For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: now we're bailing out the auto companies?
Where is this government inteference into capitalism going to end? How concerned are you?
On the other hand, the auto industry employs about ten percent of working America -- maybe much more if you include ancillary industries that supply carmakers. It's estimated that if any of the Big Three goes under, it could cost about 4 million jobs.
Is that enough of a moral imperative for government to try and prevent it? Or is this a slippery slope, especially with Democrats in control of Congress and the White House, that is leading us right to socialism?



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Big trouble with all these
November 9, 2008 - 11:23 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsBig trouble with all these companies with their hands out. Yes, we are on the slippery slope to socialism, with about 40% of America already getting some sort of handout. Cradle to grave, if the dems have their way.
Aside from that, I think Obama is so needy for attention he will be giving press conferences about once a week until his gala inauguration is over. How much will that cost?
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Pull the Rug
November 9, 2008 - 11:24 ET by NortoThey got themselves to this point and I say let them get out.How many times in my 30 years of restauranting when the weather was bad or the econ climated stunk did Sam offer to help me. Some would say , oh you only were in jeopardy of laying off 40-50 people, so no biggie! Well, it was a big deal as I was paying taxes that will help these slugs keep their $$ and all that goes with it.
I do not know whose econ theory this is, but the spend and THEN tax scenario has got to stop. I have been going to our city meetings where it is 7-0 on all the $$$ issues, the mayor(R) has never had to break a tie in his 5 years at the helm. Sad but true, they are marionettes at best, zig heilers at worst.
I believe that the free
November 9, 2008 - 11:24 ET by Gat New YorkI believe that the free market rewards success and rids itself of failure.
I cannot think of any industry more deserving of being put out of its misery than The Big Three in Detroit. They never changed from the warning of the 1970's and continued to ignore any future trends and innovation.
So once again the SUV/BigTruck crazy companies are in trouble because they were left without a formidable hybrid or fleet of cars that Americans preferred.
I would not like to see a government bailout. If the government is required once again to help these companies I would much prefer the government to know what exactly a loan will do and what the short term revamping plans are by each company. If none exist then for the sake of the workers and communities the government should engage the foreign auto companies for a buyout and give them incentives that you know will pay off.
What the Big Three want is called throwing good money after bad money.
I remember
November 9, 2008 - 11:26 ET by Secret ConservativeI remember when the government bailed out Chrysler in 1979. They should have let Chrysler die back then.
I'm from Michigan, so have a strong stake in the jobs issue related to the automaker bailout. But there should be NO taxpayer money given to the automakers unless it comes with the condition that the unions are AUTOMATICALLY decertified, and the car companies are released from ANY union obligations going forward. It is the labor unions that have killed Ford and GM's abilities to be competitive in the automobile industry. The Japanese (and even the KOREAN car companies for heaven's sake!) can build cars in America (with non-union labor) and be very competitive.
Naturally, the DEMS would rather throw our money at the car companies (and the unions) than legislate REAL CHANGE!
Creative Free Market Strategy
November 9, 2008 - 11:51 ET by Gat New YorkThat is why I believe that if the government is being asked to be involved in bailing out a company or industry, they have the right to do so only if they are presented with a plan that proves that there won't be anymore bailouts.
My preference is not to see these companies go bankrupt, people lose their jobs and 401K's, and shareholders lose their holdings.
My preference would be for the government to provide tax incentives for existing successful companies to come in and acquire the failed companies. that way shareholder value is maintained or even increased, jobs are not lost entirely, and states like Michigan have more prosperous futures.
»→ And AIG
November 9, 2008 - 11:27 ET by Cool ArrowAnd AIG is going back for a restructuring of the $85 billion loan they just got.
