict if not stricter than here, and those cars also are made at a profit. Likewise Honda.
As for parts manufactured offshore, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler all buy substantial components offshore already.
You remain completely clueless on the substance of the issue.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/15/2008 @ 3:26 pmSPQR, did I mention Japan?
I voice concern over the fact several family members have recently purchased Hyundai cars. Are they not made in China?
anonymous4now (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 3:36 pmKorea!
AOracle (648197) — 12/15/2008 @ 3:40 pmAOracle, thank you very much for the correction. I should have taken the time/effort to check it myself.
Does Korea have similar environmental laws, antitrust laws, disability rights laws, labor union laws, child labor laws, minimum wage laws, etc., as we do?
anonymous4now (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 3:44 pmanonymous4now, Hyundai is a Korean company – not that I think you can tell the difference.
Hyundai does make cars in China for the local market … in a joint venture with Ford.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/15/2008 @ 3:48 pmHonda’s made in Ohio are 70 percent US-made parts.
Chrysler’s domestic production is less … until you add in Canadian parts.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/15/2008 @ 3:52 pmAutomotive Trade Policy Council, in trying to point out the benefits of buying US tells us that Detroit’s Big 3 uses 77 percent from “domestic sources” but they had to add in Canada to get that much. Honda put 59 percent US content in their brands for the most of the Japanese makers.
Makes it pretty tough to tell the difference really.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/15/2008 @ 4:00 pmThank you SPQR for your infor regarding Hyundai’s manufacture of cars in China through Ford.
Perhaps you wish to expand on your intended meaning whan you stated: “not that I think you can tell the difference.”
anonymous4now (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 4:09 pmmy GOD!!! You really can NOT be this retarded. There is no way on God’s Green Earth you have managed to survive this long while being THIS stupid…
Click my name, moron. There. half the work done for you. the rest you can do on your own.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/15/2008 @ 4:26 pmMr. Jacobs, I left clicked on your name and all I get is a page https://patterico.com/jury/
Stated simply Mr. Jacobs, where do click from the above to contact the attorney you claim is “on retainer.”
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 4:35 pmYes, and from there, with but one more click, you can find my all but typing out character for character two of my e-mail addresses.
That you remain far, far too stupid to problem-solve the situation leaves me to realize I would NOT require a lawyer in court. I could easily represent myself pro se and not only win, but end you up with at least one contempt citation.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/15/2008 @ 4:44 pmScott – Didn’t you have that alternate email addy that started with lemon?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/15/2008 @ 4:58 pm@hotmail.com
swj719 ?
Or do we continue to play on and on?
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:00 pmSeems to me, nk, you were the one on Bloloch who made the threat aimed at me, “Can’t we just CIPAV her computer,” following which my medically prescribed speech recognition copmputer was trashed. Congrats.
Tell me, did you do that from Koz’s chambers while eating your lunch over some autie-porn, for God’s Sake? The benefits of the 2001 WebSENSE breach pay dividends forever, it seems. Too bad your blogging activities did nothing to enhance your intelligence.
Really, one of these days, Koz is going to get really bored with all you dumb NTs, and realize your daddies can name you glitzie names like “Learned Foote” and some other such, with all the bling, but that don’t make none of you mentally mediocre NTs standup comic screenwriters worthy of the Koz.
Try as he might, and for all his inestimable IQ, Koz can’t even manage to *get the hang* of savant autistic humor short of bad imitations — or traveling all the way to Tampa begging to catch a glimpse of the most famous autie of all, Yogi Bear.
In fact, I am convinced if researchers managed to harness and make memory enhancing drugs from the abilities of a savant such as Yogi, Koz would rush to take some so he could improve his sarcasm and humor otherwise known as jokes, subsequently electing to add to the employment conditions his law clerks be available 24/7 the requirement that they take some too, to smarten-up a wee bit both in their drafts and on the blogs.
Envy, nk, has made you such a fool. This is more entertainment that I have seen in 20 years. And SPQR has nothing on your efforts to insert a hoof in the right end of the horse.
Yogi Bear (4052e4) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:04 pmWhaddya gonna do? Have dalyrocks-in-the-head call PETA on the Bear and report her to Ranger Rick for escaping Jellystone Park?
