Why are you always so snarky? Sniping and snarky. To what end? If you don’t have any real ideas just quit poking at ambiguous charges in hopes of inflaming folks to no end. Grow up!

Given your inability to analyze the claims of the Bush administration and willingness to support things like torture and unjust war, you’ll credibility isn’t intact.
When will this blog be about religion or faith or the intersection of politics and faith? If you want to play Ann Coulter, there are far right blogs to do that.

1 – they’re both lawyers.
2 – the auto industry is now in the hands of politicians.
follow the money trail…
Since when is political pondering “snarky”? OH! Since President Obama swore in…and now political disagreement is not snarkiness, slander, hate, yada yada.

MzEllen, you have the same wonderful potential to be a follower of Satan (yes, I can recognize potential to follow another God) as so many other commenters here. I can see you blossoming into a full-fledged Satanist in the near future. I mean this as a compliment.

I prefer truth, thank you though.

I prefer truth, thank you though.
All evidence to the contrary

Another personal insult. How predictable.

I didn’t see anyone claim that the snarkiness in Michelle’s post was hateful or slanderous, before MzEllen chose to put those words into the mouths (or keyboards) of the people with whom she disagrees. She does seem a bit eager to cast any criticism of Michelle’s complaints about the Administration as rank hypocrisy grounded in some kind of idolatry of Obama and extremist, unreasoning hostility toward Republicans, conservatives, etc. The remark was snarky, as is most political satire, no matter who is dishing it out. It wasn’t particularly evil, nor was it especially fair. All on all, it wasn’t a big deal, either. While I find Michelle’s criticisms to often be kneejerk, I have never called them hateful, nor do I think of them that way. I don’t think the facile stereotyping and snap judgments which seem to typify so much of what passes for political dialog these days does anything but pour acid into the wounds our society suffers. I do wish this blog was a bit broader in its scope and dealt with more than either defending or criticizing either the current or previous Administration.

Robert, would you like me to go back to quote how many times liberals have admonished Michele to stop hating? or that her hatred caused her cancer?
I do wish this blog was a bit broader in its scope
I also

here’s one
Michele, did you ever consider that the cancer may be a message from God to take a look at the bitterness and hatred you have inside of you?

ds0490 has come back with a vengeance, even I’m shocked.
But, of course, any thinking Christian would reasonably ask of any trial, how is God refining me through this? michele isn’t hateful or bitter; she totally trusts God … however, I think she’s admitted to being sarcastic. That’s probably all this is.

ds0490 has come back with a vengeance, even I’m shocked.
I’m not.

MzEllen,
What does your family that works for Chrysler thing?

Jake Tapper updated his blog:
“A Perella Weinberg Partners spokesperson told ABC News on Sunday that The firm denies Mr. Laurias account of events.* The spokesperson would not elaborate.”
Jake is one of the best for asking tough questions. He is one of the few that qualify for the title “journalist.”
Maybe now Michele will update her blog and remove the tag thug from the other Chrysler blog.

Julie, my brother-in-law is considering moving to a part of the country where there are more jobs. That’s how Detroit became so populated in the first place.
He’s also considering getting educated for a different field. Jobs come and go.
He’s appalled by this new level of government intervention in private industry and he has an understanding that things are going to get really messed up if you put the union in charge of the management.
Unions and management work at cross-purposes. The purpose of management is to make a profit for the company. The purpose of the union is to get more money and benefits for the employees, no matter what the cost to the company. (this is his understanding, not mine.)
What is going to be the priority when the union owns the company so that it is negotiating with?
What concerns me just as much is the concept that it is now the federal government that is calling the shots. Any agreement (regardless of whether or not the debt holders and the union and the management are in agreement) that does not please the feds…will be nixed.
How was the UAW a lien holder that got moved to the front of the line? My husband worked with bankruptcy courts and there was a certain order to the way debts were paid. Primary lien holders were paid first.
If the feds decide that legal contracts can be overruled because they don’t like what the contract says…who would want to own stock in such a company?
And the AIG bonus contracts already proved that legal contracts can be negated by public opinion and government pressure.
yeah. That’s good for business.
The fact that the firm “would not elaborate” also sends up red flags. Why won’t they give further information? We already know that President Obama stands against the investors.

“OH! Since President Obama swore in”
no, michele has always been snarky. sorry to disagree with you, moonshadow.
so, the white house denies the claim, and so does the attorney’s firm also denies it. where does that leave your conspiracy now, righties?