GM pays off its bailout loans

#78
#78
have your w-2 ready paul!!!!! your income will come into question in 2 or 3 posts.... :popcorn:
 
#80
#80
Daddy Gee said:
have your w-2 ready paul!!!!! your income will come into question in 2 or 3 posts.... :popcorn:
Click to expand...

Obviously you need to read the threads a little more closely so you can get your facts straight and not sound as though you are an ignorant rube
 
#82
#82
truefan said:
Obviously you need to read the threads a little more closely so you can get your facts straight and not sound as though you are an ignorant rube
Click to expand...

Which is worse....a "rube" or a "punk"......I can not have anyone passing me on the "Truefan dislike scale"
 
#83
#83
paul1454 said:
Not sure why this would matter or would even be a concern of yours.
Click to expand...

Mainly because of your inaccurate statement in a previous post. Actually, smartboy, it was Touche and Ross when I interviewed with them. The fact you made such a big deal out of me forgetting it's Deloitte and Touche now(I said Touche and Deloitte and you went ballistic, it's has been well over twenty years since then) shows me you might need some seasoning before sticking your nose into a conversation and making some really inaccurate and ignorant statements. That is the sign of someone younger and immature.
 
#84
#84
i'd think a big shot like you would be on top of what is happening at the world's largest consulting firms.
 
Last edited:
#85
#85
droski said:
i'd think a big shot like you would be on top of what is happening at the world's largest consulting firm.
Click to expand...

You're the one that claimed you made 5 times as much as I do a year. I also loved the way you speculated on how I might have interest income and where it came from. As a stockbroker, you should know better. All perfectly idiotic and ignorant ideas, but still pretty funny stuff
 
#86
#86
i see. so you've figured out how to generate $200k of interest income without a lot of money. surprised you aren't running a hedge fund rather than pushing paper. seems like you should be little more tax efficient though.
 
#88
#88
droski said:
i see. so you've figured out how to generate $200k of interest income without a lot of money. surprised you aren't running a hedge fund rather than pushing paper. seems like you should be little more tax efficient though.
Click to expand...

There you go, making another incredibly ignorant post putting words in my mouth. Where did I say I generated 200K of interest without a lot of money.

As far as taxes go, it is highly likely I forgot more about the tax code, loopholes, etc than you will ever know in your lifetime.

You sure do make a lot of posts where assumption is your catalyst. Let me give you some advice...you sound stupid doing so. Stop it
 
#89
#89
truefan said:
There you go, making another incredibly ignorant post putting words in my mouth. Where did I say I generated 200K of interest without a lot of money.

As far as taxes go, it is highly likely I forgot more about the tax code, loopholes, etc than you will ever know in your lifetime.

You sure do make a lot of posts where assumption is your catalyst. Let me give you some advice...you sound stupid doing so. Stop it
Click to expand...

i see so you have around $4,000,000 in interest bearing investments? and you accumulated this type of wealth at your back office crap job how exactly? or are you a trust fund baby?

and I'd love to know how you stop from paying taxes on interest income unless it's municipals and that isn't exactly a brilliant cutting edge tax strategy.
 
#90
#90
truefan said:
Mainly because of your inaccurate statement in a previous post. Actually, smartboy, it was Touche and Ross when I interviewed with them. The fact you made such a big deal out of me forgetting it's Deloitte and Touche now(I said Touche and Deloitte and you went ballistic, it's has been well over twenty years since then) shows me you might need some seasoning before sticking your nose into a conversation and making some really inaccurate and ignorant statements. That is the sign of someone younger and immature.
Click to expand...

How would my prior statement be innacurate? I'm going to post the conversation since it appears you have already forgotten the substance of our prior discussion.

You first state:
truefan said:
I spent two weeks every year with a CPA from a big six(back then big six, I think there are only four now) firm. Generally speaking, there was much information that had to be explained unecessarily to them. In regards to your wife's ignorant statment, very few, if any, general ledger accountants at manufacturing facilities have a grasp of the operation door-to-door. Most CPAs have very little understanding of activity based cost accounting. They like it, so they badmouth it, but it is the most accurate means to cost products at a manufacturing plant vs. a standard general ledger costing system.

BTW, I was offered jobs by Touch&Deloitte, Price Waterhouse and Arthur Anderson before deciding upon Nissan
Click to expand...

Because of that, I replied:

paul1454 said:
You've got to be joking. Touche&Deloitte? If you knew anything you were talking about, you would at least get the name of the third largest accounting firm in the world correct.
Click to expand...