Yogi Bear (4052e4) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:07 pmshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
My plan, it is coming together!!
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:09 pmOn topic: Chrysler needs a bailout NOW, so it can pay all those retractor and seat restraint breakage claims related to the more than 14 million recalls and those it omitted. I can’t wait to see all the nondischargeability aversary proceedings that will inevitably be filed in Chrysler’s Chapter 11, should it run for cover.
Yogi Bear (4052e4) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:11 pmHey Yogi, as you can see, Mr. Jacobs has requested I contact his “attorney on retainer,” but wants me to jump through hoops to find his atty’s contact name/number. What’s your take on this line of BS?
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:11 pmI think what’s coming “together” Mr. Jacobs is the fact you wish to play get-me-if-you-can games following your bold statement I contact your “attorney on retainer.”
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:13 pmWell, who had Yogi down as the new name for Cathrine the Great from FL? Come on, who won the betting pool?
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:13 pmThe only thing “coming together” is the lunch you left behind in your picnic basket, and feeding this hungry Bear.
Don’t worry, I passed the California Bar Exam — that makes me unquestionably qualified to right click my mouse.
Yogi Bear (4052e4) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:14 pmHe says to the person that is clearly his wife…
Really, this is just barely one step up from sock-puppetry.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:15 pmTrying to change the subject again Mr. Jacobs?
You will not provide the name/contact info of your “attorney on retainer?”
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:16 pmYogi/MKDP – How long do you and your loony husband actually think that freaking firewall was disabled? Ralph Meacham (sp?) confirmed a workaround was up and running pretty quickly but you idiots are so computer illiterate you probably believe the Red Chinese are stealing all of NASA’s secrets through that unplugged firewall.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:19 pmYour literary joke pic gets and “F.” I think I will ask Cyrus if he found any better pictoral humor. Yours suffers from your having right clicked off the best part of the horse, which I am sure you took with you in your hand, causing Cathrine the Great to flee the stable.
Sad.
For Catherine.
Yogi Bear (4052e4) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:19 pm“Don’t worry, I passed the California Bar Exam — that makes me unquestionably qualified to right click my mouse.”
Yogi/MKDP – But can you become a member of the Bar?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:22 pmSeriously, why bother? First, you won’t file, second I would hardly need one. You’r an idiot. I can spend 20 minutes with three FL law books, and I’ll skip away having beaten you, and won a counter claim for the wasted time.
Though the comedy of a horse in the courtroom would be PRICELESS, frankly…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:22 pmTwo clicks, two emails, three letters, three numbers.
You’re not bright enough to pass a solid stool, much less the bar, Petrano.
Phil Smith (f4f8ee) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:23 pmYou know what they say! One man’s garbage is another man’s treasure.
And one loser’s so-called sock puppet is another Bear’s parody !!
You don’t like Yogi’s parody of autism?
I think it is high time Obama nominates the first autistic to the Federal Judiciary !!
But FIRST, he will have to get rid of that discriminatory Federal Judicial Employment app that screen out all the auties, and all teh savant autie sarcasm and humor.
It all started with not trusting Benjamin Frankin to pen his autie-humor into the Declaration of Independence.
And it went from there, all the way to Yogi the autie Bear.
Yogi Bear (4052e4) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:24 pmPetrano – I am 100% sure that Scott has an attorney standing by as we speak.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:24 pmScotty-puffs, you remind me of those sadistic 7th grade bullies who freak-out when someone turns them into the principal for molesting a 4th grader.
I guess you won’t provide me with name/contact info on your “attorney on retainer” after all the fuss you made.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:25 pmHell, there’s 7 or 8 here that would probably take the case, just for giggles…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:26 pm“You know what they say! One man’s garbage is another man’s treasure.”
That’s why David married you.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:27 pmHey Phil, what letter, what numbers?
Call me stupid, etc. Just give me the address.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:27 pmI can’t believe JD is missing the Petrano infestation.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:29 pmA capital idea !!! Ask BarBri for a quickie-indoctrination in FL law, and I’m sure you’ll pen a complaint that will make your Mama proud !!
It may be the only accomplishment of your life that makes you Mama proud, but WHO CARES ???
Not anyone’s Mama !! She will put a BIG photo of you on her fireplace mantle with Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer !!