There are 300 million suckers born every century.
wrong direction
November 9, 2008 - 11:27 ET by muckdogCan you imagine a government bailout for the failing horse and buggy industry in the early 1900's? US auto companies made bad decisions with cars and unions. If they go under, foreign companies will expand here providing jobs and making less bad management decisions.
auto bail outs-no way
November 9, 2008 - 11:28 ET by JIMMY1660nancey and harry want to bail out the auto companies today.they could have done this by drilling for oil years ago.once GWB talked about drilling the price of oil went down. with actual drilling heaven knows how low it would be per barrel.selling cars and light trucks, needs low gas prices. these two boobs, nancey and harry could have saved the auto industry years ago.Morons, absolute morons.
how about getting Frank Raine's to return the stolen money from Fannie and Freddie. Frank should be waterboarded to get the truth, that would help!! Morons, thieves and Morons!!!!
allow me to Love America
Absolutely correct, had the
November 9, 2008 - 12:58 ET by dscottAbsolutely correct, had the Democrats not insisted in meddling with the nation's energy supply, the price of oil would have remained stable throughout the last 8 years. The continually falling domestic production shifted ever greater amounts of capital out of the US in the hundreds of billions of dollars EVERY YEAR. Not only did the morons outsource our energy supplies, they in effect outsourced our investment capital as well, that on top of not collecting trillions of dollars of taxes and royalties over 30 years of the drilling ban.
Only government rewards failure and now through a slick advertising campaign, Obama convinced the majority of independent voters that collecting a $500 check for their vote would do them good. Instead, they sacrificed the long term good for a short term gain. The Dem motto is screw over the poor and get them to say do it more!
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Let me now demonstrate how
November 9, 2008 - 13:51 ET by dscottLet me now demonstrate how lamely John McCain took up the issue of exporting our capital out of country using oil imports.
The US on average imports 10,000,000 barrels a day: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wceimus2w.htm
Using a very conservative rough calculation, at the current price of $60/barrel, the economic bleed will be $600,000,000 per day! Times 365 days is $219,000,000,000 or $219 billion for 2008. Obviously this is a low ball estimate since the price of oil tumbled from $140/barrel to $60/barrel. Even the average Joe and Jane realizes when you siphon this much off the economy there are going to be consequences.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Next will be States & Municipalities
November 9, 2008 - 11:32 ET by BlondeNS...you'd know more about this than I....but isn't California on the verge of asking for a Federal Bailout for it's (IIRC) $7 Billion dollar debt? And didn't Californians just pass a referendum to purchase a $10 Billion dollar Bullet train?
I'm reading that NYC is planning to tax plastic bags and charge a toll on every inbound bridge....Philadelphia is going broke.
So we know where the next round of "gimmes" is going to come from.
As for the auto industry, I think the time for a tax revolt is when the government bails them out in order to fund the greedy pension plans of a bunch of teamster thugs. Or maybe that's just me.
JJ
November 9, 2008 - 11:43 ET by Noel SheppardJJ,
The elephant in the room is the states, cities, towns, and municipalities that are destined to go bankrupt in the coming years. Tax revenues are going to decline, and all of these entities have budgeted outlays based upon continued economic growth. As such, there are going to be many high-profile failures -- maybe very large states like NY, FL, and CA -- that will have to be bailed out.
Very scary. ns
at the one's press conference
November 9, 2008 - 11:54 ET by katainkentat the one's press conference he specifically said he would take issue with the failing state economies. I read that as 'bailout'
member of the Conservative Independant Witness Protection Program since Nov. 5, 2008
Bail outs don't work
November 9, 2008 - 11:59 ET by Gat New YorkChrysler was once infamously bailed out with a loan which did they pay back ahead of schedule. The problem is the company continued to not perform competitively.
The right kind of bailout is the government attract a suitable company to acquire the underperforming company with the right package of incentives. That way no one loses.
Exactly, NS...Let Them Eat Cake
November 9, 2008 - 12:02 ET by BlondeI was flaberghasted when I read the voters in CA approved that bullet train.
I coudn't find the article I was looking for to post here. Fort Lauderdale just approved a 5.5% pay hike for all of its employees, over the huge objection of the public. The public hearings had people hanging from the rafters screaming for responsible spending. But the city just went ahead and funded its budget as presented....no worries, be happy! To me, this was a microcosm of government in general.
