By on May 4, 2009

We’ve already heard the President call out the “hedge fund holdouts,” and we’ve heard reports of “death threats,” but rumors that the PTFOA’s Steve Rattner threatened to “destroy the reputations” of holdout bondholders is the juiciest rumor we’ve heard over the last several wild-ass days. On Friday, bondholder lawyer Tom Lauria told Detroit talk show host Frank Beckman that the White House was taking off the gloves.

“Let me tell you it’s no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent. That’s a moving target. I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday.

“One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.”

He later identified to ABC News the threatener as PTFOA Chair Steve Rattner. The threatenee was reportedly The Perella Weinberg Partners Xerion Fund. Both the White House and Perella Weinberg now deny the story and Perella has fired Lauria.

From the Perella statement:

While we did and still do believe that the lenders would be justified in pressing their objections under conventional bankruptcy law principles, we believe a settlement would now be in the best interests of all parties in the context of avoiding a drawn out contested bankruptcy litigation proceeding, and we encourage our colleagues in the loan syndicate to pursue this immediately.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

49 Comments on “Wild Ass Rumor Of The Day: PTFOA Explains The “You Can’t Refuse” Part...”


  • avatar
    cardeveloper

    laws, what laws, we make it up as we go along

  • avatar
    menno

    IMPEACH WASHINGTON D.C.

    ALL OF THEM.

    It’s it crystal clear yet, that we have a bunch of criminal-types running the show? Chicago politics, writ large. Nothing more than an extension of the 1930’s Chicago mob.

    Just wait until the summer starts to heat up.

    Then for starters, perhaps we should consider banning both the Repugnican and Demoncratic parties and start over from scratch there, too.

  • avatar
    Sutures

    “hedge hund holdouts,” …huh?

    something needs hixed.

  • avatar
    MikeInCanada

    When do the investor vs hedge fund lawsuits start? Soon, I hope.

    “I will sue your ass into a coma…” I read that quote somewhere around here – cracks me up.

  • avatar
    HarveyBirdman

    While Mr. Lauria was perhaps making a few embellishments on the facts here, Perella sure sounds conciliatory all of a sudden after holding out for so long. Granted, each side is allowed to posture and make statements and use the customary negotiating tactics, but the Chrysler bankruptcy has very clearly shown the dangers of using the President of the United States to represent a side. This has upped the ante far beyond what any American should have to cope with in any business dealing. And if anybody wonders whether the White House considers itself beyond assaults on reputations, just take a look at some of the press secretary’s recent work. Nothing thus far appears too low.

    Lest anybody think I’m a right-wing shill, I found the last Bush administration’s “stretching” of the law and take-no-prisoners approach to politics utterly reprehensible. The more I pay attention, the more I think I’m drifting into menno‘s camp. It all just seems like two sides of the same coin.

  • avatar
    Jerome10

    Wow.

  • avatar
    h82w8

    Yup, we’re all Chicagoans now.

  • avatar
    AMXtirpated

    Look out bondholders, or Raghubir Goyal is gonna get ya.

    LOL.

  • avatar
    AG

    I’m not convinced Mr. Lauria’s statements are factually accurate. Frank Beckmann’s a good guy, but he should stick to Michigan football.

  • avatar
    tedward

    Or…this particular spin could have been dreamed up by Mr. Lauria as a cover for his client firing him. A spin which also happens to fit nicely into his obligations to his remaining clients.

    Actually I don’t entirely disbelieve him, it’s just that all public statement should be read as settlement negotiations by way of public opinion (probably lies until notified otherwise on both ends that is).

    Does the fact that a few hedge funds are taking an unwilling wash on some risky loans really piss everyone off that much? They’re going to take a loss here either way.

  • avatar
    chuckR

    Saul Alinsky wouldn’t approve of Lauria’s clients, but he certainly would approve of Lauria’s tactics…..

    A little Chicago f’n Illinoise right back at’cha. If this isn’t true, it has a certain truthiness to it…..

  • avatar
    no_slushbox

    Yes, that makes perfect sense. What investment firm wouldn’t cave in at the threat that the President would tell the public that said investment firm is holding out to get its investors a better deal.

    What investment firm could handle the publicity that it is holding out to get its investors a better deal? Who would invest their money with a company like that? (Answer: all of us.)

    Come on, people that spend half their days whining and complaining about “plaintiff’s attorneys” now, without question, take a ridiculous claim by a plaintiff’s attorney at face value?