It will help you keeps your Bears and Reindeers straight, in case you are smootching one of your BarBri honeys out in the parking lot while they conver that chapter !
Yogi Bear (4052e4) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:29 pmTexas Ranger already did that on Court TV. What, is California’s judicial innovation lagging behind these days?
Sad. It is because there is no good autistic humor anymore in any California Courthouse.
Double sadness
Yogi Bear (4052e4) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:33 pmWhat ??? I’m MARRIED? I’ve been smootching my OWN BarBri studs in the parking lot during MY quickie “Scott Jacobs” defense prep.
Ooopps, I can’t see — maybe I was kissing a stallion !
For SHAME !!! It WASN’T my husband !
Yogi Bear (4052e4) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:36 pmDavid, the point is it took me all of five seconds to find based on the clues Scott gave you. I don’t have to call you stupid; you stand self-accused.
Phil Smith (f4f8ee) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:37 pmBla bla bla,
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:37 pmswj719@hotmail.com won’t reply as if to keep this silly little game going on and on.
I LOVE cowards who take a swing, and then run a hasty retreat.
Losers !!
Yogi Bear (4052e4) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:38 pmScientologists?
Jack Klompus (b0e238) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:42 pmYogi, Mr. Jacobs like to play little enigma games.
Sorry, this laddy will not provide the name/contact info of his “attorney on retainer,” even after he repeatedly suggested I do so, as if to convince everyone how tuff he is, but runs-off when you call his bluff.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:44 pmI shall now wait for Patterico to rule as to whether I’m allowed to post YOUR exact e-mail address, genius. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:46 pmI wrote to you to the above e-mail address as you instructed, and you did not respond.
You don’t have a lawyer “on retainer,” b/c if you did, you would have responded in-kind rather than mock and ridicule as you play e-mail hide and seek.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:57 pmBTW, you are allowed to post mine as far as I’m concerned.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 5:58 pmPhil, It took me only 5 seconds as well. The thing is, Mr. Jacobs did not respond to my e-mail directed to him in any manner whatsoever, instead, he continued to mock me for not finding it?
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 6:10 pmWell, mockery is all you’ve earned, Petrano.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/15/2008 @ 6:12 pmWell SPQR, I warned Mr. Jacobs” the subject matter he was touching-on was strictly off-limits, yet he persisted to the extent he invited me to contact his “attorney on retainer.” When I sought to do so, Mr. Jacobs attempted to place me on an e-mail wild goose chase.
I played into Mr. Jacob’s game unitil it was clear he was not inviting me to contact his attorney at all. In fact, he did not reply to the e-mail address he provided whatsoever.
Perhaps you choose to be his attorney? If so, I won’t send you on a wild goose chase to contact my attorney.
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 6:22 pmEsquire-Man:
I never said any such thing. Some of the world’s best lawyers come from tier 4 schools. Hell, I even stuck out my neck and defended the nomination of another Tier 4 lawyer, Harriet Miers, to the Supreme Friggin’ Court (though for reasons having nothing to do with pedigree, I was happy to see Alito end up there, instead). The one thing tier-4’s are not worthy to do (and the only reason I brought up your law school’s dismal ranking in the first place) is brag about how friggin’ easy it was getting into law school, without also disclosing that the reason it was so easy was that you had applied to one of the easiest schools to get into. That, along with accusing those of us who did better than you as undergrads, proved ourselves more skilled at applying logic on the LSAT, and made it into more elite schools of not being lawyers at all. That, you are not worthy to do, and will be mercilessly mocked over it for as long as you do.
Scott Jacobs:
Well, that would explain the gap between his graduation (1998) and his admission to the FL Bar (2003).
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/15/2008 @ 6:40 pmPetrano, off limits? You mean when you made the frivolous assertion that 47 USC 223 has anything to do with comments on this blog ( for which we laughed at you repeatedly last summer as well ).
Your incompetent attempts to intimidate people are just the stuff of comedy here, Petrano.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/15/2008 @ 6:58 pmX,
I’m not a Harriet Miers’ fan and there were no rankings when she went to SMU Law, but it’s a Tier 1 law school (#46) now.
DRJ (b4db3a) — 12/15/2008 @ 7:07 pmxriq, how old were you when you applied to LS? I was well into my late 40s.