So while each of us tighten up our belts, elected officials at all levels traipse down the garden path like Marie Antoinette. And there's no reason for it. Dispense with Bullet Trains and Art in Public places, etc. In short (I'm a bridge player) "lose your losers".
Guess I'm on a rant, but perception is reality. And the perception is that if you're in trouble, Nanny & Big Daddy Government will bail you out.
It is a very slippery slope....and it's never going to end.
Very scary, indeed.
CA going bankrupt and yet
November 9, 2008 - 12:09 ET by TN MomCA going bankrupt and yet they spend $10.5 BILLION a year on Illegal aliens. Unbelievable!
TN Mom,
November 9, 2008 - 12:11 ET by BlondeQuite so....and don't forget the train.
BTW....congrats on getting rid of that Albatross, Phat Phil.
I'm looking forward to the Vols once again being a worthy adversary in the SEC East.
blonde
November 9, 2008 - 12:22 ET by TN Momthe illegal alien issue in CA (and the nation) is like a run-away freight train, steam-rolling through the money!!
my poor Vols: No bowl games, couldn't even get a toilett bowl game! Was going with vandy but...
welcome to bankrupt Roman empire
November 9, 2008 - 12:50 ET by candanceThese Dem and rino governors are going to be the death of us.
Thank God for Schwarzenegger - he sure restored California's faith in the Republican party! I'm starting to agree with Ann Coulter. If Schwarzenegger was the best we could we might as well have let the Dems keep it.
I'm a typical white person.
candance
November 9, 2008 - 12:56 ET by TN MomExactly! I'm beginning to think that fixing our party is just going to require too much work. I've been a good girl-Here For The Party- and all, but my Party hasn't been here for me..in a long time.
Time to break free and strike out on our own?
Mayday! Mayday!
November 10, 2008 - 08:12 ET by Sergeant ROCKTime to break free and strike out on our own?
I'm with you. I don't know how much more we can tolerate the idiots running the GOP. Third party can't win, eh? Well, the GOP brand has been pretty much destroyed, so what's there to lose??
PALIN/McCain 2008
Ironic that both CA and FL
November 9, 2008 - 13:07 ET by dscottIronic that both CA and FL have oil and gas resources they could collect royalties and taxes from to fill the revenue gap. But once again, Socialism is not about creating wealth but redistributing it which always makes it a race for the bottom instead of increasing the standard of living for all.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Kenya banking on Obama Payback
November 9, 2008 - 11:32 ET by Dee BunkOdinga has high expectations for detaining Corsi
I'm not a big reader of political books, but I'm thinking I may go buy Corsi's and that other one about Obama before they become illegal. They may be worth something some day ; )
"Because They Hate"
November 9, 2008 - 12:14 ET by iveseenitallA friend just gave me this book about jihad and terrorism in the Middle East --by Brigitte Gabriel. The paralells between the rise of terror in the 70's and 80's in places like Lebanon and what is happening in America today are freightening. Every issue, from immigration to multi-culturalism, to political correctness, to government policy is strikingly similar to America, 2008. Of course, the "Israel" issue is in the center of it all. And talk about the Russian,communist involvement! Wow! We are an ignorant nation, dumbing down everything by the day. A few more generations continue the way we are going and who knows what will happen. Socialism and a weak defense is definitely not the answer. Socialism makes a nation weak. Self-reliance, both personal and governmental, is what has made America great. But the ultra-left abhors self-reliance in the name of "equality" and global "cooperation", even with our enemies. In all of this, the few become stronger, while the many become dependent. We are going down the wrong road, folks.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
It goes against the grain
November 9, 2008 - 11:53 ET by badcleatsThe financial crisis has taken the number one spot over the last couple months, it has put a stiff arm on everything. Why...why.....haven't the real people responsible for setting up this collapse been acknowledged, relieved of any responsibilities of legislation or power, untill any investigations, hearings, legal action of any kind are held, and the public is notified of the results. I have seen evidence who at least some of these perpatrators are, and they are still in power big time with no indication to me anything is going to be done. Irregardless of whether the problem is solved, or not, you just can't keep the bad guys in power. They can put a guy in Philly in cuffs and off to jail, for wearing a McCain t-shirt, but they can't address real serious crime? Things are so wacked out right now......people that I talk to are all feeling like they are looking into some big unknown. Tuff times are one thing to face up to, but leaving these political weasels in power, that's another.
