Rangerland Forum Information

[Nilan 666]

If I called you fascist this would valid.

[Hockey101]

Ford mortgaged itself in 2006. It put up almost 100% of its assets, from plants to office space to spare parts to unfinished inventory, and took out a $25.6 billion dollar line of credit. This line of credit is what kept it afloat. GM and Chrysler did no such thing prior to the economic meltdown and doing so was an impossibility afterwards.


"Bailout" is such a dirty word with republicans, and it's weird to me. Their stance is usually "well, I mean, the outcome was good, but it wasn't necessary." How do you know it wasn't necessary? And what harm came from the bailout? Chrysler and GM cleaned house, like Ford did a few years prior, and really started changing how they design cars, like Ford did a few years prior. And Chrysler has repaid all the money! Chrysler and GM both got bailed out and both still had to declare bankruptcy. The odds of them both surviving without doing both those things is slim to none. But hey, who really needs US auto companies, right UK?

And Ford sold its other owned brands for cash. GM and Chrysler could have done these same things and maybe not even have gone through Chap 11. Chrysler was also saved by Fiat more so than the actual bailout. So, it is Fiat repaying that money, not Chrysler. And as for GM, they "repaid" the pure loan, not the whole loan. It is impossible for a company to pay back a $50MM dollar loan in a few years. GM ass raped the taxpayers' with the deal it made. I think the pure loan was $10MM and the interest rate was 8% (may have been 7 or 9 but i always go with even numbers on interest rates). In this deal, a large chunk of this "loan" was given and used as capital in which GM has used to "pay off" the debt. And let's not forget, GM also took money from Canada and they have to pay them back as well, which they could do using the taxpayers' bailout money.

So...don't buy into this BS that GM has repaid the loan it took. It did not and i am not sure how it could since i doubt they will many any significant profits within the next few years.

All of this could have been avoided if GM and Chrysler did what Ford did. I applaud Ford. I don't like the fact that Chrysler was again taken over by a foreign car maker, albeit one that i like. I don't like the fact that GM begged for mercy and while i think the new fleet of GM vehicles have a much higher quality, i think they are botching, still, because of government interest (i.e. Volt).

What brands could GM sell for cash? Hummer? They tried. Saab? They did. Saturn? They tried. Pontiac? Who'd buy it? All they have now is Buick, Cadillac, GMC, Chevy, Vauxhall, Opel and Holden. Which of those do you propose they sell? Buick is the key to their future, Cadillac is the only luxury they have in the US, GMC carries their name, Chevy is their primary brand, Holden designs a disproportionately high amount of their cars and Vauxhall/Opel are their only foothold in Europe. None of those brands can really be sold off without really damaging the mother. GMC is the only one possible but, honestly, who is going to buy GMC?

As for profit, GM earned a quarterly profit of a billion Q1/12. It earned four billion Q1/11.

Saab isn't really completely sold. GM really just sold the name and the managerial aspects of it, but otherwise it is still a GM vehicle built by GM. The Swedes are responsible for budgets and assets and so forth, but i would not consider it a full sell of the car maker. Saturn was about to be sold to Penske, who then would have had Nissan take over it. So the potential of selling Saturn was there. Pontiac was rushed to be shut down due to immediate downsizing requested by the government.

Buick should have been sold or dissolved a long time ago. I disagree it is key for the future as they are pretty good looking cars too, but they are clearly just Chevys with more elegance made for senior citizens. We will have a new age of senior citizens down the road who probably never viewed Buick as a likable car. When Oldsmobile was killed, Buick should have been as well. GMC is also a useless brand, but it has a lot of assets for other car makers in learning how to make better SUVs. I think that if GMC was put up for sale, you would have seen a German automaker take it in a flash. There is a reason why Daimler and Chrysler never got along. Mercedes badly wanted the Jeep brand. Chrysler never gave it to them. For GM, GMC is useless because it is between Cadillac and Chevy. Opel could have easily been sold. In fact Fiat wanted to buy it. Holden is a solid brand in the Pacific, and easily could have been sold to the Japanese.

Don't expect the quarterly profits to be that good and consistent with this economy. GM has ways and ways to go to pay the rest of that loan with their own money. They actually even had to take another government loan to renovate their plants to meet new energy requirement regulations by the DOE.

[Hockey101]

If I called you fascist this would valid.

Ok, so you want to call me a fascist in believing that i am one?

[Nilan 666]

I don't even understand that question, you're the one who started using the word fascist not I.

[Hockey101]

I love how Republicans are all in favor of government helping out corporations to "create jobs" and "stimulate the economy" until a Democrat does it successfully in which case we should stop buying American and shun the Commie bastards at GM.

In a better economy, GM could have secured financing to ride out the crisis but with the banking crisis making it impossible for them to secure loans from a bank, the government had to step in. This was a wildly successful bailout which saved hundreds of thousands of jobs. (Not just at GM -- The auto-industry's manufacturing footprint is huge and there are tons of company's that rely on a healthy General Motors:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-1...-by-state_N.htm

)

By continuously giving corporations billions of dollars with skewed loan plans and owning nearly 70% of a corporation? No...

In a better economy GM probably would not have asked for $50 billion dollars in help. I doubt a bank would have given them that much anyway and if so it would be because the bank actually HAS the money to give it to them, unlike the federal government that is trillions in debt and just invents paper money to give out. It would not have been in GM's interest to get a bank to run things as well since the bank would have probably done some major cost cuts, fired the jerks at GM who begged for money from the government, and probably would have given a harder time to the union. Or, another company would have bought GM. That's what happens in a healthy economy.

The bailout saved jobs the first time, no question, but the second time it did not save enough to make it worth all that taxpayers' money with a loan that the federal government administered, which is a joke.

Like i stated with the airlines before. You look at US Airways and what it went through. It got the bail out on 9/11 and that was justifiable. It went again into Chap 11 without another bailout. It found merges, and now it may buy another airline. Same thing could have happened to GM.

[Hockey101]

I don't even understand that question, you're the one who started using the word fascist not I.

Well, because you made a ridiculous statement that i think that 97% of the world is liberal. It's as ridiculous as in you thinking that i am a fascist. Get it?

[Hockey101]

Back to my original point..if Romney had said I regret my stance back then rather than now trying to take credit I would have more respect for that.

He is so slimey, I don't know how anyone would trust him in the business world...let alone as president.