    Anyone who believes Tom Lauria’s claim that an investment firm was actually afraid of being ousted by Obama for fighting too hard for its investors needs to remove their foil hat.

    Money can’t buy publicity that good.

  • avatar
    02XC70

    I’m amazed no one else mentions it (if it is the same firm I am thinking of, very similar name). Perella Wasserstein is the IB Rahm Emanuel worked for and managed to pull in $15+ million in a year or two.

    Totally conicidental. Its not like the WH would have any sway over them.

  • avatar
    Luther

    The filthy scumbag even looks like a rat.

  • avatar

    chuckR :
    May 4th, 2009 at 2:52 pm

    Saul Alinsky wouldn’t approve of Lauria’s clients, but he certainly would approve of Lauria’s tactics…..

    Considering that Obama was using something straight out of Alinsky’s playbook when the Pres started singling out and demonizing “speculators”, there’s a certain poetic justice in Lauria’s spin.

    I happen to believe that Lauria is pretty close to the mark here. I’m interested to see how Judge Gonzalez will react to how the Obama Administration (I don’t think we need to continue any pretense that Chrysler, it’s executives or its shareholders/board have any say in this matter) has ignored the bedrock foundation of bankruptcy law, priority of creditors.

    I was talking to Mendy over at the kosher carryout and he told me that the talmudic tractate, Baba Kama, discusses creditor claims and there too secured credit always have primary claim.

    I’d be willing to bet that just about every other financial system that allows personal property also places senior secured debt first in line.

    This is exactly what Prof. Altman and others testified to during the congressional hearing last year. When Altman said that the taxpayers could not be protected because gov’t loans to the automakers are junior to secured creditors, Barney Frank said that congress could just rewrite the bankruptcy laws (which it indeed has the authority to do) to allow the gov’t claims to cut in line ahead of senior debt. Altman and all the other economists strongly objected, saying that such an act would kill capital markets.

    Talk about moral hazard, propping up failing companies is one thing, but fundamentally changing the way that debt and venture capital will be treated says to me that the administration in Washington either doesn’t know what they are doing, or they are deliberately trying to change some basic concepts regarding property rights.

  • avatar

    no_slushbox,

    By the same token, what attorney would advertise that he’d been fired by a client unless he had a damn good reason?

    FWIW, Oppenheimer Funds, one of Lauria’s clients, has been pretty outspoken in how they are acting in the best interests of their clients. Just as Ford is getting a bump from folks who admire them for not bellying up to the Federal trough, I’m sure that just like Oppenheimer, Lauria’s other clients will try to gain some market advantage from their legal strategy.

  • avatar
    no_slushbox

    Ronnie Schreiber:

    The firing came after Lauria’s statement, not before it.

    Perella Weinberg Partners Xerion Fund may have decided to accept the settlement simply because getting money now seemed more attractive than continuing to pay massive legal fees for the rights to whatever part of Chrysler’s corpse it has a security interest in.

    As Perella Weinberg’s statement says.

    But a plaintiff’s attorney is not going to admit that one of his clients left a suit because the client thought that continuing to persue the suit was a waste.

    Good for Oppenheimer for taking advantage of the free advertizing that the President is giving it, I can’t believe that some hold-out investment companies insist on whining about the President’s political posturing instead of taking advantage of it.

  • avatar

    The firing came after Lauria’s statement, not before it.

    I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Lauria announced that he’d already lost Perella Weinberg on Beckman’s show. He said that he had one fewer client than before, described the PTFOA’s pressure, and then when Beckman asked him if the client in question was PW, he said yes.

  • avatar
    tedward

    “By the same token, what attorney would advertise that he’d been fired by a client unless he had a damn good reason?”

    Answer, an attorney who has current clients affected by that firing to whom he still has an obligation to represent. If he dosen’t spin it, the other side will.

    Besides, if he gets a good result, he gets the glory in the end. This statement won’t be held against him and, if it is a little untrue, then that’s just some extra icing on his reputation cake. Grandstanding and the public eye is almost always good for plaintiff attorneys (and their future business prospects).

  • avatar
    oldyak

    With this administration…It doesn’t surprise me at all.

