jerseyhoya wrote:GM and Chrysler should've gone into managed bankruptcy. They would have been able to reorganize to compete globally without costing billions in tax dollars.

Chrysler ended up going into bankruptcy anyway.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:GM and Chrysler should've gone into managed bankruptcy. They would have been able to reorganize to compete globally without costing billions in tax dollars.

Chrysler ended up going into bankruptcy anyway.

it all looks so simple in your rearview mirror

"managed bankruptcy"; do you have any idea what you're even talking about?

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:GM and Chrysler should've gone into managed bankruptcy. They would have been able to reorganize to compete globally without costing billions in tax dollars.

Chrysler ended up going into bankruptcy anyway.

it all looks so simple in your rearview mirror

"managed bankruptcy"; do you have any idea what you're even talking about?

cshort wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:GM and Chrysler should've gone into managed bankruptcy. They would have been able to reorganize to compete globally without costing billions in tax dollars.

Chrysler ended up going into bankruptcy anyway.

it all looks so simple in your rearview mirror

"managed bankruptcy"; do you have any idea what you're even talking about?

Bankruptcy is traditionally "managed" by the courts, not the White House.

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:GM and Chrysler should've gone into managed bankruptcy. They would have been able to reorganize to compete globally without costing billions in tax dollars.

Chrysler ended up going into bankruptcy anyway.

it all looks so simple in your rearview mirror

"managed bankruptcy"; do you have any idea what you're even talking about?

He was making the same arguments 3 years ago. The administration's subversion of bankrupcy law was blasted at the time for reshuffling interests arbitrarily/politically, and its now being blasted for costing us money.

drsmooth wrote:Rising AZ lawman, hard on Mexicans, resigns

td11 wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Rising AZ lawman, hard on Mexicans, resigns

The very lowest teen pregnancy (not birth, pregnancy) rates in the nation are in liberal New England. According to the Guttmacher data,
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf the states with the lowest rates of teen pregnancy are New Hampshire (50th), Vermont (49th), and Maine (48th). Liberal Massachusetts is 43rd. (Rhode Island is 27th, Connecticut 36th.)

The deep red states of the deep South, on the other hand, are almost all in the top 10 highest for teen pregnancy rates -- Georgia (8th), Mississippi (5th), South Carolina (10th) -- with Alabama the ONLY one that does a little better at 16th. Arkansas is 7th.

Don't tell me you didn't notice the massive difference in teen pregnancy rates between the bluest part of the country and the reddest. You saw it. But you wanted to tell a different story. So you carefully chose California as your representative "blue" state.

Hm. I wonder why you chose California. Perhaps it would be because the one group of states with even higher teen pregnancy rates than the South is: New Mexico (1st), Nevada (2nd), Arizona (3rd), & Texas (4th). It doesn't take a genius to guess that the same immigrant demographics in parts of California are pulling California (15th) away from the other blue west coast states (mid-30s) and toward Alabama, which (surprise!) is the one you chose for comparison.

PublicPolicyPolling
Michigan: Santorum 37, Romney 33, Paul 15, Gingrich 10

jerseyhoya wrote:Schweitzer is a long way from being the #1 pick to run for the Dems in 2012.