I am not sure how you can trust Obama then. And yeah, i wouldn't trust Romney either. He is shrewd, machiavellian, and sneaky. I think he will be better than Obama, and he resembles my ideologies more closely, but....why would anyone trust a politician?

[Beamer]

Ford mortgaged itself in 2006. It put up almost 100% of its assets, from plants to office space to spare parts to unfinished inventory, and took out a $25.6 billion dollar line of credit. This line of credit is what kept it afloat. GM and Chrysler did no such thing prior to the economic meltdown and doing so was an impossibility afterwards.


"Bailout" is such a dirty word with republicans, and it's weird to me. Their stance is usually "well, I mean, the outcome was good, but it wasn't necessary." How do you know it wasn't necessary? And what harm came from the bailout? Chrysler and GM cleaned house, like Ford did a few years prior, and really started changing how they design cars, like Ford did a few years prior. And Chrysler has repaid all the money! Chrysler and GM both got bailed out and both still had to declare bankruptcy. The odds of them both surviving without doing both those things is slim to none. But hey, who really needs US auto companies, right UK?

And Ford sold its other owned brands for cash. GM and Chrysler could have done these same things and maybe not even have gone through Chap 11. Chrysler was also saved by Fiat more so than the actual bailout. So, it is Fiat repaying that money, not Chrysler. And as for GM, they "repaid" the pure loan, not the whole loan. It is impossible for a company to pay back a $50MM dollar loan in a few years. GM ass raped the taxpayers' with the deal it made. I think the pure loan was $10MM and the interest rate was 8% (may have been 7 or 9 but i always go with even numbers on interest rates). In this deal, a large chunk of this "loan" was given and used as capital in which GM has used to "pay off" the debt. And let's not forget, GM also took money from Canada and they have to pay them back as well, which they could do using the taxpayers' bailout money.

So...don't buy into this BS that GM has repaid the loan it took. It did not and i am not sure how it could since i doubt they will many any significant profits within the next few years.

All of this could have been avoided if GM and Chrysler did what Ford did. I applaud Ford. I don't like the fact that Chrysler was again taken over by a foreign car maker, albeit one that i like. I don't like the fact that GM begged for mercy and while i think the new fleet of GM vehicles have a much higher quality, i think they are botching, still, because of government interest (i.e. Volt).

What brands could GM sell for cash? Hummer? They tried. Saab? They did. Saturn? They tried. Pontiac? Who'd buy it? All they have now is Buick, Cadillac, GMC, Chevy, Vauxhall, Opel and Holden. Which of those do you propose they sell? Buick is the key to their future, Cadillac is the only luxury they have in the US, GMC carries their name, Chevy is their primary brand, Holden designs a disproportionately high amount of their cars and Vauxhall/Opel are their only foothold in Europe. None of those brands can really be sold off without really damaging the mother. GMC is the only one possible but, honestly, who is going to buy GMC?

As for profit, GM earned a quarterly profit of a billion Q1/12. It earned four billion Q1/11.

Saab isn't really completely sold. GM really just sold the name and the managerial aspects of it, but otherwise it is still a GM vehicle built by GM. The Swedes are responsible for budgets and assets and so forth, but i would not consider it a full sell of the car maker. Saturn was about to be sold to Penske, who then would have had Nissan take over it. So the potential of selling Saturn was there. Pontiac was rushed to be shut down due to immediate downsizing requested by the government.

Buick should have been sold or dissolved a long time ago. I disagree it is key for the future as they are pretty good looking cars too, but they are clearly just Chevys with more elegance made for senior citizens. We will have a new age of senior citizens down the road who probably never viewed Buick as a likable car. When Oldsmobile was killed, Buick should have been as well. GMC is also a useless brand, but it has a lot of assets for other car makers in learning how to make better SUVs. I think that if GMC was put up for sale, you would have seen a German automaker take it in a flash. There is a reason why Daimler and Chrysler never got along. Mercedes badly wanted the Jeep brand. Chrysler never gave it to them. For GM, GMC is useless because it is between Cadillac and Chevy. Opel could have easily been sold. In fact Fiat wanted to buy it. Holden is a solid brand in the Pacific, and easily could have been sold to the Japanese.

Don't expect the quarterly profits to be that good and consistent with this economy. GM has ways and ways to go to pay the rest of that loan with their own money. They actually even had to take another government loan to renovate their plants to meet new energy requirement regulations by the DOE.

But that's the best kind of sale - you get rid of the cost and risk while keeping capacity in your factory while the new owner builds his own factory, therefore giving you time to plan for that capacity drop (which would drastically raise your costs otherwise.) However, Saab is actually no longer a vehicle built by anyone - it's a defunct brand that exists kind of in name but has no factories, dealerships, current models, etc.

Saturn did not sell because it is a brand with no value.

Pontiac was shut down because it is a brand with no value.

Your view of Buick makes you ridiculously short sighted. Let's look at the number one car in China in 2011: http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/01...ar-in-2011.html
Hey look, it's a Buick! And Buicks have been in China's top 10 for the past several years. And Buick sells nearly half a million cars in China each year and is considered the most desired car brand, above even the Germans! Let's burn it down and kill it because it's not likeable in America!

GMC could be killed, I agree, but it could not be sold. Who would buy it? What does it represent? It has absolutely no value. You say Daimler wanted Jeep, but why? Brand equity. They didn't want Jeep's knowledge, which is nothing, they wanted the 7 vertical bars and the name "Wrangler." Quick, name 3 GMC trucks. Name one happy GMC owner. So why would anyone buy it?

Yes, Opel could be sold, but then what does GM do in Europe? Write it off?

The Holden brand is exclusive to Australia. Exclusive. So the brand has zero equity to anyone not looking to buy in Australia. But the brand makes a lot of cars sold as Chevy, and GM is planning an entire sports car line in the US based upon Holden cars. So no one would buy Holden for much, given that the name is somewhat meaningless (though I used to advocate killing Pontiac and bringing Holden here as GMs sport division), but the value to GM as far as engineering goes is massive. So GM would take a large hit selling Holden but gain little in return. It would have been a terrible move.

Ford sold Jaguar, which actually may have been a bad move (they finally fixed Jaguar only to sell it), Aston Martin and Range Rover. These are desirable brands. Not only that, but they are brands that contribute nothing to Ford's engineering, as they took, not delivered. GMs brands are valueless, but Holden is a major engineering division and Opel is their only brand selling decently in Europe. They could not get in return for those two brands what the value is to their bottom line.