  • avatar
    no_slushbox

    Ronnie Schreiber:

    I just got it from the post, it says “He later identified to ABC News the threatener as PTFOA Chair Steve Rattner. The threatenee was reportedly The Perella Weinberg Partners Xerion Fund. Both the White House and Perella Weinberg now deny the story and Perella has fired Lauria.”

    I’m not sure what source Edward Niedermeyer got the “fired” part from, but he seems to indicate that Perella simply left the suit, and then later, after Lauria’s statement, “fired” him.

  • avatar
    golf4me

    America, this is what you get when you vote in a bitter, angry product of the corrupt Chicago political machine, who couldn’t even get security clearance to be a housemaid in the White House. We are all doomed.

  • avatar
    Detroit Todd

    I’d be willing to bet that just about every other financial system that allows personal property also places senior secured debt first in line.

    When Altman said that the taxpayers could not be protected because gov’t loans to the automakers are junior to secured creditors, Barney Frank said that congress could just rewrite the bankruptcy laws (which it indeed has the authority to do) to allow the gov’t claims to cut in line ahead of senior debt. Altman and all the other economists strongly objected, saying that such an act would kill capital markets.

    Secured lenders are indeed first in line. There is no need to rewrite the Bankruptcy Code.

    Junior classes of debt holders who collectively hold more debt than the secured, first-tier creditors can, along with the Debtor, cram down (or, technically, “cram up”) a plan for the restructured Debtor going forward.

    The governing principle at work here is what is most beneficial for the bankruptcy estate — NOT the secured creditors. And this is nothing new or special for Chrysler.

    This cram down (or up, if you prefer) is what’s going to happen, and it could/should have happened without even a bankruptcy filing. All that remains to be determined is how many lawyers’ bills it will take to get there.

    Regarding the White House looking out for their (our) investment in Chrysler, I see nothing nefarious about it. They are protecting their investors. You can argue about whether the Feds should have helped Chrysler at all, but that’s howling at the moon at this point.

    As far as the White House beating up on the poor, defenseless, bondholders, Michigan politicians (no surprise) have already done so. Reuters:

    DETROIT, April 30 (Reuters) – Lawmakers in Michigan on Thursday called on the state to shun business with the fund management companies that helped push U.S. automaker Chrysler LLC into bankruptcy.

    ***

    “The hedge funds have chosen to go their own way and ignore a major deal that the president of the United States asked them to get on board with and make sacrifices like everyone else,” Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm told Reuters.

    “They decided not to, so I’m not surprised there are ramifications,” she said.

    ***

    The Michigan House also called on governors in states that host Chrysler facilities — Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin — to divest any investment with the three fund companies.

    Granholm said the Chrysler creditors who had balked at the government’s proposed deal would not get any business from the state of Michigan, home to Chrysler, General Motors Corp (GM.N) and Ford Motor Co. (F.N)

    “Not while I’m governor,” she said.

  • avatar
    no_slushbox

    golf4me:

    “bitter, angry”

    Are you using some random insult generator? If there are two things that Obama, who has never held any politcal office in Chicago, isn’t it’s bitter and angry.

    Bitter and angry is Obama’s failed opponent, McCain.

  • avatar
    Hippo

    This gov is nothing but a inner city gang.
    The reason that they have the juice to make Perella Weinberg retract and change the story is that they have a huge and very profitable contract with FDIC which of course they like to keep.

    Good thing that so far the BK judge sides with the creditors.
    http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/05/for-now-gonzalez-is-siding-with.html

  • avatar
    Hippo

    And maybe PW were not the only ones.

    http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/05/dead-bodies-always-end-up-floating-to.html

  • avatar
    bluecon

    Now being an investor in the US is a bad thing.

    The investors will invest their money elseware.

    Such is the law of unintended consequences.

    This is a mutual death blow to the US economy combined with the reckless spending. These investors that Obama so despises are what keeps the economy rolling along. A double whammy.

    Now tax receipts will fall even more than they have. That is a serious problem for the government. Will the Chinese continue to fund this foolishness?

  • avatar
    bluecon

    America, this is what you get when you vote in a bitter, angry product of the corrupt Chicago political machine, who couldn’t even get security clearance to be a housemaid in the White House. We are all doomed.

    If you read Churchill and the history of the runup to WW2 you can’t help but see a similar thing happening. This time atomic bombs are a common weapon.

    Like Einstein said to paraphrase, he didn’t know exactly what weapons would be used in WW3 but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones.

