Sage2, So, address my post and the information directly and show where my statements are incorrect. No one stopping you, show me where I'm wrong.
On Aug 5, 10:40 am, Sage2 <[email protected]> wrote: > HI Dick, > > You are correct of course that it is a pay off to the > unions. The same greedy unions that have been taking in more than fair > salary & benefits for decades and have contributed the downfall of the > auto industry. > Holly as usual is wrong and you are right ! > > ********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************* > > On Aug 5, 10:15 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > dick, > > > Are you nuts man? Unions have been supportive of the Democratic Party > > for fucking decades. Men & women who work for a living can expect > > nothing from Republican leadership. > > You better go back and read a little the auto companies fucking > > BEGGED the unions to accept practically worthless shares in the > > company in EXCHANGE for the union concessions on EXISTING binding > > contracts. They fucking BEGGED the Unions to accept the deal. You show > > me where the POTUS gave them the company, al almost or otherwise. > > That's the word you expect to use as your escape hatch isn't it? The > > word "almost"? rather sunjectivem isn't it. > > > Now, how the fuck did we get off the subject of the clunker program? > > If this is just going to turn into a generalized conservative piss-and- > > moan-fest, and not a sane discussion on a specific issue then just > > piss off. > > > On Aug 5, 2:16 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Are you saying it is not true? don't you think the unions are a > > > Democratic base for Zero? Look what he did with the car companies and > > > the unions. He almost gave them the company. You are the one who is > > > not seeing what this schmuck is up to. > > > > Hollywood wrote: > > > > dick, > > > > > Key words....talks....possible. "Pay back the unions for their > > > > support"? Wait a minute, I thought the clunker program was, to use > > > > your words, " a bribe to the Democratic base". > > > > Look, just say you are going to make every attempt to paint ANYTHING > > > > President Obama does in the most negative terms you can possibly dream > > > > up and be done with it. > > > > This is flat getting silly. > > > > > On Aug 4, 11:32 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> No, I listened - you didn't. The program was in talks back when the GM > > > >> and Chrysler bailout first started. This was put out by the government > > > >> as a possible starting point to get production started for the unions. > > > >> > > > >> You just weren't paying attention to what the admin was doing to pay > > > >> back the unions for their support. > > > > >> Hollywood wrote: > > > > >>> dick, > > > > >>> You're just not listening. > > > > >>> On Aug 4, 5:30 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>> Didn't need 15 months - just needed 6 months. > > > > >>>> Hollywood wrote: > > > > >>>>> dick, > > > > >>>>> Some details: > > > >>>>> The "clunker" must have been licensed and insured by the person > > > >>>>> turning it in for a minimum of the preceding 12 months. > > > >>>>> It must be traded in for a car that gets better gas milage. > > > >>>>> It must be turned in for a new car. > > > >>>>> Do you think anyone saw this coming 13 months in advance? > > > >>>>> How does your post, even if 100% true, negate any of the things I > > > >>>>> said > > > >>>>> in my post? > > > >>>>> You want NO stimulus to our economy unless it can be proven to be > > > >>>>> permanent? > > > > >>>>> If the poor don't have the credit to buy new cars anyway, no matter > > > >>>>> the clunker program I repeat my question. Who is it the Democrats > > > >>>>> are > > > >>>>> "bribing"? > > > > >>>>> On Aug 4, 3:17 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> You evidently missed the point that people saw this cash for > > > >>>>>> clunkers > > > >>>>>> coming and held up buying their new cars until the program > > > >>>>>> started. > > > >>>>>> That way they got $4500 better cost for the car they were going to > > > >>>>>> buy > > > >>>>>> anyway. And the rest of the people don't have the credit to get > > > >>>>>> the > > > >>>>>> cars in the first place. Once you get the initial cash program > > > >>>>>> then > > > >>>>>> there will be no more cars sold. Lose - lose. > > > > >>>>>> Hollywood wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> jgg, > > > > >>>>>>> Oh? And the auto dealers and manufacturers in no way benefit? Know > > > >>>>>>> many poor people that own car dealerships or manufacturing plants > > > >>>>>>> or > > > >>>>>>> banks? A car dealer does not benefit by moving stock of his lot, > > > >>>>>>> which > > > >>>>>>> of course he is paying interest on? > > > >>>>>>> A car manufacturer does not benefit by selling more cars to it's > > > >>>>>>> dealers? Banks do not benefit by making more loans for cars? > > > >>>>>>> Who's being "bribed" here? > > > > >>>>>>> On Aug 4, 10:55 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>> The leaders in general reflect their political base -- my side's > > > >>>>>>>> benefit is your side's example of corruption... Take cash for > > > >>>>>>>> clunkers... Now who benefits??? The real clunkers are owned > > > >>>>>>>> by the > > > >>>>>>>> poor who can not afford a new car... Instead of saving a mere > > > >>>>>>>> 4 mpg > > > >>>>>>>> per vehicle why not 15 mph??? Because it is designed as a > > > >>>>>>>> bribe to > > > >>>>>>>> the Democratic base... The leaders are probably LESS corrupt > > > >>>>>>>> than > > > >>>>>>>> their supporters on the whole -- the leaders only have more > > > >>>>>>>> opportunity to be corrupt... > > > > >>>>>>>> On Aug 3, 1:19 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>> jgg, > > > > >>>>>>>>> You're starting to understand. ALMOST ALL of our political > > > >>>>>>>>> leaders are > > > >>>>>>>>> corrupt, both Republican and Democrat. We are simply arguing in > > > >>>>>>>>> favor > > > >>>>>>>>> of our favorite fucking crook. Like a discussion over which was > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>> "better" bank robber, Clyde Barrow or John Dillinger. (yeah > > > >>>>>>>>> Dillinger > > > >>>>>>>>> was a bank robber BUT he killed fewer people than the Barrow > > > >>>>>>>>> gang) > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Aug 3, 11:58 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 1) Under Bush, the DA in question refused to implement laws > > > >>>>>>>>>> relating > > > >>>>>>>>>> to voting, even though it is the DOJ's job to set the type of > > > >>>>>>>>>> case > > > >>>>>>>>>> priority.... > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 2) Bush never set aside default judgement > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In short, Obama efforts in politicizing the DOJ and IG is far > > > >>>>>>>>>> greater, > > > >>>>>>>>>> and for a Party and their supporters who decried Bush refuse > > > >>>>>>>>>> to decry > > > >>>>>>>>>> Obama is clear proof that the ENTIRE issue was for political > > > >>>>>>>>>> gain > > > >>>>>>>>>> rather than principle... > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 3) Even out??? Nah, as I said Obama's action are greater in > > > >>>>>>>>>> quantity > > > >>>>>>>>>> and scope... Not unlike Nixon, whose actions were also > > > >>>>>>>>>> greater in > > > >>>>>>>>>> quantity and scope... Is Obama as corrupt as Nixon??? > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Aug 1, 3:53 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jgg, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Anf your voice was silent when Bush did it. That seems to > > > >>>>>>>>>>> even out. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 1, 10:11 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats complained Bush did this, when in fact when Holder > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and Obama > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ARE do it, their voice is silent... > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/799... > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - Hide quoted text - > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > >>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