[Dunc]

Back to my original point..if Romney had said I regret my stance back then rather than now trying to take credit I would have more respect for that.

He is so slimey, I don't know how anyone would trust him in the business world...let alone as president.

I am not sure how you can trust Obama then. And yeah, i wouldn't trust Romney either. He is shrewd, machiavellian, and sneaky. I think he will be better than Obama, and he resembles my ideologies more closely, but....why would anyone trust a politician?

Dude, be honest.

If the Republican nominee were Ponzi or Capone, you would still rationalize how either one was better than Obama.

[rightbug]

In fairness, 101 has always been a Romney supporter, even in the last election.

[Nilan 666]

I don't even understand that question, you're the one who started using the word fascist not I.

Well, because you made a ridiculous statement that i think that 97% of the world is liberal. It's as ridiculous as in you thinking that i am a fascist. Get it?

It was a joke no more ridiculous than your assertion that Dick Lugar is a liberal. The difference, I wasn't actually serious.

[Hockey101]

But that's the best kind of sale - you get rid of the cost and risk while keeping capacity in your factory while the new owner builds his own factory, therefore giving you time to plan for that capacity drop (which would drastically raise your costs otherwise.) However, Saab is actually no longer a vehicle built by anyone - it's a defunct brand that exists kind of in name but has no factories, dealerships, current models, etc.

Saturn did not sell because it is a brand with no value.

Pontiac was shut down because it is a brand with no value.

Your view of Buick makes you ridiculously short sighted. Let's look at the number one car in China in 2011: http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/01...ar-in-2011.html
Hey look, it's a Buick! And Buicks have been in China's top 10 for the past several years. And Buick sells nearly half a million cars in China each year and is considered the most desired car brand, above even the Germans! Let's burn it down and kill it because it's not likeable in America!

GMC could be killed, I agree, but it could not be sold. Who would buy it? What does it represent? It has absolutely no value. You say Daimler wanted Jeep, but why? Brand equity. They didn't want Jeep's knowledge, which is nothing, they wanted the 7 vertical bars and the name "Wrangler." Quick, name 3 GMC trucks. Name one happy GMC owner. So why would anyone buy it?

Yes, Opel could be sold, but then what does GM do in Europe? Write it off?

The Holden brand is exclusive to Australia. Exclusive. So the brand has zero equity to anyone not looking to buy in Australia. But the brand makes a lot of cars sold as Chevy, and GM is planning an entire sports car line in the US based upon Holden cars. So no one would buy Holden for much, given that the name is somewhat meaningless (though I used to advocate killing Pontiac and bringing Holden here as GMs sport division), but the value to GM as far as engineering goes is massive. So GM would take a large hit selling Holden but gain little in return. It would have been a terrible move.

Ford sold Jaguar, which actually may have been a bad move (they finally fixed Jaguar only to sell it), Aston Martin and Range Rover. These are desirable brands. Not only that, but they are brands that contribute nothing to Ford's engineering, as they took, not delivered. GMs brands are valueless, but Holden is a major engineering division and Opel is their only brand selling decently in Europe. They could not get in return for those two brands what the value is to their bottom line.

You are still paying for part of the output, though. I mean, unless the new ownership (it's not an ownership...i forget the term used for this kind of "ownership" and it's driving me nuts) has it in the deal that ALL expenses attributed to any Saab output then okay, but i doubt that will be the case. The risk in having this relationship of ownership is that the Swedes can terminate certain operating assets that GM is actually part of and GM cannot do anything about it. I can't even find the friggin term on Investopedia.com. A total memory block for me. But, banks do it often as well and usually the turn out does not benefit creditors.

Saturn actually had a popular line of vehicles, which you still find today and there is a good used car market (the Sky is a pretty slick car). But anyway, like i said. Saturn was about to be acquired by Penske, and the process would have been very similar to what happened with Saab. Because then Penske would have dealt with Nissan, or to be more precise Nissan-Renault, and Saturn would have been a solid sell for GM. The deal fell through and personally i think GM did not want Nissan-Renault to gain GM technology and engineering that could have been used here in the US and especially in Europe to go against Opel.

Pontiac was horrendously managed, but there was a limited time to handle it as downsizing was a top priority. I think you probably could not have sold it because it was the performance brand of GM. They just killed it themselves though.

I knew Buick was tops in China. But what about here in the US? May as well kill it here and make it a brand for the Asian continent.

GMC would not be sold as a brand to another car maker to continue it. I think it would have been sold to a car maker, dissolved, and its engineering and technologies used to make the better SUVs, which are still, in large, dominated by American car makers. That is why Mercedes created Daimler Chrysler. From day 1 to the very last day it was about getting the Jeep brand. They would have continued Jeep, but they would have used Jeep's 4x4 engineering for Mercedes as well. That is why Chrysler always said no. The SUV market is mostly American and Japanese. The Germans lag behind it. Even with the minivan. That is why Volkswagen is using Chrysler's minivan to build theirs. The Routan i think it is called? It's a Chrysler. So, i think GMC had value to sell, but not to see as a future brand.

Jaguar was getting killed by Ford. Thank God they sold it. Range Rover sold well. I think Volvo sold for over $2 billion. Yes, more marketable brands, but when you are losing big time, especially at home, you have to accept in cutting your losses and rebuild a stronger fort in your home base. GM would have been better off completely selling those brands for cash. Whatever they could get. They would have saved a lot more money and i think they would have been able to better manage their resources to Chevy and Cadillac (which can be marketed better in Europe).

Anyway, we don't know all of the behind the scenes and what could have happened.

But for Opel, it's not even a great car in Europe. It probably has less than 10% of the market share in Europe. I think it's useless for GM to keep it. They have the technology and engineering from it. They built the Buick Lacrosse (i think) from an Opel vehicle and that's that.

Also, just going back to Buick for a sec, but if Volvo was sold to the Chinese (just looked it up) for nearly $2 billion dollars, then i wonder how much the Chinese would pay to take Buick. I mean, if it is an offer that can't be refused, i would do it if i were GM. Taking that much cash/credit and being able to strengthen my vehicles in the US to compete better would be my strategy. Or at least, built a Volt that is actually worth the money and does not have a battery that dangerously burns the car.