How many of Bush's executive order will Obama reverse
November 9, 2008 - 11:56 ET by shawn228Obama will obviously reverse things that Bush done. Some thing will take time, like reversing partial birth abortion, but I would imagine things like federal funding for stem cell research and much global warming preventative measures will be implemented quite quickly.
He had my vote
We have met the enemy...
November 9, 2008 - 12:20 ET by RackieBeing a life long contraian and as the Catholic's say, "poor in spirit", I have often wondered what would happen if one morning Americans woke up and said the themselves, "ENOUGH!" I don't need anything more. I'm killing myself for more and more "stuff"."
Well I wonder no more. The American dream turns out to be a house without a foundation, built without the oversight of common sense, sold by various and assorted con men to us, a hopelessly needy and gulible populace. Congratulations! Well done.
The ultra - left
November 9, 2008 - 12:33 ET by iveseenitallThe ultra-left was the big winner in this election. We old-timers already do not recognize our country. And it will only get worse. One thing Barry was not lying about is "change". His message morphed from "change Washington", to "change America", to "change the world". We are going to see partial-birth abortion, stem cell research, assisted suicide. One state just past a suicide law allowing you to kill yourself any time you feel it necessary. Dr. K went to jail for stuff like this. No more. As big government takes charge of everyone's life, the individualism and personal liberty we've known will die. Many of us will not live long enough to see what's coming. In fact, if we get too sick or too old, we'll be put to death or neglected like the aged in France were in the heat a few summers ago. God help our children and grandchildren. I saw a phrase the other day, " Never before in my adult life have I been so ashamed of my fellow Americans". That says so much about how far down the tubes we've fallen. The Founders are spinning in their graves. Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
I've seenitall
November 9, 2008 - 12:36 ET by shawn228Can you tell me what state passed a law saying you can kill yourself anytime you feel necessary
Do you mean you can kill yourself you are dumped by your girlfriend or you exaggerating and it is only when you are really really ill.
He had my vote
Shawn
November 9, 2008 - 13:14 ET by iveseenitallRead it right after the election. I may be mistaken as to a state, a county or whatever. The specifics involve writing a letter, a waiting period, etc. I'll have to research that. Nonetheless , it did pass somewhere. You may wish to denegrate the obvious, Shawn. However, respect for the individual, the bulwark of our Constitution, is dying in America and around the world. It is sad that you can't see it. Your mocking attitude and your ignorance are a big part of the problem.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
I agree iveseen - it's a very sad state - Remember how the libs
November 9, 2008 - 13:25 ET by Dee Bunkwent nutzo about the patriot act despite not being able to name anyone harmed by it? Then you have Joe The Plumber being smeared with the help of Dem government operatives and they are not only okay with it - they are happy about it.
They have more concerns for the rights of overseas terrorists than they do the average Joe - who holds conservative beliefs. There are not words to describe how absurd it is. We are really going back to the times of the Salem Witchcraft trials. Liberals have learned nothing from history. Nothing at all. They are just an angry mob - hell bent on imposing all of their beliefs on everyone else.
blanket statement
November 9, 2008 - 21:46 ET by shawn228Well isia. You said a blanket statement about a law that says you can do away with yourself when you feel like it,
I ask you to back that up and your saying i'm ignorant, that is very interesting.
Obama is not the President yet, so i cannot judge his administration can I? I believe President Bush ran things the past 8 years.
\He had my vote
Washington passed an
November 9, 2008 - 17:13 ET by Roger the ShrubberWashington passed an assisted suicide initiative. You have to prove you have less than 6 months to live to get the special "medicine".
Who knows? In 20 years the government might be handing out free doses of Quietus to whoever wants it?
»→ You got it Rog
November 9, 2008 - 17:21 ET by Cool ArrowThe older the population gets, the more it will be encouraged.
