Jump to content

General Motors on Life Support???


lrlforfun

Recommended Posts

Guest imported_Thriller

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Skyking</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

All kidding and political posturing aside, 9/11 is seriously one of the main reasons I bought a Prius. It was probably #2 on the list. cool.gifsmile.gif </div></div>

WOW!!! What a statement.........does it surprise me?

</div></div>

So, purchasing one of the most fuel efficient vehicles available that meets the needs of the individual to help reduce reliance on imported oil doesn't make sense?

It makes perfect sense to me as a logical statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 63Stude</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">Someone please explain to me why 911 is more important than Pearl Harbor.</span></span></div></div>

That's easy. One was a sneak attack 60 years ago by a power that essentially no longer exists, and has been replaced by the just about the closest and most dependent ally the U.S. has. (Don't think so, check what's happening in the Nikkei Index lately, and why.)

The other was a sneak attack 8 years ago powered by a present enemy, currently stronger and more influential then ever, that <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">YOU</span></span> finance every time you fill up your car or say yes to a plastic bag you don't need at the Safeway.

You can rationalize yourself around those facts, and they are facts, any way you want. It will be an absurd argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Thriller</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It makes perfect sense to me as a logical statement. </div></div>

Derek, Bob was of the class that didn't believe it when I was saying the same thing 3 1/2 years ago in the Misc. Chat Section. People's addictions, including addiction to oil, will make them believe whatever is necessary to maintain the addiction.

Generally the denial speaks volumes that I couldn't say directly anyway. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Pearl Harbor was a war between two nations, with both militaries wearing uniforms and the symbols/icons of their respective nations in and on their uniforms, equipment and bases. They fought under flags representing those respective forces. Although the Imperial Japanese forces violated virtually all of the Geneva Convention and basic human rights, they did fight as a conventional force under an identified and unified government. What this meant was, after their MILITARY surrendered, there was NO moral, military or ethical reason to fight against the Japanese people themselves. And, they are now and have been for decades, a very, very important military ALLY and PARTNER.

2. 9/11 was waged as a strike against a foe for religious or ideological reasons. Keep in mind that the three greatest historical causes for war are land, water and religion, and the 9/11 strike and the hatred directed at non-Muslims has the potential to be a monumental war; the kind that comes along once every 500 to 1,000 years. It is a fight to the death; where their forces will fight for ideology, not geographic boundaries or political philosophies.

3. The supporters of 9/11 have several key characteristics that are vastly different from the Imperial Japanese forces of 67 years ago. They don't fight as a uniformed force, fight under a flag or group of united flags, or wear icons or symbols on their uniforms or clothes; they will use all non-conventional means possible, including putting their own non-combatants at risk, violate virtually all conventional rules of war such as using religious places of worship as hiding places for weapons and meeting places for their fighters. They will (and have) turn on nations presently giving them safe harbor if those nations don't seem to be supporting them to their demanded level of support, including the military and political support they demand. By not fighting as a uniformed force, they also can blend easily into virtually any civilian society, INCLUDING OURS.

The fact that radical Muslim forces do not fight in a uniform or under a flag is similar to the tactics used by the North Vietnamese forces within South Viet Nam. They could easily infiltrate cities and organizations. However, keep in mind that they were fighting for geographic boundaries and a political philosophy (Communism) which meant they stopped when they achieved those goals. These radical Muslims, with their hatred of anything they disagree with, will NOT stop at a border or if a political system changes. What this means, then, is that electing a new president or a shift in political views within Congress will NOT suddenly make them 'like' us.

And, perhaps most dangerous of all, they have employed what the former Soviet Union referred to as "useful idiots," within our own society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

They are people in nations like ours who actually argue in support of their radical political views, (such as "Rev." Jeremiah Wright) and others who argue that we shouldn't take the threat so seriously, seeking instead to focus attention and resources on social causes such as the economy and pseudo-scientific causes such as the environment. Their ability to convince some in our nation to distract us from the threat is, in the minds of many people, more dangerous than their ability to actually perform acts of hostility or aggression towards us.

Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world does not adhere to these radical views. The overwhelming majority of Muslim people would like to exercise their freedom to worship as they please, and have no problem with other beliefs doing the same. But in many ways, many Muslim nations do tolerate them or support them, either directly or indirectly.

And now, after Dave unscrews himself out of his ceiling, I anticipate his zealous defense of the socialist point of view, citing his degrees and experiences, posting Web sites, articles and other information that supports a vastly different point of view.