Did your head slam through a windshield then into a tree at 50MPH? 10 years before applying to LS? Mine did.
Despite tramautic brain injury, I still managed to pull-off a J.D. from a tier-4 and pass a bar exam/character/fitness. Your “tier-4 commentary last night was pure “I went to tier-1 and you did not” crapo.
Moreover, your lame suggestion LSAT has anything to do with the practice of law is pure BS/conjecture. As an avid reader of Abe Lincoln, I feel confident he would of objected to such a stupid pre-LS hazing.
Your later suggestion that you would state you went to Yale if you could, decribes you to a “T.”
anonymous4now (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 7:08 pmAnd I have “earned” something causing my equine disability horse to be threatened AGAIN on a blog by anonymous frauds, when I was not even present on this blog participating in the discussion? I also “earned” mocking of my autism when I wasn’t present blogging here? And when I come to show the farce that you all are, my identity is known.
Here is what I see from my perspective: I was minding my own business AGAIN, when numerous blog-to-blog hopping posts were posted about myself and my equine disability service horse, inciting more imminent violence against myself and him.
After “AnnTM” incited violence by joining “towanda’s’ suggestion to stalk me across state lines in to Florida to find the location of my disability service horse, google the location of my home, and numerous other similar mocking posts by several blog-hopping anonymous fraud bloggers, my service horse and I were in fact both physically attacked.
If Koz did no damage when he breached the WebSENSE firewall as some of you claim, then he would demonstrate some that integrity the Federal Judiciary is supposed ot exhibit and make right by reporting “AnnTM,” “towanda,” and “squishy” who admitted to being a Calif. atty employed by the Ninth Circuit as a clerk who breached my confidential records there and is subject to Koz’s jurisdiction, to the USAO in Los Angeles for a Lori Drew style prosecution. Short of that, it would appear Koz ratifies their conduct.
Oh, let me add to the list of physical violence directed at me from on-blog incitements spanning several blogs and forums calling for imminent attacks on me: the more recent cutting of my horse girth in five places to cause a riding accident, my being shot at where I kept my service horse, hacking into my medical records for current medical care with my doctors in Florida and publishing some of the information on public blogs without my authorization, hacking my Social security disability information from Florida SSA office and publishing defamatory statements on public blogs to cause a claim denial, and more threats against my service horse, a physical stalking of a couple weeks ago, another attack on my service horse a little over 5 weeks ago, my food in my home poisoned, and numerous other threats against me including I should be dead and stuffed in a picnic basket.
The most interesting thing is I now see some of the anonymous bloggers making those threats are being cited above as Heros. And those bloggers in turn cited this blog. How cosy.
I wasn’t even here being part of whatever beef all of you are having with each other. I was working off-blog, and convalescing from serious injuries I suffered in a Jan. 2008 car accident in which I was rear-ended and my Chrysler seat restraint broke resulting in significant brain injury.
I would NEVER work for Koz EVER if I was the last savant autistic on this planet even if my service horse was begged for permission, after the fact no one has been prosecuted or lost so much as a Bar license for threatening and mocking my disabilities and attacking my service horse. Of all the officials the one with the most responsibility of all to call those predator hackers-bloggers to justice, it is Koz. He breached the firewall that facilitated the scoundrels to prey on my autism and my service horse. I would NEVER work for any judge or lawyer who allowed their clerks to harass disabled Americans. I would rather muck horse stalls with a toothpick, and I plan to do so in the future rather than be any part of such a rotten despicable legal profession as demonstrated here on this blog and the several other blogs and forums frequently cited.
I don’t want to be any part of any of your hostilities, threats, mockery, or anything else. All your misery can have its own company amongst yourselves. You are all losers who HATE the savant intelligence of probably the only savant autistic to ever graduate any American law school anywhere — Tier 1, Tier 4, or otherwise.
And THAT most of all is why Yogi Bear IS the enimga of savant autism, and thus the parody:
‘Yogi Bear is smarter than the average bear,
Yogi Bear is always in the ranger’s hair.
At a picnic table you will find [her] there
Stuffing down more goodies than the average bear.
[Sh]e will sleep till noon but before it’s dark,
[Sh]e’ll have every picnic basket that’s in Jellystone Park.