There is nothing innacurate about my post. I was pointing out that you were incorrect on something that is almost inexcusable in the accounting industry. That's like someone who works in a large law firm never hearing of Skadden.

In response to my very legitimate critique, you attempt to backtrack and/or correct yourself by noting:

truefan said:
If you knew what you were talking about you would know that was the official name of that firm back in 1988

IF I were you, I would STFU.
Click to expand...

Well, again, you proved that you were unaware what you were talking about. In order to correct your misinformation, and in part because your third-grade retort, I correctly pointed out that D&C had never been named Touche and Deloitte. In my response, I let you know that Deloitte & Touche, in its present form, came into existence in 89 following a merger between Deloitte Haskins Sells and Touche Ross.

As an aside, you see, the reason you even know it was Touche Ross prior to merger was because I informed you of that point. Look at the conversation from my perspective, if I were saying the things you said, would you not think I was full of BS?

paul1454 said:
Oh really? D&C wasn't even around then. It merged from Deloitte Haskins Sells and Touche Ross in 1989. Oh, I see what happened.........you must have looked it up on wikipedia to brush up on your accounting knowledge so you could save face [in the mergers section] Deloitte - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Unfortunately, Deloitte & Touche didn't get the memo that they needed to update their true history to reflect the misinformation spewed on wikipedia. 1970 - 1990

Thanks for playing.

EDIT: This is truly shocking to me that someone would make up all this stuff to look good on the internet. Did you think no one would call you out?
Click to expand...

After being corrected yet again, you continued to refuse to admit you were wrong. As expected, you resorted to childish retorts, questioning my age just like you did in this thread (and since you seem so concerned with the issue, I can assure you I am a well-educated adult)

I didn't make anything up. You are one delusional fellow if you think I need your affirmation for anything. There was no making up anything. And I didn't look anything up on Wikipedia.

PM me and we will discuss it in more detail.

One last question....Do you think I care what your opinion is of me???

What are you, 25???
Click to expand...

Because I could tell the conversation was going nowhere but south, I decided to let the conversation die and even apologized (although I had been relatively cordial in my responses).

paul1454 said:
Look, I'm not trying to get you all wound up. There is, however, simply no need to make things up to bolster an argument. Where I thought you were being less than forthcoming, I pointed that out. End of story. If I have angered you in the process, then I am sorry. In addition, I understand that a few of my statements were a little on the rude side. For those statements, I also apologize. I could have made my point in a more cordial manner.
Click to expand...

So, based on this conversation, you think my statements showed that I was "young and immature"? I would say the conversation points to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
#92
#92
droski said:
i see so you have around $4,000,000 in interest bearing investments? and you accumulated this type of wealth at your back office crap job how exactly? or are you a trust fund baby?

and I'd love to know how you stop from paying taxes on interest income unless it's municipals and that isn't exactly a brilliant cutting edge tax strategy.
Click to expand...

It's is none of your business where my wealth was accumulated. Trust fund baby? LOL. There was a family business that was bought out by a Fortune 100 company nearly twenty years ago. That is all you need to you know.

Who said anything about not paying taxes? There you go again. YOu can't help yourself. You make assumptions that are nowhere near the truth.
 
#93
#93
truefan said:
It's is none of your business where my wealth was accumulated. Trust fund baby? LOL. There was a family business that was bought out by a Fortune 100 company nearly twenty years ago. That is all you need to you know.

Who said anything about not paying taxes? There you go again. YOu can't help yourself. You make assumptions that are nowhere near the truth.
Click to expand...

:eek:lol:.....ego is a biach
 
#94
#94
paul1454 said:
How would my prior statement be innacurate? I'm going to post the conversation since it appears you have already forgotten the substance of our prior discussion.

You first state:

Because of that, I replied:



There is nothing innacurate about my post. I was pointing out that you were incorrect on something that is almost inexcusable in the accounting industry. That's like someone who works in a large law firm never hearing of Skadden.

In response to my very legitimate critique, you attempt to backtrack and/or correct yourself by noting:



Well, again, you proved that you were unaware what you were talking about. In order to correct your misinformation, and in part because your third-grade retort, I correctly pointed out that D&C had never been named Touche and Deloitte. In my response, I let you know that Deloitte & Touche, in its present form, came into existence in 89 following a merger between Deloitte Haskins Sells and Touche Ross.