[Hockey101]

I don't even understand that question, you're the one who started using the word fascist not I.

Well, because you made a ridiculous statement that i think that 97% of the world is liberal. It's as ridiculous as in you thinking that i am a fascist. Get it?

It was a joke no more ridiculous than your assertion that Dick Lugar is a liberal. The difference, I wasn't actually serious.

To say that he is a closet liberal is tongue in cheek. Obviously he is a republican, but he has voted for too much in spending, just as he did with the Bush GOP led House and Senate a decade ago or so. Enough with these Republicans that are old timers. They carry dirt and gunk under their seats. And i am not in full support of only getting tea party republicans, but i rather give someone new a shot than getting the same shit from an oldie who has been in DC for too long.

[Beamer]

If the solution is selling one of your best brands for the future to the Chinese then we're all fucked.

[Nilan 666]

I don't even understand that question, you're the one who started using the word fascist not I.

Well, because you made a ridiculous statement that i think that 97% of the world is liberal. It's as ridiculous as in you thinking that i am a fascist. Get it?

It was a joke no more ridiculous than your assertion that Dick Lugar is a liberal. The difference, I wasn't actually serious.

To say that he is a closet liberal is tongue in cheek. Obviously he is a republican, but he has voted for too much in spending, just as he did with the Bush GOP led House and Senate a decade ago or so. Enough with these Republicans that are old timers. They carry dirt and gunk under their seats. And i am not in full support of only getting tea party republicans, but i rather give someone new a shot than getting the same shit from an oldie who has been in DC for too long.

Ah, bit of a misunderstanding on both our parts then. Sorry aboot that.

[Hockey101]

Back to my original point..if Romney had said I regret my stance back then rather than now trying to take credit I would have more respect for that.

He is so slimey, I don't know how anyone would trust him in the business world...let alone as president.

I am not sure how you can trust Obama then. And yeah, i wouldn't trust Romney either. He is shrewd, machiavellian, and sneaky. I think he will be better than Obama, and he resembles my ideologies more closely, but....why would anyone trust a politician?

Dude, be honest.

If the Republican nominee were Ponzi or Capone, you would still rationalize how either one was better than Obama.

Well...no. I mean, i think i've stated more than enough times how McCain-Palin would have been worse than Obama. I never felt so dirty in my life when i casted that vote. I think i also made it very clear that Santorum would be the worst thing to ever happen to America if he were elected president. I find it laughable when some republican analysts or "strategists" say any one of the GOP nominees would be better than Obama. I also think that if Clinton was elected we would have been much better off and she would have a clear re-election as well.

So....no. And like buggie said below your post, i was a Romney supporter since 2007. That's why i feel more strongly about him this time around as well because in four years i read up more about him. I was thrilled in one of the case studies i had during my MBA that Bain was talked about (though no mention of Romney). I said this before as well. I don't know if Romney will be better for sure. He may be even worse, who knows? We can't know. But, what i do know is that we're not doing well. I will turn 30 next month. I've been turned down from too many job applications. I am frustrated that i lost a lot of time and money. I am frustrated to see family friends who have kids and they lost jobs (one is about to get a job in Chile.....CHILE). I am frustrated with politics. I have criticized many republicans as well throughout the past few years. I almost voted for a Democrat for the first time in my life (Sink) but she was for Obamacare. I am not in favor of any socialist policies since that is what my family has had a terrible experience with in Europe, and i was hoping to be wrong but i wasn't in Obama wanting to be too much like Europe. My dad is furious with how the healthcare industry is changing and now hospitals are starting to change their strategies as well because of these changes.

So look. I am pissed off. The results are ugly. I don't care who is sitting in office right now. If Obama was a Republican and we had these numbers, you'd want him out yesterday. So would i! Put aside the social issues bullshit. I really don't give a rat's ass about that shit as much as i did in 2004. I mean, i do if it is government trying to control religion, but you know what i mean.

I liked Romney from the get go. He is far from perfect, or else he would not be a politician. Not everything he did i like. I get that. But that's because i kept inform on this guy for five years now. I know who i am voting for and i believe he will be better than Obama.

[Hockey101]

If the solution is selling one of your best brands for the future to the Chinese then we're all fucked.

It's not the solution. The point being you become stronger at home and grow from there. Ford pretty much gave away their European brands. It got stronger at home, though, and as a result it's also making some solid Ford vehicles for the European market.

And, we already sold our future to the Chinese. I don't think we are fucked, though, because at some point i see the bubble in China burst........................big time.

[Hockey101]

I don't even understand that question, you're the one who started using the word fascist not I.

Well, because you made a ridiculous statement that i think that 97% of the world is liberal. It's as ridiculous as in you thinking that i am a fascist. Get it?

It was a joke no more ridiculous than your assertion that Dick Lugar is a liberal. The difference, I wasn't actually serious.

To say that he is a closet liberal is tongue in cheek. Obviously he is a republican, but he has voted for too much in spending, just as he did with the Bush GOP led House and Senate a decade ago or so. Enough with these Republicans that are old timers. They carry dirt and gunk under their seats. And i am not in full support of only getting tea party republicans, but i rather give someone new a shot than getting the same shit from an oldie who has been in DC for too long.

Ah, bit of a misunderstanding on both our parts then. Sorry aboot that.

It's ok, buddy!

[Ebase]

Another moderate Republican in Dick Lugar is about to bite the dust today.

Even Republican commentators in CNN are really upset by this because he was one of the last Republicans left who has been open to negotiating and compromise on important issues. Now, another Tea Party person will be a member of the Senate.

Who were those Republican commentators? Lugar has been too long in DC. He has been part of the problem. The guy has been a closet liberal anyway. Too involved with NARAL.

Over the years your definition of liberal has gotten to the point where roughly 96.7% of the planet is liberal.

........ and you're view of my opinions is what you considered fascist, no? Makes your point pretty vapid.

I wouldn't call you a fascist but as you pointed out on you see yourself as a center-right guy. Where I have a problem with you is the line of what was considered a center right ideologue has moved decidedly to the right. And thus it really isn't centrist politics or Reaganesque style Republicanism. It is much more Barry Goldwater now.

[Beamer]

If the solution is selling one of your best brands for the future to the Chinese then we're all fucked.