Yogi has it better than a millionaire
That’s because [s]he’s smarter than the average bear.’
http://www.toontracker.com/huck/yogi.htm
You all need to get a life.
Yogi Bear (58eadc) — 12/15/2008 @ 7:13 pmIn a nutshell, I have read “private” blogs among U.S. Circuit Court law clerks released on the internet from traitors within. Mockery of low-tier lawyers is a common place thing to the extent decisions turn solely on the respective atty’s tier pedigree.
Do you care to read some excerpts? Elizabeth Oyer, Esq. during her employ with Judge Marcus sets the standard for turning decisions on tier-pedigree.
anonymous4now (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 7:17 pmAnd you know what DRJ? The entire Tier 1-Tier 4 law school rankings violate the Americans With Disabilities Act “essential functions” requirments — if a disabled American can do a job at any level anywhere in the legal profession, the ONLY job criteria that is relevant is the ability to meet the “essential functions.” All the other Tier 1, Tier 4, law review editor-in-chief, and color of your panties, etc etc is all marginal function foo foo that doesn’t count under the ADA.
But, admit it, it makes you *feel better* in the socially-feely way of the NT, when you have to face the fact you don’t have the smarts of a prodigious autistic savant. So you have to grab on to a discriminatory heirarchial societal structure as your comfort blanket.
Who would want to be any part of what you all are — NOTHING.
Bleah.
Yogi Bear (58eadc) — 12/15/2008 @ 7:25 pmThis is exactly what I mean about the ongloing threats to my safety and well being. More in a long line of blog-hopping anonymous posters from 2003 through thre present time.
Who would want to be a part of ANY legal professions, Bar, or Bench that encourages, facilitates, participates in, incites, and/or ratifies hate attacks on a savant person with autism and the equine disability service horse that provides her therapy?
Such a legal profession has about as much public integrity and repute as the PGA golfer that intentionally struck a protected hawk with his golf ball.
That is NOT a legal profession I choose to be part of.
Bleah.
Yogi Bear (58eadc) — 12/15/2008 @ 7:43 pmQuote one line in this thread where someone threatened your precious biddy…
Amazingly, only people who have ZERO chance of actually competing whine about crap like this.
You’re a failure, woman. An utter failure. You got into law school, I would wager, by browbeating them with cries of “ADA!!! ADA!!!” Your grades were, I suspect, lackluster at best, and you failed to obtain a slot on the school’s law review due to sub-par performance.
Sure, being able to do the job is all that’s REQUIRED, but if grades and degree are all equal, I will pick the person who did more than just struggle over books, and instead ALSO did things like edit a law review, because they did so while maintaining equal grades. It strongly suggests they would have gotten HIGHER grades had they done as you did.
You whine, and complain, but at the end of the day you are someone who can’t cut it without empty, ignorant threats. No REAL law firm would hire you, because they could tell instantly, as all of us have without ever even seeing you or hearing your voice, that your words make plain one simple fact.
And that one, simple fact, Mrs Petrano, is that you are, as the kids these days say, full of fail.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/15/2008 @ 7:54 pmScotty-puffs, where’s that big-name lawyer you promised to unleash on the Petranos?
You are a coward.
anonymous4now (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 8:03 pmSeems to me, nk, you were the one on Bloloch who made the threat aimed at me, “Can’t we just CIPAV her computer,” following which my medically prescribed speech recognition copmputer was trashed. Congrats.
No that was one of my sept-brothers, RJ7N4. I was the clone-trooper who beamed down the high-energy neutrino rays that caused Hurricane Andrew.
nk (094d4d) — 12/15/2008 @ 8:04 pm“The most interesting thing is I now see some of the anonymous bloggers making those threats are being cited above as Heros. And those bloggers in turn cited this blog. How cosy.”
Yogi/Crazy Mary – How cosy. You haven’t provided any links or quotes to back up your claims.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/15/2008 @ 8:04 pmCrazy Mary – Why do bad things keep happening to you? In that car accident, were you driving without a current license?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/15/2008 @ 8:06 pmnk, I’m getting a real kick out of reading the “Pellicano Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison” story.
Like Pellicano, did you really unleash CIPAV on Mrs. Petrano?
anonymous4now (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 8:07 pmSo DRJ… how many IP addresses between Anon, Yogi, and Esq?