  • avatar
    agenthex

    Does the fact that a few hedge funds are taking an unwilling wash on some risky loans really piss everyone off that much?

    You don’t get it. This is the end of legal justice in the US as we know it–at least according to people who apparently based their political slams on ignorance of legal proceedings.

  • avatar

    “Not while I’m governor,” she said.”

    You don’t do business with Barone Bros. Sanitation, Tony Soprano makes sure you don’t do business.

    Lauria has now filed a motion in the bankruptcy court claiming that the government’s plan to restructure Chrysler is violating the takings clause of the 5th Amendment and that the President doesn’t have the authority to do what he’s trying to do:

    III. The Taking of Collateral through a Direct or Indirect Use of TARP Authority is Unconstitutional.

    13. The Treasury Department relies on TARP as the purported authority to justify the disparate treatment under the 363 Sale, even though TARP was enacted after the Senior Lenders’ liens on the Debtors’ property were already in place. The Supreme Court long ago recognized, however, that a secured creditor’s interest in specific property is protected in bankruptcy under the Fifth Amendment. Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555, 594 (1935). That case involved a Depression-era statute that was intended to help bankrupt farmers avoid losing their land in mortgage foreclosure. The statute in Radford provided that the bankrupt debtor could achieve a release of the security interests either (i) with the lender’s consent, purchasing the property at its then appraised value by making deferred payments for two to six years at statutorily-set interest rates; or (ii) by seeking from the bankruptcy court a stay of the proceedings for up to five years during which time the debtor could use the property by paying a rent set by the court, which payments would be for the benefit of all creditors, with a purchase option at the end of that period. Id. at 856-57.

    14. Justice Brandeis noted that the “essence of a mortgage” is the right of the secured party “to insist upon full payment before giving up his security [i.e., the property pledged].” Radford, 295 U.S. at 580. In invalidating the statute, the Court stated that “[t]he bankruptcy power . . . is subject to the Fifth Amendment,” and that the pernicious aspect of this law was its “taking of substantive rights in specific property acquired by the bank prior to the act.” Id. at 589-90 (emphasis added). Thus, Congress could not pass a law that could be used to deny to secured creditors their rights to realize upon the specific property pledged to them or “the right to control meanwhile the property during the period of default.” Id. at 594. That is precisely what the Treasury Department would have Chrysler do here, with respect to the Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders’ property rights that were acquired prior to the enactment of TARP.

    15. Relying on purported authority provided by TARP, the Treasury Department is demanding that Chrysler’s assets be stripped away from the coverage of the Senior Lenders’ liens – thereby impairing the rights of the Senior Lenders to realize upon those assets – so that those assets may be put in New Chrysler and used to the benefit of unsecured creditors in this proceeding, who will then be paid much more than the Senior Lenders. But, even assuming that TARP provides the Treasury Department with authority to provide funding to the Debtors and impose the transfer of collateral away from the Senior Lenders, TARP was enacted long after the Senior Lenders contracted with the Debtors and received senior liens on the Debtors’ property. Radford specifically disallowed the use of a law to retroactively alter existing liens on property.

    16. Here, the proposed sale of the Debtors’ assets will leave the Senior Lenders with a diluted pool of assets and no further interests in the operating assets covered by their specific liens. The Constitution forbids this application of a law retroactively to undercut the Senior Lenders’ pre-existing property rights in favor or inferior creditors.

    17. Finally, that the Treasury Department would take these unconstitutional actions to help the United States address difficult economic times is not an answer. Indeed, the same justification was expressly rejected in Radford, where Justice Brandeis noted that a statute which violated secured creditors’ rights, but which was passed for sound public purposes relating to the Great Depression, could not be saved because “the Fifth Amendment commands that, however great the nation’s need, private property shall not be thus taken even for a wholly public use without just compensation.” Id. at 602.

    18. What is really striking here is that what is being proposed by the Sale Motion would strip the Collateral away and allow it to be put to use as new capital in New Chrysler for the benefit of existing and other creditors – even though the Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders have been given no opportunity to realize upon that Collateral to the point of full repayment ahead of at least $14 billion of selectively identified unsecured creditors.

  • avatar
    BDB

    “If you read Churchill and the history of the runup to WW2 you can’t help but see a similar thing happening. This time atomic bombs are a common weapon.”

    Glenn Beck, is that you!?