It's not the solution. The point being you become stronger at home and grow from there. Ford pretty much gave away their European brands. It got stronger at home, though, and as a result it's also making some solid Ford vehicles for the European market.

And, we already sold our future to the Chinese. I don't think we are fucked, though, because at some point i see the bubble in China burst........................big time.

What European brands? Jaguar was broken (and Ford fixed it right before selling it) but no one was buying them. Range Rover was selling less than its value. And Volvo sells as many cars globally in a year as Ford does in Europe in a quarter. That's right - Ford's strong European brand is Ford. It has been since the late 90s when Ford began developing the Focus there, and Ford still develops many of its small cars over there. Volvo really did nothing for Ford.

And being strong at home is only important if home is growing. Home is not growing, China is growing. India is growing. Brazil is growing. Any company focusing on the US over those markets will be left behind. It's funny that you complain about a friend going to Chile, as Chile is exploding and is a huge source of investment for my company. I'm actually hoping to be sent there. Two years there would be worth 10 years here on the resume.

This post has been edited by Beamer: May 8 2012, 04:04 PM

[leetchie69]

Back to my original point..if Romney had said I regret my stance back then rather than now trying to take credit I would have more respect for that.

He is so slimey, I don't know how anyone would trust him in the business world...let alone as president.

I am not sure how you can trust Obama then. And yeah, i wouldn't trust Romney either. He is shrewd, machiavellian, and sneaky. I think he will be better than Obama, and he resembles my ideologies more closely, but....why would anyone trust a politician?

I wish Romney was president when I was in college so I could take is advice and just borrow the money from my parents.

Real solutions to real problems...should be his message.

[Hockey101]

Another moderate Republican in Dick Lugar is about to bite the dust today.

Even Republican commentators in CNN are really upset by this because he was one of the last Republicans left who has been open to negotiating and compromise on important issues. Now, another Tea Party person will be a member of the Senate.

Who were those Republican commentators? Lugar has been too long in DC. He has been part of the problem. The guy has been a closet liberal anyway. Too involved with NARAL.

Over the years your definition of liberal has gotten to the point where roughly 96.7% of the planet is liberal.

........ and you're view of my opinions is what you considered fascist, no? Makes your point pretty vapid.

I wouldn't call you a fascist but as you pointed out on you see yourself as a center-right guy. Where I have a problem with you is the line of what was considered a center right ideologue has moved decidedly to the right. And thus it really isn't centrist politics or Reaganesque style Republicanism. It is much more Barry Goldwater now.

Mehh..... it depends on the issue and the situation. I think the problem with people is that they stick to one ideologue and they don't adapt it according to the current state of the country. If this country had a surplus and Republicans would be complaining about why a program is not cut and why we should decrease spending and so on..........then i'd find that pretty stupid. If this country was in deep shit debt, as it is now, and people want more spending and an increase in debt, then i'd find that pretty stupid as well.

I came to a realization that people care more about themselves and their self beliefs than the country itself. Yes, the US is maybe the most patriotic nation. But in everything? No. People would rather see their ideology be forced and practiced even if it goes against the country's best interest. How is that loving your country? I love this country. How would a conservative be patriotic by refusing to increase a program that finds the cure for a certain disease if the country has a surplus? Why? Just because it is the conservative way? Okay. It is. I get it. But, it's not perfect, obviously, and if this country has the money to do something good then why not do it? How would a liberal be patriotic by trying to play Robin Hood in classifying who has enough money to take away from to then give to the poor and print more money to spend despite having trillions in debts? Why? Just because it is the "nice thing to do"? Just because it feels right to be equal? Ok, i get it, and it can work, but it's not perfect either, obviously. If this country does not have the money, though, then why do it? Why bring down the country as a whole just for ideology? It goes both ways.

We have to adapt our ideologies to what happens during the current time and what the status of our country is.

Just my way of looking at it.

[Hockey101]

If the solution is selling one of your best brands for the future to the Chinese then we're all fucked.

It's not the solution. The point being you become stronger at home and grow from there. Ford pretty much gave away their European brands. It got stronger at home, though, and as a result it's also making some solid Ford vehicles for the European market.

And, we already sold our future to the Chinese. I don't think we are fucked, though, because at some point i see the bubble in China burst........................big time.

What European brands? Jaguar was broken (and Ford fixed it right before selling it) but no one was buying them. Range Rover was selling less than its value. And Volvo sells as many cars globally in a year as Ford does in Europe in a quarter. That's right - Ford's strong European brand is Ford. It has been since the late 90s when Ford began developing the Focus there, and Ford still develops many of its small cars over there. Volvo really did nothing for Ford.

And being strong at home is only important if home is growing. Home is not growing, China is growing. India is growing. Brazil is growing. Any company focusing on the US over those markets will be left behind. It's funny that you complain about a friend going to Chile, as Chile is exploding and is a huge source of investment for my company. I'm actually hoping to be sent there. Two years there would be worth 10 years here on the resume.

Right...Ford undersold (although they barely did anything with Jaguar...Jaguar is really stronger today than it was then and it's not because of Ford). It had to. It had wasted resources on these other brands. They revamped their home line-up and look how well they are doing now. The problem when you enter those markets is how well you do it. If you can't succeed at home then how do you expect to succeed elsewhere? Yes, you take advantage of developing nations, like Brazil. But, those nations are also limited due to their drastic poverty line.

And yeah. I do complain about our family friend and Chile. His daughter recently married. He has a house here. He has friends here. His wife is close friends with my mom. It's sad that they would have to leave everything and move to another continent and leave their daughter behind. If you are young then yes....it's awesome. If you have two small kids or so? Okay, it may be quite an adjustment for them, but it is doable. It was doable for me when i moved here, no? But i was 9.

[Hockey101]

Back to my original point..if Romney had said I regret my stance back then rather than now trying to take credit I would have more respect for that.

He is so slimey, I don't know how anyone would trust him in the business world...let alone as president.

I am not sure how you can trust Obama then. And yeah, i wouldn't trust Romney either. He is shrewd, machiavellian, and sneaky. I think he will be better than Obama, and he resembles my ideologies more closely, but....why would anyone trust a politician?

I wish Romney was president when I was in college so I could take is advice and just borrow the money from my parents.

Real solutions to real problems...should be his message.

He gave his dad's inheritance away.

[leetchie69]

Back to my original point..if Romney had said I regret my stance back then rather than now trying to take credit I would have more respect for that.

