Holly,
The auto - companies didn't have to beg, the money wasn't
there and the unions were out the door in terms of benefits with the
car companies facing the next alternative BANKRUPTCY. That's why they
call it a bail out. Both the car companies & unions were bailed out
and were both forced to face the reality of their past greed. Unions
coming out better of course with the help of the socialist Obama
administration coercing the car companies to give up more to the
unions as a political payback for their support and votes to Barry
Hussein Obama.
************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
On Aug 5, 12:20 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 -- 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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