  • avatar
    JohnHowardOxley

    @ bluecon

    I consider myself reasonably familiar with the runup to WWII, and the similarity of the current situation [we are approximately where they were in 1930] does raise my hackles a bit.

    There are only two major rays of light to this:

    1) No country currently has anything like an irredentalist claim to match Nazi Germany [or the rest of the Axis, for that matter]; and

    2) Currently there is no demagogue to match Hitler in command of an advanced economy.

    But yes, if things turn sour as they certainly can, with nukes in the soup, nobody is going to like the broth.

    To put it another way, 5 years ago, I would have said that a global nuclear war was not possible — now I only rate it as improbable.

  • avatar
    ihatetrees

    bluecon:
    Now being an investor in the US is a bad thing.

    The investors will invest their money elseware.

    Such is the law of unintended consequences.

    Think long term.

    We survived Carter. Stocks in the late 70’s were wonderfully undervalued.

    Admittedly, the current political environment (60 senate Dems!) does look frightful.

  • avatar
    SpeedRacerrrrr

    No country currently has anything like an irredentalist claim to match Nazi Germany

    Seems like a version of that is what’s happening in the middle east with the land that the state of Isreal is sitting on.

  • avatar
    BDB

    I’ve never seen a bigger group of crybabies than conservatives in the last few months. Only a little 100 days out of power, and they’re talking about Armageddon! Get a grip!

    You’ve played the “Chicago thug” card. You’ve played the red baiting card. You’ve played the Hitler card, with straight faces.

    What are you going to be calling him by 2012? A Sith Lord?

    This country needs a sane opposition party, but it’s not getting one, and that’s just sad.

  • avatar
    agenthex

    Only a little 100 days out of power, and they’re talking about Armageddon!

    It must be due to the new admin’s extreme competence (and the magical power of america and liberty and capitalism) that we’ll soon achieve in little more than 100 days what the Soviets can’t even do in 70 years.

  • avatar
    John Horner

    bluecon:
    Now being an investor in the US is a bad thing.

    The investors will invest their money elseware.

    Hmmm, the markets don’t seem to agree with you. You do believe in the wisdom of markets, right?

  • avatar
    bluecon

    John Horner

    No John, historically the markets have been wrong time after time.

    Same thing happened after the ’29 crash. A big runup and then a big crash. The markets never recovered till the ’50’s.

  • avatar
    BDB

    Bluecon–

    Another depression is off the table. The recession is over by the end of summer. I know that doesn’t fit in with your political worldview, but its what is happening.

    I mean no offense but you’re the same person that was ranting about inflation when we’ve seen the biggest drop in consumer prices in quite some time.

  • avatar

    # SpeedRacerrrrr :
    May 4th, 2009 at 8:51 pm

    No country currently has anything like an irredentalist claim to match Nazi Germany

    Seems like a version of that is what’s happening in the middle east with the land that the state of Isreal is sitting on.

    The word’s irredentist, and just because the Nazis did something doesn’t make it bad. The British went to war over the Falklands. The US has helped liberate many people from foreign occupation. Were the French during WWII irredentist?

    irredentist – Definition
    [ĭŕĭ-dĕńtĭst]
    (n.) One who advocates the recovery of territory culturally or historically related to one’s nation but now subject to a foreign government.

    Irredentist applies very well to the Palestinians in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. They’re the ones who chant “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea”.

    Actually, though irredentist might be inaccurate in the case of the Middle East since the term refers to a territory culturally or historically relating to one’s nation, and since the Palestinians are a historical fiction of a nation (try to find any semblance of Palestinian history prior to the 20th century) whose culture can be traced to the villages in Egypt, Syria, eastern Palestine (aka Jordan), and Lebanon prior to the rise of modern political Zionism and the subsequent economic growth in the area.

  • avatar

    The recession is over by the end of summer.

    That’s wishful thinking. It may bottom out by the end of the summer but there’s no way there’s going to be much economic growth this year.

  • avatar

    We survived Carter.

    That’s something I keep saying, but I fear that the current administration may prove to be worse. So far Carter is the worst president in my lifetime (and I voted for him, I’m sorry to say).

    I like how the folks who wanted Change keep telling us how Obama’s actions with the auto industry are business as usual.

    Carter is a very smart, very vain man, who is convinced of his own moral rectitude and can’t be dissuaded by facts. The trouble with smart people is that they can forget that they don’t know everything and that they can be wrong just like everybody else.