Now, what does this have to do with GM and Buick? Well, if you thought 9/11 hurt car sales, imagine terrorist IEDs or truck bombs or chemical bombs going off in a major city like Seattle, LA or Baltimore, ON TOP of this fear-driven recession, and the big three could be in even more financial trouble than they are in right now.

Happy new year!

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...pseudo-scientific causes such as the environment...</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...the socialist point of view...</div></div>

Like I said, the denials speak louder than anything I could possibly say directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These kinds of threads almost always tend towards the embarassing after a while. It's sad, but it's better than having that be a sub-text to the rest of the discussions here. This insular/provincial attitude is <span style="text-decoration: underline">not</span> well hidden much of the time, and is easily taken to be the communal opinion here.

At least those who bother to follow these threads know that people don't have to be "unenlightened neanderthals" to appreciate Buicks. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave,

It's OK; most "unenlightened neanderthals" understand you are jealous that many/most people in this forum are as smart or smarter than you, in spite of your efforts to prove your perceived superior intellect.

We don't mind your jealousy; we really don't. You really don't have to try so hard to just be one of the gang.

Happy new year.

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And one last thing about the UAW and how they are spending the wages of the 'working man', as we all wait for the new year, hoping the news for GM and Buick improves:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472304,00.html

<span style="font-size: 14pt"> </span> <span style="font-weight: bold">Autoworkers Union Keeps $6 Million Golf Course for Members at $33 Million Lakeside Retreat</span>

The United Auto Workers may be out of the hole now that President Bush has approved a $17 billion bailout of the U.S. auto industry, but the union isn't out of the bunker just yet.

Even as the industry struggles with massive losses, the UAW brass continue to own and operate a $33 million lakeside retreat in Michigan, complete with a $6.4 million designer golf course. And it's costing them millions each year.

• Click here to see photos of the UAW's $33 million retreat.

The UAW, known more for its strikes than its slices, hosts seminars and junkets at the Walter and May Reuther Family Education Center in Onaway, Mich., which is nestled on "1,000 heavily forested acres" on Michigan's Black Lake, according to its Web site.

But the Black Lake club and retreat, which are among the union's biggest fixed assets, have lost $23 million in the past five years alone, a heavy albatross around the union's neck as it tries to manage a multibillion-dollar pension plan crisis.

Critics call it a resort for union leaders that wastes money from union dues.

"It's their members' money that they're spending on this thing," said Justin Wilson, managing director of the Center for Union Facts, a union watchdog group. "The union has bigger issues at hand than managing a golf course."

Managing the course may become a burden for the union. The UAW covers costs for the Reuther Center from the interest it earns on its strike fund, according to tax documents, but massive losses in the past five years have forced the union to make heavy loans to keep the center afloat. Critics call it a poor investment for a group with over $1.25 billion in assets.

"Unions certainly have had real estate investments in the past, but investments are supposed to make money, not bleed money," said Wilson.

The UAW did not return calls from FOXNews.com, and a spokesman could not be reached for comment.

The Reuther Center is open 11 months of the year to offer courses on leadership, political action, civil rights and other topics; it hosts nearly 10,000 visitors annually. The UAW says it sends workers there to "learn, experience unionism (and) commit to labor's cause," according to their Web site.

The center was purchased in 1967 and underwent massive renovations in the '90s under the careful watch of former UAW president Steve Yokich. "Today's Black Lake might not exist if not for Steve Yokich," said union member Bob Reidt, whom Yokich appointed as Black Lake's director. "Yokich is responsible for rebuilding Black Lake."

The UAW erected a monument to its longtime president Walter Reuther — the center's namesake — which bears an inscription of his words: "There is no greater calling than to serve your brother. There is no greater satisfaction than to have done it well."

But Reuther, who died in a plane crash en route to the center in 1970, never knew the satisfaction of Black Lake's "well-groomed fairways," a course that Michigan Golf Magazine called a "stunning visual marvel."

Union members can play golf at discounted rates on one of the country's top 100 courses, designed in 2000 by famed course architect Rees Jones at a cost of $6 million.

The center has a storied history. Reuther had his ashes scattered at the site, and Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz honeymooned there in 1940, well before it was bought by the UAW.

"It's funny that they call it an education center — it's a resort," said Wilson. "If I was a union member, I would prefer that they rented out a room at the Ramada Inn."

END STORY

Of course, this IS a Fox News story probably just intended to keep the

"unenlightened neanderthals" entertained. We all know the enlightenend neanderthals don't believe anything outside of NBC, MSNBC, PBS or CNN.

So, the Big 3 must sell their jets, but the union keeps its' private resort? Glad we got our priorities straight here.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...