"Do you mean you can kill
November 9, 2008 - 17:33 ET by ckc1227"Do you mean you can kill yourself you are dumped by your girlfriend or
you exaggerating and it is only when you are really really ill."
Well, they should be able to. I mean, it is their body after all, right? I mean, if you can kill unborn children because a boyfriend dumped you, suicide for the same reason should be acceptable too.
When Big Government spends
November 9, 2008 - 12:17 ET by TN MomWhen Big Government spends ALL the money they'll have to print more; you can be sure they'll put obama's picture on all bills and all coins but the money will be worthless! 'In God We Trust' will be replaced with 'Property of Communist China & Barack Obama'.
Let's don't forget that
November 9, 2008 - 12:17 ET by ConservativeRexLet's don't forget that at one time NYC was bailed out by the government. I believe a fella named Lindsey was mayor.
I may be wrong it's been a while ago. I was about 20 then and I am not sure how it was structured, but I swear they bailed NYC out.
Anyone remember anything about that?
Sarah Freakin Palin
November 9, 2008 - 12:23 ET by lareehttp://sarah-palin-2008.blogspot.com/2008/11/long-knives-are-out-and-fight-will-be.html
Sarah Palin loaded for Bear.
Who will bail out the government, when the "crap hits the fan"?
November 9, 2008 - 12:31 ET by garyganuIt seems that there are more financial bailouts on the way. The auto industry and even many states are seeking federal assistance.
I believe that the sooner the government allows failing businesses to fail, the sooner that prudent and profitable businesses will take their place. These continued bailouts do nothing but reward failure and punish success, by giving an unfair advantage to those who should be allowed to fail.
Also, the federal government itself does not have the funds to finance these massive bailouts. The only way that they can pay for them is through borrowing the money, partly from foreigners, or printing more money which will dilute our currencies value and cause inflation.
The problem with borrowing this money, is that eventually, the government will be unable to service it's debt, because of lower tax receipts, due to a dwindling economy.
Printing more money causes inflation, which is an across the board tax that affects everyone. It is not a progressive tax that hits the "rich" hardest, the way the liberals like to have it.
Either way, when the "crap hits the fan", and it will, there will be no-one around for the ultimate bailout, the bailout out of the federal government. By protecting failing businesses and industries, the government is insuring it's own financial failure. The road of massive federal bailouts is very dangerous, because it can only lead to the inevitable default of the US federal government. The political and economic consequences are frightening, yet unavoidable, unless we stop bailing out failing industries and allowing success to rise from the vacuum that past failures have provided.
The road of massive federal
November 9, 2008 - 12:44 ET by TN MomThe road of massive federal bailouts is very dangerous, because it can only lead to the inevitable default of the US federal government.
..and with an admin eager to spend,spend, spend on all their social programs-like $40/per hour for community service of college students-I'm wondering if the flagship of obama's first 100 days in office will be that the nation is bankrupted.
it's done and we're done
November 9, 2008 - 12:33 ET by txtomcatpeople, there is nothing we can do. He has been elected by people who have been seduced because enough of them felt let down by the republican party that they thought it would be cute to protest vote this time.
Even I swore off any party allegiance the day President Bush referred to the minute men as vigilanties. Then proceded to call for amnesty under the guise of comprehensive immigration reform. I live in central texas, my house was built by non-english speaking mexicans who were not picking lettuce. they were building all the homes on the street. Just another form of slavery but hey I'll get off my soap box now.
Txtomcat
November 9, 2008 - 12:39 ET by iveseenitallYour fears are not unfounded. We are on our way out. No one is on the horizon who will fight for the right. John McCain is going on Leno again. Isn't that just wonderful, "my friends". Be sure to watch. How sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Noel
November 9, 2008 - 12:44 ET by shawn228It is not Ford or Chevy, i'm worried about, but it will cripple the state of Michigan.
Not only will it effect the current jobs, but it will effect hundreds of thousands of retirees pensions and medical plans.