As an aside, you see, the reason you even know it was Touche Ross prior to merger was because I informed you of that point. Look at the conversation from my perspective, if I were saying the things you said, would you not think I was full of BS?



After being corrected yet again, you continued to refuse to admit you were wrong. As expected, you resorted to childish retorts, questioning my age just like you did in this thread (and since you seem so concerned with the issue, I can assure you I am a well-educated adult)



Because I could tell the conversation was going nowhere but south, I decided to let the conversation die and even apologized (although I had been relatively cordial in my responses).



So, based on this conversation, you think my statements showed that I was "young and immature"? I would say the conversation points to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Calling me a liar just because I didn't provide the correct name of a company which offered me a job twenty years prior is pretty immature. I was close and like I said, you didn't tell me anything I didn't already know about those two companies. There was nothing made up. You don't have to believe. You're nobody. Do you get that? And you think I care what someone thinks because I forgot and said Touch and Deloitte instead of the proper Deloitte and Touche? To make such a big deal of that is pathetic. YOu won't get too far up the organizational chart making issues of things that don't matter.
 
#95
#95
paul1454 said:
How would my prior statement be innacurate? I'm going to post the conversation since it appears you have already forgotten the substance of our prior discussion.

You first state:

Because of that, I replied:



There is nothing innacurate about my post. I was pointing out that you were incorrect on something that is almost inexcusable in the accounting industry. That's like someone who works in a large law firm never hearing of Skadden.

In response to my very legitimate critique, you attempt to backtrack and/or correct yourself by noting:



Well, again, you proved that you were unaware what you were talking about. In order to correct your misinformation, and in part because your third-grade retort, I correctly pointed out that D&C had never been named Touche and Deloitte. In my response, I let you know that Deloitte & Touche, in its present form, came into existence in 89 following a merger between Deloitte Haskins Sells and Touche Ross.

As an aside, you see, the reason you even know it was Touche Ross prior to merger was because I informed you of that point. Look at the conversation from my perspective, if I were saying the things you said, would you not think I was full of BS?



After being corrected yet again, you continued to refuse to admit you were wrong. As expected, you resorted to childish retorts, questioning my age just like you did in this thread (and since you seem so concerned with the issue, I can assure you I am a well-educated adult)



Because I could tell the conversation was going nowhere but south, I decided to let the conversation die and even apologized (although I had been relatively cordial in my responses).



So, based on this conversation, you think my statements showed that I was "young and immature"? I would say the conversation points to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe I didn't know of Touche and Ross until you told me? Are you that delusional?

PM me sometime.
 
#96
#96
paul1454 said:
How would my prior statement be innacurate? I'm going to post the conversation since it appears you have already forgotten the substance of our prior discussion.

You first state:

Because of that, I replied:



There is nothing innacurate about my post. I was pointing out that you were incorrect on something that is almost inexcusable in the accounting industry. That's like someone who works in a large law firm never hearing of Skadden.

In response to my very legitimate critique, you attempt to backtrack and/or correct yourself by noting:



Well, again, you proved that you were unaware what you were talking about. In order to correct your misinformation, and in part because your third-grade retort, I correctly pointed out that D&C had never been named Touche and Deloitte. In my response, I let you know that Deloitte & Touche, in its present form, came into existence in 89 following a merger between Deloitte Haskins Sells and Touche Ross.

As an aside, you see, the reason you even know it was Touche Ross prior to merger was because I informed you of that point. Look at the conversation from my perspective, if I were saying the things you said, would you not think I was full of BS?



After being corrected yet again, you continued to refuse to admit you were wrong. As expected, you resorted to childish retorts, questioning my age just like you did in this thread (and since you seem so concerned with the issue, I can assure you I am a well-educated adult)

Because I could tell the conversation was going nowhere but south, I decided to let the conversation die and even apologized (although I had been relatively cordial in my responses).



So, based on this conversation, you think my statements showed that I was "young and immature"? I would say the conversation points to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Not nearly as well educated as you think or you wouldn't be running around trying to correct such things. Good luck moving up the ladder with that mindset.
 
#100
#100
Back to the thread topic...Why is it not a good thing GM is paying back some of their bailout money? For some of you on the far right, I know it doesn't matter so don't try explaining your disdain for the payback with some BS rhetoric. Who cares about the semantics and whether or not they are actually paying back all of the money right now? Hey, I don't care for the UAW either, but to think they could have started assembly lines up in a timely fashion with a new work force is naive. And to correct some of you, all those assembly workers aren't unskilled labor.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top