He is so slimey, I don't know how anyone would trust him in the business world...let alone as president.

I am not sure how you can trust Obama then. And yeah, i wouldn't trust Romney either. He is shrewd, machiavellian, and sneaky. I think he will be better than Obama, and he resembles my ideologies more closely, but....why would anyone trust a politician?

I wish Romney was president when I was in college so I could take is advice and just borrow the money from my parents.

Real solutions to real problems...should be his message.

He gave his dad's inheritance away.

Every American should follow his lead and give away theirs as well...

[toph]

Uhhh, why?

[Ebase]

Another moderate Republican in Dick Lugar is about to bite the dust today.

Even Republican commentators in CNN are really upset by this because he was one of the last Republicans left who has been open to negotiating and compromise on important issues. Now, another Tea Party person will be a member of the Senate.

Who were those Republican commentators? Lugar has been too long in DC. He has been part of the problem. The guy has been a closet liberal anyway. Too involved with NARAL.

Over the years your definition of liberal has gotten to the point where roughly 96.7% of the planet is liberal.

........ and you're view of my opinions is what you considered fascist, no? Makes your point pretty vapid.

I wouldn't call you a fascist but as you pointed out on you see yourself as a center-right guy. Where I have a problem with you is the line of what was considered a center right ideologue has moved decidedly to the right. And thus it really isn't centrist politics or Reaganesque style Republicanism. It is much more Barry Goldwater now.

Mehh..... it depends on the issue and the situation. I think the problem with people is that they stick to one ideologue and they don't adapt it according to the current state of the country. If this country had a surplus and Republicans would be complaining about why a program is not cut and why we should decrease spending and so on..........then i'd find that pretty stupid. If this country was in deep shit debt, as it is now, and people want more spending and an increase in debt, then i'd find that pretty stupid as well.

I came to a realization that people care more about themselves and their self beliefs than the country itself. Yes, the US is maybe the most patriotic nation. But in everything? No. People would rather see their ideology be forced and practiced even if it goes against the country's best interest. How is that loving your country? I love this country. How would a conservative be patriotic by refusing to increase a program that finds the cure for a certain disease if the country has a surplus? Why? Just because it is the conservative way? Okay. It is. I get it. But, it's not perfect, obviously, and if this country has the money to do something good then why not do it? How would a liberal be patriotic by trying to play Robin Hood in classifying who has enough money to take away from to then give to the poor and print more money to spend despite having trillions in debts? Why? Just because it is the "nice thing to do"? Just because it feels right to be equal? Ok, i get it, and it can work, but it's not perfect either, obviously. If this country does not have the money, though, then why do it? Why bring down the country as a whole just for ideology? It goes both ways.

We have to adapt our ideologies to what happens during the current time and what the status of our country is.

Just my way of looking at it.

I think that there are zealots everywhere. My thing is that GOP and RW folks in general see centrist Democrats in a sku'd way. Be careful not to generalize. I am not a tax and spend guy and I don't think most are. It's about balancing the books. There is just a tremendous difference in how to allocate the funds.

For example, the Bush tax cuts. They were a totally schmucky idea. Cut taxes without curbing spending. The concept that we need to bleed the machine was ridiculous. If we had just not have the Bush tax cuts the deficit issues would be nowhere remotely where we are right now. It's just Democrats and Republicans have totally different paths to balance the budget.

And to be sure, I put tons of culpability on the shoulders of Pelosi and Reid for their inability to bring a budget to the desk of the President. But I now sit with disgust the GOP cock blocking going on.

The modern GOP mantra and hard on for tax cutting is very short sighted.

It may be populist but the 1% has been doing brilliantly in the last few years. While unemployment and underemployment runs rampant so I want their tax rates raised substantially and taxes cut to smaller businessess. How we get there is up for debate but I think the GOP has been perfecting procedural means of obstruction at unprecedented levels. I have nothing but contempt for them right now. They have played a partisan game like no other. You could argue that it's par for the course but I contend that they have elevated the game to almost shocking measures.

And they are far longer down the road towards corporautocracy then the democrats are.

[Hockey101]

Back to my original point..if Romney had said I regret my stance back then rather than now trying to take credit I would have more respect for that.

He is so slimey, I don't know how anyone would trust him in the business world...let alone as president.

I am not sure how you can trust Obama then. And yeah, i wouldn't trust Romney either. He is shrewd, machiavellian, and sneaky. I think he will be better than Obama, and he resembles my ideologies more closely, but....why would anyone trust a politician?

I wish Romney was president when I was in college so I could take is advice and just borrow the money from my parents.

Real solutions to real problems...should be his message.

He gave his dad's inheritance away.

Every American should follow his lead and give away theirs as well...

You'd be happy in Cuba. Ever thought about moving there?

[Hockey101]

Another moderate Republican in Dick Lugar is about to bite the dust today.

Even Republican commentators in CNN are really upset by this because he was one of the last Republicans left who has been open to negotiating and compromise on important issues. Now, another Tea Party person will be a member of the Senate.

Who were those Republican commentators? Lugar has been too long in DC. He has been part of the problem. The guy has been a closet liberal anyway. Too involved with NARAL.

Over the years your definition of liberal has gotten to the point where roughly 96.7% of the planet is liberal.

........ and you're view of my opinions is what you considered fascist, no? Makes your point pretty vapid.

I wouldn't call you a fascist but as you pointed out on you see yourself as a center-right guy. Where I have a problem with you is the line of what was considered a center right ideologue has moved decidedly to the right. And thus it really isn't centrist politics or Reaganesque style Republicanism. It is much more Barry Goldwater now.

Mehh..... it depends on the issue and the situation. I think the problem with people is that they stick to one ideologue and they don't adapt it according to the current state of the country. If this country had a surplus and Republicans would be complaining about why a program is not cut and why we should decrease spending and so on..........then i'd find that pretty stupid. If this country was in deep shit debt, as it is now, and people want more spending and an increase in debt, then i'd find that pretty stupid as well.