He had my vote
noel
November 9, 2008 - 13:09 ET by txtomcat"WHAT GOOD FORTUNE FOR GOVERNMENTS THAT PEOPLE DON'T THINK"-- A. Hitler
shawn228
November 9, 2008 - 13:34 ET by txtomcatDo you have ANY idea what that procedure is? I am a nurse and can tell you without exception that it is murder.
Now I don't think that the government has any business telling an ADULT whether or not they can have a licensed and approved procedure done, but inducing labor in the final trimester of a pregnancy just to kill the baby is murder.
You have to understand why they call it "partial birth" If the Dr. takes to long and the mother pushes the final time and expells the baby, he can not kill it because that would be murder. He must kill the infant BEFORE it is fully expelled from the birth canal.
There is NO physical condition that would not be aggravated by the birthing process that can be held up as a reason for the abortion. The term "health of the mother" is intentionally vague so that the "mental health" of the mother can be used as the excuse. Even though they never see a psychologist or psychiatrist to determine this.
If you still feel this is a good thing than I have no choice but to respect your views. Just remember, You survived Roe vs Wade, why shouldn't a 5-7 month old fetus?
"WHAT GOOD FORTUNE FOR GOVERNMENTS THAT PEOPLE DON'T THINK"-- A. Hitler
blanket statements
November 9, 2008 - 21:47 ET by shawn228Hello txtomcat,
I don't believe I ever had the pleasure, I hope you are having a good day.
Let me tell you one of my pet peeves. Blanket statements. Without anything to back it up. Your post however is a little worse, it is a blanet accusation. I have never ever said I back partial birth abortion let alone regular abortion.
I believe partial birth abortion is a heinus act and I agree with the supreme courts decision. Perhaps you can find where I ever said said or implied that or you can apologize for the false accusation.
He had my vote
shawn
November 9, 2008 - 21:57 ET byyour tagline links to a sarcastic video which makes fun of McCain and thus supports Obama who in turn refused to support the born alive legislation. Thus you are supporting the candidate who supports the things tx is (imo rightly so) so adamantly opposed to.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Bruce
November 9, 2008 - 22:25 ET by shawn228Do you like comic books? You seem to emulate Reed Richards who is the leader of the Fantastic Four who has stretching power.
Little bit of stretching the truth isn't it, blaming this on my tagline? It was sarcastic, but i kept my word and voted for McCain,
And please tell me how you can stretch the fact my tagline has anything to do with partial birth abortion...sheesh Bruce over reaching has never been a problem for you huh?
He had my vote
ah Shawn
November 9, 2008 - 22:41 ET byjust giving you a possible reason for her answer to you.
if you notice the 'one issue eagle' is all about abortion it is your cartoon after all.
now about my cartoon attributes...................
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Sigh
November 9, 2008 - 22:52 ET by shawn228I had my tagline for close to three weeks now. Nobody has commented on it till you did. I picked that clip caus she was hot, not because of partial birth abortion.
He had my vote
the old statute of limitations
November 9, 2008 - 23:14 ET bydefense??
/exit Max Smart mode
;^)
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
shawn228
November 9, 2008 - 23:17 ET by txtomcatBelow is the entire posting that I was referring to. Please note the
If I somehow, suddenly lost my abilities of reading comprehension, than yes I do owe you an apology and you can consider it delivered. Please forgive me, however, if I remain a skeptic as to your true motivations here.
Obama will obviously reverse things that Bush done. Some thing will take time, like reversing partial birth abortion, but I would imagine things like federal funding for stem cell research and much global warming preventative measures will be implemented quite quickly.
He had my vote
txtomcat
November 9, 2008 - 23:24 ET by shawn228I truly meant that it will take Obama time to reverse much of what the Bush administration implemented. Obama will reverse things I agree with.
I don't like affirmative action, but I get a feeling that will be back soon, same with partial birth abortion.
I am sorry for jumping down your throat, but it was a knee jer reaction.
He had my vote
ok i'm sold
November 9, 2008 - 23:37 ET by txtomcat"shake on it?" --- J.L. central texas
no problem txtomcat :-)
November 10, 2008 - 01:06 ET by shawn228I understand many people are upset about the election and are afraid about the "change" Obama is talking about.
