JackB1 wrote:
I was pointing out the difference between the 2 parties in THIS SITUATION. You guys are making it an attack on the entire party and it wasn't meant that way. Why can't we ever address the point that was made instead of dissecting/analyzing my phrasing. Geeeezzzz.
What exactly was the point of making that original post?
You are always bringing up how we should be focusing on what really matters. How is this important at all? How is anyone NOT suppsoed to take that post as another attempt to paint Republicans in a bad light?
pk500 wrote:Is my calendar incorrect, or was the election a week ago, with the results announced that night?
The partisan bickering was understandable through last Tuesday. But we Americans rolled the bones Nov. 4 and got an outcome.
So I question the point of the continued flamethrowing. It either drips with gloating or bitterness, with very little productive thought or discussion going on.
Oh, well. Carry on. This thread has become DSP's own cable news network, with screaming heads from both sides turning up the volume to 11, with very little to say.
Take care,
PK
I've accepted Obama as my President. I'll never accept gloating from either side. Being a minority I hate groups being painted with broad brushes no matter who they are, terriorists excluded.
Idiot! I can't believe this women is a teacher.
She browbeats the daughter of a veteran yet she said nothing too the student that wanted Obama because he was Black. That's a racist comment. She should have explaned why he shouldn't feel that way. That he should want Obama because he is going to do a better job for all Americans.
She is promoting the racial divide and I have had enough of anyone that condones and wants preferences based on race. We are all humans and color doesn't mean anything. It's worth every penny my wife and I pay to send our son to a private school.
JackB1 wrote:The difference between the 2 reactions was like night and day. One was filled with hate and anger for the other winning candidate. The other was a classy reaction by a disappointed (but respectful) Democratic audience.
I guess you don't rememver 2000 and all the "Bush stole the election venom" and 2004s allegations of cheating in Ohio and such. Didn't Kerry even file a lawsuit in Ohio over the results? Hardly what I would call a respectful and classy reaction. I will also mark this statement with the disclaimer that I voted for Kerry, so I'm not defending "my guy" here either.
Naples39 wrote:
Original point? What exactly was your original point again?
Since nobody but JRod got it, I will explain my point.
There were 2 exact same situations.....
(1) Kerry conceding to Bush (to a Democratic audience)
(2) McCain conceding to Obama (to a Republican audience)
The difference between the 2 reactions was like night and day. One was filled with hate and anger for the other winning candidate. The other was a classy reaction by a disappointed (but respectful) Democratic audience.
The question is why? Why such a difference in the 2 reaction's...
If you want to know why the Repubs in attendance that booed during McCain's speech booed, ask the Repubs in attendance who booed. Likewise for why the Dems in attendance reacted as they did in 2004.
Any other explanation is based on stereotypes and pre-conceived notions about the parties as a whole. Sorry, I refuse to play that game.
it all points to the propaganda that was spread by the Rep. campaign...e.g. Obama pals with terrorists....Muslim......Anti-American.....Ayers.....Reverend Wright....etc etc.
All Obama did was point out McCain's ties to Bush. He didn't attack him in the same way IMO at all. He responded to attacks on himself, but never played dirty like the McCain party did
This is 100% biased speculation. There is no actual evidence here, and again by saying things like 'the McCain party' you imply that all republicans and republican candidates are the same (and in this case, a hateful, spiteful lot).
I don't begrudge Obama for doing these things, that's politics. But I refuse to interpret some boos as revealing the whole party as classless. Though you'd think I'd be used to it by now, living in Philadelphia where we have been labelled classless for booing countless times. 'We' even booed Biden this week, which as a spectator at the game, I can assure you was a terribly bizarre and awkward moment.
I don't recall any real resentment here about the results. No one here cried foul about the election. The only real outburst was from Siam with his "We Win MFers".
In fact, we had already moved on to having a real quality discussion about the auto industry.
JackDog wrote:Idiot! I can't believe this women is a teacher. It's worth every penny my wife and I pay to send our son to a private school.