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/15/2008 @ 8:12 pmDaleyrocks, you must be steaming over the fact Yogi in-fact obtained her FL driver’s license shortly after her husband took legal action against the FL DHSMV for title II ADA vios?
Keep it up, loser.
anonymous4now (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 8:14 pmScott Jacobs SAID:
So DRJ… how many IP addresses between Anon, Yogi, and Esq
Not as many lines of BS you have in that crapola, “I have a lawyer on retainer” mumbo-jumbo.
What’s the matter Scotty-puffs, afraid someone will actually wipe your own excrement on your pimple-face. Put-up or shut-up, loser.
anonymous4now (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 8:19 pmI already told you I did not, but it doesn’t matter in any case. I’m due for reassignment to Antares, for a body-change and reprogramming for my upcoming mission to Dagobah, so I’ll be outside of any Terran jurisdiction and, in any case, our MIB division will never allow this matter to see the light of day.
nk (094d4d) — 12/15/2008 @ 8:41 pm“Daleyrocks, you must be steaming over the fact Yogi in-fact obtained her FL driver’s license shortly after her husband took legal action against the FL DHSMV for title II ADA vios?”
anon. – Neither you nor your alter ego Crazy Mary have answered the question about whether she was driving with a valid Florida license at the time of her January 2008 car accident. Was her service horse driving? Put up or shut up.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/15/2008 @ 8:49 pmDamnit nk, you reveal too much! I will see you bound in force shackles and brought before the High Triumvirate! The Royal Sovereign will NOT look kindly upon this latest infraction.
You were warned after you unauthorized use of the computer disablement beam, nk.
No, they will no be pleased at ALL.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/15/2008 @ 8:59 pmI will see you bound in force shackles and brought before the High Triumvirate!
The S-sept has always resented the N-sept because we are the only ones with the modification of the 111th allele that allows us to sever service horses’ girths with a single thought from any distance. Do your worst. You’ll be begging me to come back the next time you need somebody to take control of the body of an Earthling frogman.
nk (094d4d) — 12/15/2008 @ 9:15 pmScott Jacobs SAID:
Ya know what? I’m willing to wager not only LOTS of money, but my life and the lives of everyone I actually like (4 or 5 people) that no one here sees mention of your wife’s horsey and then goes and harms it, attempts to harm it, or requests that someone else harm it.
And I can talk about what I personally suspect (without any actual physical evidence, mind you) is a romantic relationship betwen your wife and her horse, and there is frankly not a damn thing you can do about it.
You have revealed you and those who cheer-you-on are the persons most likely suspected of repeatedly injuring my wife’s disability service animal over the past 18 months.
I especially take notice over your sadistic rants in which you suggest she has had sex with her horse, in addition to a “wager not only LOTS of money, but my life and the lives of everyone” that you did not injure her horse.
You speak the classic language of Gotti type gangsters/wiseguys bent on inflicting pain, emotional distress, revenge and retaliation against those you hate.
I do not expect cowards like you to provide me with the name(s) of attorneys willing to represent you; as frankly, I seriously doubt you will be able to find any.
You and your friends who edge you on have proven you are sadistic
David F. Petrano Esq. (c7aaab) — 12/15/2008 @ 10:49 pmDRJ:
Crap, you’re right. I must have mixed up her SMU with another SMU (St. Mary’s), which I stumbled across while looking for St. Thomas. I do remember some law school snobbery at the time of the nomination, though. Or maybe it was Petrano-esque reverse-snobbery on the part of her supporters? I’m sure the issue came up, one way or another.
Esquire-Boy:
Whaddya mean, “when” I applied to law school? I’m just a fly-shit on the wall lawyer wannabe who never applied to law school at all, remember? How old I as when I applied to law school is NOYFB, but I will say that the average age was late 20s, and I had classmates older than you. So if it’s age discrimination you’re angling for here, that dog don’t hunt.
No, but if it had, I’d like to think I’d still have enough brains left over not to brag about it. You do realize that’s what seat belts are for, right?