He had my vote
Shawn what makes me fear is
November 10, 2008 - 03:09 ET by Dan The Man 2Shawn what makes me fear is the fact the change, changes daily. We fear our rights being taken and our money confiscated, remember the remake of the fly "Be afraid, be very afraid"
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
RINO PURGE CHAT
November 9, 2008 - 12:51 ET by Free StinkerRINO PURGE CHAT
"Gov. Palin has been subjected to one of the most massive and dishonest pile-on smear attacks in the history of liberal media." -- Lowell Ponte
Thanks to you know who...
November 9, 2008 - 13:20 ET by AZTech2020Well, be sure you thank every UAW member, past and present, when you see the US auto industry go down the tubes. The UAW was busy destroying the auto companies when I got the hell out of that state 32 years ago. They just never let up until the current death throws. They demanded, under threat of crippling strikes, outrageous wages for pathetically incompetent work, and now want a bailout. Not only NO, but HELL NO!!
I was involved with GM in
November 9, 2008 - 13:35 ET by ThisnThatI was involved with GM in the early 80's when Japanese quality cars were hitting them hard. Their approach to quality? Tell the dealers to slow roll the warranty repairs, so that they didn't have to incur the actual warranty costs. In other words, if you bring in your car for a warranty repair, don't get to it that day. Ask the car owner if you can keep the car for another day. Then don't get to it that day either. Pretty soon, the owner gets tired of the run-around, and just lives with the poor quality. Save big $$.
Another tactic -- confuse the customer. Claim that warranty only covers part of the costs; or doesn't cover that particular item. Bury everything in fine print, and if you argue enough, many people won't insist and -- save big $$. All this is a lot easier than, say, actually producing quality vehicles -- which they refused to do. They firmly believed their reputation wouldn't be harmed. This was based upon the fact that their autoworkers all bought American cars, I think.
Another thing -- don't drive a foreign car to an autoworker's plant. It will be vandalized -- by the same UAW people who are now asking that we pay their medical insurance premiums.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
I refuse to pay the UAW
November 9, 2008 - 13:25 ET by ThisnThatI refuse to pay the UAW health care costs; or for Detroit's inability to see what gas prices would do to their Hummer and SUV sales. If you can't predict and plan, you have no business being in business. If you can't control employee costs, you have no business hiring them in a competitive world and expecting to make a profit. And if you don't expect to turn a profit, you have no business asking for a handout.
I say -- let the automakers go to the 40% of Americans who are going to receive a check for not paying taxes -- and ask them to pony up the bailout. We true taxpayers have had enough of this nonsense.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
I agree with you for the most part TNT but don't forget
November 9, 2008 - 13:40 ET by Dee Bunkthat the Unions control their employee costs.
I had a cousin who worked in one of the big 3 plants & won a multi-million $$ lawsuit because of sexual harassment. It was horrible what she had to go through and I don't begrudge her, but it was all blamed on the automaker when more of it was really because of the labor union.
These companies have very little say on any discipline of their workers. They are forced to pay them high wages and top benefits and the workers can do what ever they want. They can't touch anyone without going through the Union.
It's only going to get worse too. Obama has big plans for expanding Unions despite workers objections.
What's wrong with this picture???
November 9, 2008 - 13:29 ET by Roscoe MendagoThe problem with the auto industry is unionized labor, pure and simple. The auto industry has become pension and health care provider. Union contracts have crippled Detroit. Until Michigan becomes a "right to work state" nothing will improve. Autos can be built without commie run unions, extorting $$$$ to feather their nests and destroy a viable industry. Cars are being built in this country without union interference, and built better and less expensive.
Jennifer Grandholm is without a doubt the worst Governor America has, raising taxes in a failing Michigan economy, killing business and incentive. She's a lap dog for the unions and the country is going to pay the price.
Trust Gabby Johnson, that great American frontiersman, when he says, "vote a straight Republican ticket in all future elections."