  • avatar
    BDB

    “I like how the folks who wanted Change keep telling us how Obama’s actions with the auto industry are business as usual.”

    No, they’re saying they aren’t IslamoLiberalChicagoFascoCommunism or whatever the right wing insult/hyperbole of the day is.

  • avatar
    MikeInCanada

    “The trouble with smart people is that they can forget that they don’t know everything and that they can be wrong just like everybody else.”

    True that Ronnie! It is also the reason why smart people, can make what appears to many as obvious, fundamental mistakes or decision making errors sometimes.

    From personal experience having both parents as teachers (university professors no less) when they leave their area of expertise – things can get ugly quick.

    In almost 30 years of adulthood I’ve never been able to satisfactorily convince him that his mastery of Quantum Mechanics does not, in anyway, supersede my (or better yet, my wife’s) skills in negotiating, well, anything (car, house, insurance settlements, etc).

  • avatar

    No, they’re saying they aren’t IslamoLiberalChicagoFascoCommunism or whatever the right wing insult/hyperbole of the day is.

    Actually, the government’s actions with the banking and auto industry, like the New Deal, and Wilson’s progressivism, share some ideological affinities with fascism, promoted as a third way between communism and capitalism, with the government telling companies what to do.

    When I call someone a communist, that’s because they’re a communist. McCarthy harmed individuals but more importantly he harmed the anti-communist cause with his reckless accusations. Alger Hiss was still a Soviet spy.

    When I call someone a fascist, that’s because they are ideologically or operationally fascist. As Orwell, a man of the left, said, pacifism in the face of fascism is effective support of fascism.

    The notion of someone from the left accusing the right of hyperbole insult after we’ve lived through eight years of slogans that are as philosophically deep as a bumper sticker is rich indeed.

    Whatever happened to Dissent Is The Highest Form Of Patriotism and We Need A Better President?

  • avatar
    agenthex

    Yeah agenthex, Obama is Stalin. And you’re the leader of the brave resistance!

    For someone who fails at identifying sarcasm, you sure use a lot of it.

  • avatar
    agenthex

    with the government telling companies what to do.

    What do you think first corp charters were? OMG gov controlling what holy ordained companies do.


    The notion of someone from the left accusing the right of hyperbole insult after we’ve lived through eight years of slogans that are as philosophically deep as a bumper sticker is rich indeed.

    So, you didn’t see any depth there, but you do here? Perhaps we can compare notes, because I certainly don’t see the depth with calling people communist and fascist and in general getting basic facts wrong. If you’re going to be against “intervention”, you might as well reject the notion of gov in the first place, and we know where that road leads.

  • avatar
    BDB

    “Actually, the government’s actions with the banking and auto industry, like the New Deal, and Wilson’s progressivism, share some ideological affinities with fascism, promoted as a third way between communism and capitalism, with the government telling companies what to do.”

    Oh lord, I’ve stumbled upon a Jonah “Doughy Pantload” Goldberg fan. We all know you live in a bizzaro universe where FDR caused the great depression, inflation is currently our biggest problem, Bush was Winston Churchill and Jimmy Carter was history’s greatest criminal, so you can stop embarrassing yourself now.

    “The notion of someone from the left accusing the right of hyperbole insult after we’ve lived through eight years of slogans that are as philosophically deep as a bumper sticker is rich indeed.”

    The left didn’t go this nuts until about three or four years into Bush’s Presidency. You guys have surpassed them in 100 days.

    “For someone who fails at identifying sarcasm, you sure use a lot of it.”

    I realized you were sarcastic right after I entered to comment. My apologies! I never know on this forum!

  • avatar
    BDB

    Oh, and nobody isn’t saying you can’t dissent. However, When your dissent is based on two-bit theories of history from political hacks and silly hyperbolic attacks don’t be surprised when you’re mocked instead of taken seriously.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Jeff S: Do you really believe that the Taiwanese people would rather live under a Communist Dictatorship than what...
  • mcs: @Skippity: If it even gets built. There are people protesting and opposing the Rivian plant in Georgia because...
  • Skippity: Just what we need, bigger, faster ego-mobiles.
  • Skippity: The chip plant will operate for a year or so, unionize, go on strike. The toilet paper isn’t Charmin,...
  • mikey: Nice..but the same beef I have with the Tahoe/Yukon ..Too big for the Burbs .Then there’s price of gas...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber