The World According to Nick - Comments

Comment by t on "How the GM Bankruptcy Destroys Rule of Law"

suppressed@unknown.org (t) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:41:46 GMT

this is the best discussion I've seen, very strong points... is it drastic measures for the times or political calculation, and are they separate? I personally think regular bankruptcy should be the "natural" course. even in unusual times, that is what promotes confidence in the market and business and the government. I also believe that trust and predictability (what should be the norm in markets with openness )has been crushed by the economic shell game we are trying deal with at his time. Strangely enough it comes down to what you have "faith" in. I have no answers but hope the discussions I've seen can help formulate answers. best of luck zip

Posted by: t

Comment by PaulNoonan on "I Blame Gay Marriage"

suppressed@unknown.org (PaulNoonan) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:08:52 GMT

Ironically John, your assertion that Nick made an Ad Hominem attack was itself an Ad Hominem attack.

Posted by: PaulNoonan

Comment by PaulNoonan on "I Blame Gay Marriage"

suppressed@unknown.org (PaulNoonan) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:43:54 GMT

John, Nick's post is not an ad hominem. Perhaps you should spend less time learning the Latin and more time learning the meaning. An ad hominem is a logical fallacy (translation: argument against the man) wherein one participant of an argument evades addressing the syllogism in favor of attacking his opponent. Let's grant for a second that McBride was a strong advocate against same sex marriage, and was so specifically for the reason that such marriages would have a detrimental effect on marriage as a whole including heterosexual marriage. Given these priors, it is relevant that McBride's contingent prevented the advent of same sex marriage in Wisconsin and yet still screwed up her marriage. This act is a data point against her hypothesis, AND against one of the assumptions of her side, that gay people would be a bigger detriment to marriage than are straight people. So now you know.

Posted by: PaulNoonan

Comment by John McAdams on "I Blame Gay Marriage"

suppressed@unknown.org (John McAdams) — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:03:26 GMT

Look, Nick, The fact that a lot of people don't live up to their professed principles does not make these principles wrong. That's known as an argumentum ad homimen. We have a president who just signed a strong anti-smoking bill -- but he smokes. Does that make smoking a good idea? By the way, data show that conservative Christians are are on average happier and have more stable marriages. But not all of them, of course. Human nature is imperfect.

Posted by: John McAdams

Comment by John McAdams on "Innocent People Do Get Convicted of Murder"

suppressed@unknown.org (John McAdams) — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 02:57:28 GMT

Your analysis, Nick, is unbalanced in that you think only of the possibility that somebody might be wrongly executed (and there is no hard evidence that this has happened to anybody in the last 40 years), and heedless of the fact that people who have been properly convicted will kill again (either in jail, or on escape, or when some liberal governor of judge lets them go) if they are not executed. But vastly more important is the fact that a whole slew of recent peer-reviewed studies show that the death penalty deters murder. And you are willing to risk not detering the murders of innocent people?

Posted by: John McAdams

Comment by Nick on "I Blame Gay Marriage"

suppressed@unknown.org (Nick) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 03:01:16 GMT

Yes Fred, we both point out a lot of hypocrisy. What's your point? The fact that there is a lot of it, doesn't make this any less notable.

Posted by: Nick

Comment by Fred on "I Blame Gay Marriage"

suppressed@unknown.org (Fred) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:19:43 GMT

Scratch that... As soon as liberals stop taking private jets.... You can find hypocrisy wherever you look.

Posted by: Fred

Comment by Fred on "I Blame Gay Marriage"

suppressed@unknown.org (Fred) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:18:45 GMT

As soon as liberals start taking private jets Nick...

Posted by: Fred

Comment by Jason Haas on "I Blame Gay Marriage"

suppressed@unknown.org (Jason Haas) — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 04:34:47 GMT

According to a relative of Ms. McBride's that I spoke with a year or two ago, she was not all that political before she married Paul Bucher. Who knows...

Posted by: Jason Haas

Comment by Nick on "I Blame Gay Marriage"

suppressed@unknown.org (Nick) — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:26:59 GMT

Thanks for the links guys. It's a little hard for me to do an extensive search on her views on the topic, mostly because her blog (where a lot of original comments on the topic were) has come and gone, and come and gone again, and she has a bad habit of deleting old posts randomly. So far, it seems like she's waffled back and forth on the topic quite a bit.