I came to a realization that people care more about themselves and their self beliefs than the country itself. Yes, the US is maybe the most patriotic nation. But in everything? No. People would rather see their ideology be forced and practiced even if it goes against the country's best interest. How is that loving your country? I love this country. How would a conservative be patriotic by refusing to increase a program that finds the cure for a certain disease if the country has a surplus? Why? Just because it is the conservative way? Okay. It is. I get it. But, it's not perfect, obviously, and if this country has the money to do something good then why not do it? How would a liberal be patriotic by trying to play Robin Hood in classifying who has enough money to take away from to then give to the poor and print more money to spend despite having trillions in debts? Why? Just because it is the "nice thing to do"? Just because it feels right to be equal? Ok, i get it, and it can work, but it's not perfect either, obviously. If this country does not have the money, though, then why do it? Why bring down the country as a whole just for ideology? It goes both ways.

We have to adapt our ideologies to what happens during the current time and what the status of our country is.

Just my way of looking at it.

I think that there are zealots everywhere. My thing is that GOP and RW folks in general see centrist Democrats in a sku'd way. Be careful not to generalize. I am not a tax and spend guy and I don't think most are. It's about balancing the books. There is just a tremendous difference in how to allocate the funds.

For example, the Bush tax cuts. They were a totally schmucky idea. Cut taxes without curbing spending. The concept that we need to bleed the machine was ridiculous. If we had just not have the Bush tax cuts the deficit issues would be nowhere remotely where we are right now. It's just Democrats and Republicans have totally different paths to balance the budget.

And to be sure, I put tons of culpability on the shoulders of Pelosi and Reid for their inability to bring a budget to the desk of the President. But I now sit with disgust the GOP cock blocking going on.

The modern GOP mantra and hard on for tax cutting is very short sighted.

It may be populist but the 1% has been doing brilliantly in the last few years. While unemployment and underemployment runs rampant so I want their tax rates raised substantially and taxes cut to smaller businessess. How we get there is up for debate but I think the GOP has been perfecting procedural means of obstruction at unprecedented levels. I have nothing but contempt for them right now. They have played a partisan game like no other. You could argue that it's par for the course but I contend that they have elevated the game to almost shocking measures.

And they are far longer down the road towards corporautocracy then the democrats are.

That's not true on centrist Democrats. You know how i got to like Evan Bayh (who was disliked by the liberals and one of the reasons was that he was "boring")? Anne Coulter. I liked Bayh, a lot. I thought he should have been the VP of Obama as he was an economic geek. I thought he should have been picked instead of tax evading Tim Geithner. There are moderate Democrats that are liked by Republicans. I think Liebarman had, and has, more respect from conservatives than he does from liberals.

Bush tax cuts were fine, as even advised by Obama's economic team, but they did not work, and could not work, if spending became a problem. Bush started the spending spree and paved the way for it to be acceptable for Obama to do. Absolute BS, and the GOP Congress back then is also majorly at fault. Yet, so is the Democratic Congress since 2006 and then Obama.

As for the rest of what you wrote....we can go on back and forth because we disagree in principles. But i respect your point of view.

[leetchie69]

Back to my original point..if Romney had said I regret my stance back then rather than now trying to take credit I would have more respect for that.

He is so slimey, I don't know how anyone would trust him in the business world...let alone as president.

I am not sure how you can trust Obama then. And yeah, i wouldn't trust Romney either. He is shrewd, machiavellian, and sneaky. I think he will be better than Obama, and he resembles my ideologies more closely, but....why would anyone trust a politician?

I wish Romney was president when I was in college so I could take is advice and just borrow the money from my parents.

Real solutions to real problems...should be his message.

He gave his dad's inheritance away.

Every American should follow his lead and give away theirs as well...

You'd be happy in Cuba. Ever thought about moving there?

I do like Mojitos...

[Hockey101]

^ +5

You should actually like Cuba Libre.

[Hockey101]

So, this would be the coolest presidential candidate to become President!

President No. 11593-051

No name, just a number!

[Sed]

So, this would be the coolest presidential candidate to become President!

President No. 11593-051

No name, just a number!

It's an inmate? BOOOOOOOO. I was hoping for a robot.

[Hockey101]

So, this would be the coolest presidential candidate to become President!

President No. 11593-051

No name, just a number!

It's an inmate? BOOOOOOOO. I was hoping for a robot.

Romney is kinda robot....ish.....

[Sed]

So, this would be the coolest presidential candidate to become President!

President No. 11593-051

No name, just a number!

It's an inmate? BOOOOOOOO. I was hoping for a robot.

Romney is kinda robot....ish.....

Easily reprogrammed, too!

[leetchie69]

^ +5

You should actually like Cuba Libre.

Diet Cuba Libre

[jkman61494]

I don't even understand that question, you're the one who started using the word fascist not I.

Well, because you made a ridiculous statement that i think that 97% of the world is liberal. It's as ridiculous as in you thinking that i am a fascist. Get it?

It was a joke no more ridiculous than your assertion that Dick Lugar is a liberal. The difference, I wasn't actually serious.

To say that he is a closet liberal is tongue in cheek. Obviously he is a republican, but he has voted for too much in spending, just as he did with the Bush GOP led House and Senate a decade ago or so. Enough with these Republicans that are old timers. They carry dirt and gunk under their seats. And i am not in full support of only getting tea party republicans, but i rather give someone new a shot than getting the same shit from an oldie who has been in DC for too long.

If this is the case, then isn't George W. Bush a Democrat? Because he had the audacity to support certain spending. This is what I don't get with current Republicans and why I think we really need to ditch the 2 party system. The Republican primary here for Senate was basically a pissing contest of who was more Democratic because candidate A supported a Democrat 32 years ago but Candidate B supported a bill that provided spending etc etc etc.

Today, Republicans (many at least) think any kind of spending outside of military is somehow wrong.
EPA? Get rid of it.
Education? Make it state rights.
State legislatures with education? Cut it. Teachers are only part time workers anyway.
Unions? Destroy them.
Student loans? Make the students pay for it. College is for elitists and communists.
GM? Let it fail, survivor of the fittest.
Unemployment? Who needs it, go get a job.
Food stamps? Go get a job.
Raise the debt ceiling? Forget it, let American go bankrupt to prove a point.
Healthcare? It's the best in the world already!

Does EVERY Republican say that? No. But in today's far right led party, that's the sentiment.

Spending, if intelligent is not bad. It's why Republicans such as Eisenhower, Reagan and even Nixon supported many measures that in today's Republican party would be looked at as Marxist.

Imagine today that Barack Obama proposes a $700 billion project to build a new Interstate highway system. How do you think that one would go?