Scary indeed....and I am also paying for my children to go to private schools for similar reasons. That being said, my daughter voted for Obama and she is a student at Texas A&M (Junior). My son voted for Obama and he is a Senior in High School. When I asked them both what reasons they were voting for Obama, neither could come up with a definitive reason other than they thought that McCain would be the same as Bush and that we needed a change. I respected their opinions, but reminded them that all they had stated was pretty much what they had heard from the media and the Democratic Party as well. I can't wait for my children to get out into the real world and then see if their attitudes or preferences change. At least they never told us they were influenced by their professors or teachers, which is a good thing.
True, it can't help every company. But does GM fall into the "too large to fail" category?
Lot of workers for the Big 3 are in swing states and even between election years, they form large constituencies which politicians can't ignore.
But yeah, if you're going to try to restructure their business as a condition of the bailout, you definitely need to get rid of the management.
The Chevy Volt is being described as a Hail Mary by some. It's a plug-in hybrid capable of 640 mile range from a single tank of gas, which powers the generator to recharge the lithium ion battery packs.
But this car, which is the size of the Chevy Cobalt, a $15k car, will apparently go for about $40k. Not exactly mass market price. The Prius is in the $20-25k range and Toyota also is suppose to be working on their plug-in hybrid model. Maybe Toyota is taking a loss at those prices, as some Detroit executives claimed when the Prius became hot.
Or maybe GM really isn't interested in having a big hit.
You wonder, if the Big 3 produced cars like the Accord or Camry, would they be facing a cash crunch?
One thing I forgot to add, Rick Waggoner the GM CEO has been quoted as saying he would oppose management changes as a condition of aid from Washington. He said something about preserving the best management.
wco81 wrote:But yeah, if you're going to try to restructure their business as a condition of the bailout, you definitely need to get rid of the management.
Sure, I can agree with that. But shouldn't there also be a rank-and-file review of labor agreements with the unions if a return to profitability is desired?
wco81 wrote:But yeah, if you're going to try to restructure their business as a condition of the bailout, you definitely need to get rid of the management.
Sure, I can agree with that. But shouldn't there also be a rank-and-file review of labor agreements with the unions if a return to profitability is desired?
I'm sure if they do something drastic as throwing the current management out, they will also try to restructure labor agreements.
But there are fewer voters in management than in the rank and file of the unions too.
And if you replace management, whom do you bring in? When Cerebus bought Chrysler, I believe they put in the former CEO of Home Depot to run the auto company.
wco81 wrote:You wonder, if the Big 3 produced cars like the Accord or Camry, would they be facing a cash crunch?
Yes, they would. I'd say their biggest problem is costs related to retired workers. When you are paying for 6 times what your current headcount is, you are in trouble no matter what kind of cars you make. If they were getting Camrys or Accords sales, they would still be in deep doo-doo.
wco81 wrote:I heard at one time, GM had over 50% market share in the US and now it's down to slightly over 20%.
Did the execs. assume they'd have that big a market share indefinitely when they agreed to those contracts?
Yes. The initial deal that set the stage for GM's universal health care plan came in 1949, when GM management and the UAW were bickering over terms for their next contract. GM wanted to avoid a strike, and postwar America was in the midst of its auto boom, with no foreign competition in sight.
GM offered the UAW in 1949 a pension plan and half-price health insurance, both of which didn't exist, in lieu of large wage increases. That morphed into the full pension and universal health care plan after future bargaining sessions between GM and the UAW, as GM executives showed little to no long-term thinking when factoring in the aging of its work force and growing number of retirees, and also the growing threat of foreign competition.
The initial pact in 1949 sometimes is referred to as "The Treaty of Detroit."
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
wco81 wrote:Did the execs. assume they'd have that big a market share indefinitely when they agreed to those contracts?
Maybe those deals are the biggest culprit. But it's not our pensions that some people are advocating cutting.
PKs assesment is dead on. They either never thought they'd have any real competition, or they figured it wouldn't be their problem by the time it all materialized.
This is why blindly throwing billions at GM will not solver anything. All it will do is pay of the pension plans for a few more months, at which point they'll come back to the trough for more. Kinda like AIG is doing right now.
)