Posted by: Nick

Comment by Brew City Brawler on "I Blame Gay Marriage"

suppressed@unknown.org (Brew City Brawler) — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:24:49 GMT

McBride did fearmonger that Clifford would strike down the marriage amendment during the Ziegler-Clifford Supreme Court race: http://www.gmtoday.com/milwaukeetoday/editorials/mcbride/2007/mcbride_03242007.asp

Posted by: Brew City Brawler

Comment by Splenky on "I Blame Gay Marriage"

suppressed@unknown.org (Splenky) — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:54:19 GMT

Great piece but it is tenet, not tenant. Main Entry: te·net Listen to the pronunciation of tenet Pronunciation: \ˈte-nət also ˈtē-nət\ Function: noun Etymology: Latin, he holds, from tenēre to hold Date: circa 1600 : a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true ; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession

Posted by: Splenky

Comment by Michael Mathias on "I Blame Gay Marriage"

suppressed@unknown.org (Michael Mathias) — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:14:39 GMT

Nick, in this piece at any rate, she says she doesn't have any problems with gay marriage. I can't recall if this represents a change in her position on the matter. http://tinyurl.com/kuk4pn

Posted by: Michael Mathias

Comment by Zach W. on "I Blame Gay Marriage"

suppressed@unknown.org (Zach W.) — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 04:13:01 GMT

Nick, the gays are responsible for everything that's wrong with our society! You should know that!

Posted by: Zach W.

Comment by PaulNoonan on "Innocent People Do Get Convicted of Murder"

suppressed@unknown.org (PaulNoonan) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:05:26 GMT

John McAdams is bonkers on this issue.

Posted by: PaulNoonan

Comment by Chris from Racine on "Innocent People Do Get Convicted of Murder"

suppressed@unknown.org (Chris from Racine) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:27:18 GMT

"The fact is, we haven't found an innocent person on death row yet because, very few people bother to look." Actually, Project Innocence has freed several death row inmates from prison. And personally, I agree with you - the death penalty is good in theory. My feeling is that an inmate on death row should not be put to death unless you have conclusive DNA evidence...perhaps testing it one more time before execution...

Posted by: Chris from Racine

Comment by TosaGuy on "We're Sorry - We Prefer Donations Over "Dreams""

suppressed@unknown.org (TosaGuy) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:23:30 GMT

The news article photo showed the lot to be free of debris and planted with grass. In certain parts of Milwaukee this would hailed wonderfully as "greenspace" and all and an alderman would fight to keep it undeveloped. W4J. Freedom of Speech is not the ability to say anything you want without consequence, it is the freedom to say what you want and not have gov't toss you in jail. Others are free to criticize. Considering the only way Milw Alderfolks seem to leave office is by being convicted in Federal court for abusing aldermanic privilege and accepting illegal campaign contributions, the J-S is obligated to tell the reader about campaign donations relevant to the people involved. It is public information readily available on the internet. The city does have a role in managing properties that are a safety hazard or are the site of on-going crime. No evidence has been given that suggests that the lot in question fits either of those criteria. Therefore, the city has no reason to interfere with the owner's right to speculate with his property, try to develop it, or sell it to the fruit market guy for way more money than the city will pay him.

Posted by: TosaGuy

Comment by jj on "We're Sorry - We Prefer Donations Over "Dreams""

suppressed@unknown.org (jj) — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:20:45 GMT

Women4justice - you are an idiot. May your property be the next one those "who know better" come after.

Posted by: jj

Comment by women4justice on "We're Sorry - We Prefer Donations Over "Dreams""

suppressed@unknown.org (women4justice) — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:14:22 GMT

I have to say... that i find it ironic that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal would mock and criticize the Tsiders(sp?) family(owners of Pete's Market) for freedom of speech. Giving a campaign contribution is in the very essence is freedom of speech. Here we have a journalists exercising his freedom of speech criticizing someone else's freedom of speech! What Bigots the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal has employed there. Seems to me like the Milwaukee journal Sentinal is on a witch hunt! How about the countless others, Gwen Moore, Governor Doyle, Pedro Colon, Mayor Barret...... who all receive campaign contributions!. Witkowiak has done nothing wrong.... This area does not need more clubs..... we need food for the people who live in this partial residential area, one of the most density places in the city of Milwaukee. I applaud witkowiak for his decision.......His courage has prevented a man who has spent years getting his act together from holding the community hostage... If he cant get it together now, what does this tell us about how he will act and respond to the community once he has his club in a mostly residential area... If he can't get his act together now... im sure he wouldn't do a good job later. By the way Witkowiak has never, never, gone unopposed. This is the most sought after aldermatic district in the City. It is also the district with the most businesses in it.