You have been consistently arrogant and condescending toward lawyers and non-lawyers alike, and even bragged about how easy we lightweights supposedly made your application process, and now all of a sudden we’re supposed to be proud of you for managing to get admitted as a lawyer at all. Make up your mind. If this is the Special Olympics, here’s your medal. Congratulations, you’re a “winner,” but then again, so is everyone else, so start treating them like that. Or if we’re playing the real Olympics, then you’re not a winner, and head trauma is no excuse for an admitted attorney lambasting a non-attorney for being just as ignorant about Article III as he was. The one game I’m NOT willing to play is Calvinball, where we’re all supposed to heap praise on you under Special Olympics rules, but you get to play Simon Cowell to everyone else.
The real crapo was your suggestion that other comments in your thread had made your colossally difficult accomplishment of getting into law school easy. My pointing out the real reason your law school admission was easy – you’d applied to a school that will admit almost anyone – was nothing more or less than calling crapo on your crapo.
I didn’t say it has anything to do with practicing law. I said it measures logic, which it does. Anyone reading this thread can see I’m a far more logical person than you are. Is it any wonder my LSAT score was higher?
Besides, it’s not as though only elite law schools buy into the “pure BS/conjecture” that LSAT scores matter. Even bottom tier schools take LSAT scores into account; they just can’t as picky.
Sez you. I sez it was a perfectly logical response to your specious claim that any anonymous dimwit” who hasn’t even been to law school can get the California State Bar to post records falsely claiming that he has, but YMMV.
Nice work, Petranus. Between pissing on me for one typo while committing your own right and left, sneering at non-lawyers for being just as ignorant about the law as you, and whining that others don’t heap praise on you for the very things you bash others over, I thought you’d completely owned the concept of hypocrisy. Trying to go anonymous after bashing others for being anonymous themselves does round things out nicely, though.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/16/2008 @ 4:49 amI think anynomous4now must be BHusseinO…just the right amount of eliticism, arrogance, and condescension.
Unhinged liberal elitist. If you cannot see that 1/3 of the problem is enviromental bullshit 1/3 is congressional intrusion and hopelessly unreachable emissions standards and 1/3 is the irrelevant crybabies of the UAW then you are a moron.
melissaTX (1e59e0) — 12/16/2008 @ 10:38 amI think anynomous4now must be BHusseinO…just the right amount of eliticism, arrogance, and condescension.
Unhinged liberal elitist.
Err, no, she’s not. And they’ve been banned, so let us stop it.
nk (094d4d) — 12/16/2008 @ 11:12 amOh, Good Allah. How did this happen while I was away. God/Allah/Yaweh are cruel heartless bastards, I tell you. The David Petranos Esp and MKDP/yogi/anonymouse visit was refreshing, if not a bit un-nerving.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/17/2008 @ 7:58 amWhere can I find a disability service horse?
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/17/2008 @ 8:03 amJD – I was pining for your presence. Patterico banned DEP Esq. in another thread after DEP accused him of all sorts of nefarious deeds.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/17/2008 @ 8:35 amComment by JD — 12/17/2008 @ 8:03 am
You might find some old, broken-down horse-flesh at Calumet Farm in KY.
But, seriously, where in the …. have you been?
Another Drew (bc69ec) — 12/17/2008 @ 9:09 amWe needed you.
The trollery was unending.
Once someone is banned, I see no reason to continue any comments addressed to them. No matter how tempting.
SPQR (72771e) — 12/17/2008 @ 9:41 amI have been on the road, and my wireless card went on the fritz. I cannot express how disappointed I am that I have missed most of the Blagojevich carnival and then a visit from David Petranos Esp and MKDP. I still regret that we have not been visited by AnnTM, any of the snipers or frogmen, Mr. Ed, or the roast beef slicer / captain of a boat.
Neigh, neigh …
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/17/2008 @ 9:51 amDaleyrocks:
So he did. I was wondering why this thread had finally gone as dead as the proverbial non-service horse underlying it. But query why the as yet unbanned bear of little brain suddenly fell silent as well. Coincidence?
Xrlq (62cad4) — 12/17/2008 @ 7:59 pmXrlq – They only travel in pairs. They are so scared that the frogmen and the snipers will get Mr. Ed that one of them is always watching the other’s back.
JD (7f8e8c) — 12/17/2008 @ 8:07 pmThanks for adding our comment to your post, very informative.
offshore generic pharmacy (4f8f8f) — 12/23/2008 @ 2:27 am