A good politician will vote on their beliefs not because of party. That used to be championed. People used to run on it. Even Rick Santorum did in 2006 when he bragged about working with Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer. Today, the mere notion of compromise and negotiation is a one way ticket out of office.

It's absolutely disgusting.

This post has been edited by jkman61494: May 9 2012, 11:38 AM

[LisaLisa]

So, this would be the coolest presidential candidate to become President!

President No. 11593-051

No name, just a number!

It's an inmate? BOOOOOOOO. I was hoping for a robot.

Bender??

[Sed]

So, this would be the coolest presidential candidate to become President!

President No. 11593-051

No name, just a number!

It's an inmate? BOOOOOOOO. I was hoping for a robot.

Bender??

I don't know if the electorate is ready for a Latino president.

[Dunc]

So, this would be the coolest presidential candidate to become President!

President No. 11593-051

No name, just a number!

It's an inmate? BOOOOOOOO. I was hoping for a robot.

Bender??

'Bender' is Brit slang for tranny.

[Hockey101]

So a british robot tranny.

Kinky.

[Sed]

So a british robot tranny.

Kinky.

MRGRT Thatch-Eater.

[ThunderDawg]

Mitt Romney is the only credible candidate to Obama's shoe-in re-election campaign. He might have won against Obama in 2008, or at least given him a real challenge. And, as usual, it will be a Dem's race to lose. But I don't see Barry fucking up along the lines of Dumbya or Slick Willy. I know way too many Reds who were put off by McCain. In fact, I know a lot of conservatives from Massachusetts who had never voted Democrat until Obama. But mainstream Republicans, the 'core' or 'base' or whatever you want to call it, will not let him win the nomination. I guess it's not his turn. If they don't get a serious candidate, really fucking soon, they might as well concede the race in a couple weeks.

Four and a half years ago, nine candidates jumped into the Democratic field the minute the midterm elections ended. They didn't even fucking wait until after Christmas. Because we were coming off the Worst President in Modern History. A Goddamned, Fucking Retard. We are now fully seven and a half months past that same time frame, and sad to see it but the Repugs have already given up. I would bet not only the ranch but both of my testicles on Barack.

A year later, this still holds true.
Romney will never get the crazy religious nutjobs, which is the entire Republican base, ex superriqueños.
I expect a brokered convention.

[Kusand]

I expect a brokered convention.

Really? Despite the fact that Romney needs less than 200 of the remaining 800 primary delegates to guarantee a victory, and winning pretty much all of them since Santorum "suspended" his campaign, you still think it'll be brokered?

[ThunderDawg]

If the Evangelical base doesn't think he's the "Right" kind of religion (pun intended), he has no chance to survive.

Unless he moves every Zig. (That an old meme)




This post has been edited by ThunderDawg: May 9 2012, 07:41 PM

[ThunderDawg]

Neither party is beholden to its own rules. If he is unelectable in their eyes, it can and will be brokered borkered.

[Ebase]

Mitt Romney is the only credible candidate to Obama's shoe-in re-election campaign. He might have won against Obama in 2008, or at least given him a real challenge. And, as usual, it will be a Dem's race to lose. But I don't see Barry fucking up along the lines of Dumbya or Slick Willy. I know way too many Reds who were put off by McCain. In fact, I know a lot of conservatives from Massachusetts who had never voted Democrat until Obama. But mainstream Republicans, the 'core' or 'base' or whatever you want to call it, will not let him win the nomination. I guess it's not his turn. If they don't get a serious candidate, really fucking soon, they might as well concede the race in a couple weeks.

Four and a half years ago, nine candidates jumped into the Democratic field the minute the midterm elections ended. They didn't even fucking wait until after Christmas. Because we were coming off the Worst President in Modern History. A Goddamned, Fucking Retard. We are now fully seven and a half months past that same time frame, and sad to see it but the Repugs have already given up. I would bet not only the ranch but both of my testicles on Barack.

A year later, this still holds true.
Romney will never get the crazy religious nutjobs, which is the entire Republican base, ex superriqueños.
I expect a brokered convention.

Actually, that isn't true. There is the deregulate the universe, have no taxes, tea party folks as well.

One thing you can count on: the irrational hatred that they have for Obama will cause them to show up and pull levers for Romney with their noses pinched.

I don't know if the electorate is ready for a Latino president.

They weren't ready for a black President.

Imagine today that Barack Obama proposes a $700 billion project to build a new Interstate highway system. How do you think that one would go?

They tried.

California is expecting another 30 million people in the next 15-20 years. They desperately need to begin to develop transportation infrastructure.

The State that powers the entire country and is the 5th largest economy on earth is fought brutally by the GOP.

So your manufacturing that you need to export to Asia can't get to port efficiently from the middle of the country. The people of California who have taken their airports to critical mass need to be able to get to and from the Bay Area and Los Angeles. Right now, they have a 400 mile 2-lane each way freeway. High speed rail? Not likely.

LA and the Bay Area are grounded into a total lockdown during rush-hour and on many roads all day long. California is going to become an impossible mess. So yes, lets not invest in that state.

Around the country bridges collapse, roads are woefully inadequate, infrastructure is a joke.

But the GOP thinks that we should let the private sector handle it.

This post has been edited by Ebase: May 9 2012, 08:10 PM

[jkman61494]

I'm just saying if we had the political structure we see today back in the days of Eisenhower, you wouldn't even have an I-95 to drive on.

I mean I agree with you. It's absolutely pathetic. Infrastructure is yet another example of how we were once a shining example of technology only to see it crumble to ruins. But if we had this infighting then? We'd still be relying on US 1 as our way to get from New York to Florida.

[Ebase]

Its like someone explained to me once:

When they went to Japan they felt like they were in the Jetsons and when they came back to the US it was the Flintstones.

[LisaLisa]

I expect a brokered convention.

Really? Despite the fact that Romney needs less than 200 of the remaining 800 primary delegates to guarantee a victory, and winning pretty much all of them since Santorum "suspended" his campaign, you still think it'll be brokered?

I can't look/link this up now (at work--too many nosey-parkers and busybodies) but you should look up Ron Paul's delegate strategy. So far, his strategy is working and I don't think the Romney campaign is competent enough to understand what he's doing. If Ron Paul's plan is successful, you will have a brokered GOP convention because nearly half the delegates could be his.