Posted by: women4justice

Comment by Chris from Racine on "Southern Wisconsin Airfest Pictures"

suppressed@unknown.org (Chris from Racine) — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:38:40 GMT

Well done sir!! It was an awesome day!

Posted by: Chris from Racine

Comment by dad29 on "How the GM Bankruptcy Destroys Rule of Law"

suppressed@unknown.org (dad29) — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:57:44 GMT

Umnnnhhh.... Doyle is also mocking the "rule of law" with his grab-and-spend of the highway trust funds, the med malpractice reserves... And yes, the solution IS to utilize the normal BK procedures. There are a lot of very, very good assets at GM which someone will be very happy to have (Corvette, anyone??) But under the normal scheme, the UAW's contract is voided unless/until the successor company agrees to keep that contract in force. The US would have been the debtor-in-possession in any case (only the Treasury could write that check); but that's what should have happened, NOT 'stock ownership.' We live in very strange times. Buy any ammo lately??

Posted by: dad29

Comment by Curt on "How the GM Bankruptcy Destroys Rule of Law"

suppressed@unknown.org (Curt) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:57:29 GMT

I'm still confused as to how the bankrupcy court was able to swallow the government's position. The governement and the UAW should have been in subordinant positions to the bond holders in bankrupcy. I can understand how Obama might want to hand the company over to the UAW, but how does that stand up in court? It will be interesting to see how many of us loyal GM owners will no longer deal with GM. My household is all GM, my sisters all GM, my parents GM, and GM isn't even in the discussion for where out next cars come from. If they can rewrite the rules on a whim like this, why would you buy a car from them. A warranty is just a promise, and you don't accept those from people who have proved themselves untrustworthy.

Posted by: Curt

Comment by Nick on "How the GM Bankruptcy Destroys Rule of Law"

suppressed@unknown.org (Nick) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:11:18 GMT

The point you seem to blow by is that the pecking order was determined through the legislative process, and is applied to all companies from that point on. While we can argue til we're blue in the face about how much influence these companies have in that process, in the end it is applied across all companies. In the case of GM, Obama simply decided in this case that the UAW would jump up in the pecking order... and it was at his whim. As for the purpose of bankruptcy of companies, it has nothing to do with social impact. It has everything to do with having a known, orderly wrap up of debt, and how assets are divided among debtors when a company fails. For the workers who lose their job, we have unemployment insurance, and then it is their responsibility to go find a new job. They do not have a right to work for GM until they decide to retire, and it is not my responsibility to make sure they never have to search for a new job. As for WHY they went bust... I really don't care. They did go bust. GM does not have a right to exist in perpatuity. If they can't be viable, and they can't be restructured without massive government funds, then the company should go away completely. People can buy a Honda or a Toyota.

Posted by: Nick

Comment by Michael Mathias on "How the GM Bankruptcy Destroys Rule of Law"

suppressed@unknown.org (Michael Mathias) — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:21:52 GMT

Actually, Nick, large companies go bankrupt all the time (Ever fly United?) and judges determine who and how much creditors get paid according to federal bankruptcy laws, not what rules were in "effect" at the time of the loan. Citizens, through their elected representatives, created bankruptcy law to attempt to mitigate the deleterious social impact on workers and communities when companies fail. It doesn't always work, but it is a process, and it's playing out now. GM's predicament is complex, but it's a better solution than work houses and debtors' prisons. As for Casper's questions, they're still good ones that you and no one else are bothering to answer--probably because there's an element out there just happy to call Obama a socialist while the grownups actually try to fix the problems the country has. Also, if you were concerned about why GM went bust, you could look no further than what former CEO Rick Wagoner had to say about how we pay for health care in the US. http://punditnation.blogspot.com/search?q=wagoner

Posted by: Michael Mathias

Comment by Nick on "How the GM Bankruptcy Destroys Rule of Law"

suppressed@unknown.org (Nick) — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:44:06 GMT

Well, it's not actually for me to figure out. It's not for Obama to figure out. It was for GM to figure out, and by filing bankruptcy, they are essentially declaring that they can't figure it out anymore, so they're giving up. Normally, that would mean that the company then goes into possession of those the company owes, like Johnson Controls, in which case they can figure out the best way to get some of their money back. My solution is to allow the normal bankruptcy rules take effect, and allow the debtors to be paid, according to the rules that were in place when they made the loans... not according to the rules that Barack Obama thinks his best to suit his political whims.

Posted by: Nick