And now for some sound words
November 9, 2008 - 13:33 ET by dscottAnd now for some sound words from Zo:
http://zo.black-and-... top video called Aftermath. For those non religious types skip to 2:35 and start there.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
More than
November 9, 2008 - 13:36 ET by BuffNBoneMore than coincidence?
Regarding President-Elect Obama's designated chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, his last name is a variation of Immanuel which means god with us.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
It's about time! RICO violation filed against ACORN
November 9, 2008 - 13:48 ET by Dee BunkObama mentioned
Lets hope justice prevails before the even worse Obama courts get involved.
Hey Dee - I used to live
November 9, 2008 - 22:34 ET by HermanoHey Dee - I used to live just outside of Mason, OH. This is exactly the type of thing we as conservatives need to be making known. The Constitution is under attack. I proposed a series of possibilities to my wife this evening about the powers of an unchecked president. These include things as innocent as the repeal of the 22nd amendment - term limits for the president. In the case of 0bama, since he is so well versed in questionable election tactics, he could effectively control the US indefinitely. The "fairness docrine," government ownership/control of corporations, banks, healthcare, and even the repeal of several of the original Bill of Rights could all come to fruition, including voting rights, gun rights and freedom of speech. I am not one to be overly conserned about most of what our government does, but this has changed my mind.
O Lord, Thou givest us everything, at the price of an effort. - Leonardo Da Vinci
I agree Hermano
November 9, 2008 - 22:57 ET by Dee Bunkand I said somewhere else here - Obama may do all of these things, none of these things or just some of these things. We don't know. We can only guess by how dishonorably he has conducted himself to get where he is. If he doesn't do these things - it's still extremely scary that the next media selection could. We have nothing close to an objective media anymore. This will be the first time in our history that we have the three official branches and the unofficial 4th branch all being socialist leaning.
This RICO and ACORN thing better not die out. We have to find a way to force people to account for this fraud. It's a big part of the problem. We also need to get voter ID laws in every state. It's beyond ridiculous that we don't have them already.
I agree with you also - If Obama decides he wants a third term, he will get it unless we are able to take back congress in 2010. That is the point when we'll know for sure whether we've lost our rights for good.
Bailing out auto companies
November 9, 2008 - 13:52 ET by DelsaIt can't be done.
If auto companies could lower the price of their product they'd see an infusion of cash just like the intake of $'s the gov sees when it loweres taxes.
But that can't happen because of Government madated regulation, the huge over heads such as Pension liabiities, the inabiity to get rid of union workers, and the costs associated with the unions in general.
Unions have distroyed the Airline industry, the education "industry", and every industry they are associated with.
If Unions would allow cost cutting, effencey, and productivity, the auto industry might have a chance. A bailout would throw good money (we don't have) after bad.
The auto industry makes money across the pond but not in the United States. Why?
Somehow Americans have to see the truth. Now that we are on our way to Socialism/Marxism, it is highly doubtful the TRUTH will ever be seen or told.
God help us all.
hear hear Delsa!
November 9, 2008 - 13:59 ET by Dee BunkGreat post - you said it all.
And Obama's got plans to ruin other industries by forcing them to Unionize through intimidation of the workers (Elimination of the secret ballot). Liberals never learn and repeat the same old failed policies.
Things have changed
November 9, 2008 - 14:02 ET by Delsasince Chrysler was given a loan. Lee paid the government back with interest inside of one year.
Lee Iococca was not a sive into which the money passed through. He did what he set out to do.
When he brought Crysler back from the brink, the government regulations and mandates were NOT what they are today.
The environment for business was friendly and not hostile.
Chrysler was a whole different animal.
A bailout today would be a joke. If unions were not an impediment the auto industry could survive.
NO SUCH LUCK
They'll need toilet paper afterwards
November 9, 2008 - 15:40 ET by PewahANY money given to the Big 3 at this point in time is just going to go in their mouths and out their rears. I have been in the automotive industry for almost 20 years now and can tell you that only the U.S. government is better at pissing away money and lining the pockets of a select few than is the Big 3.
Back in the early '90's there was all kinds of talk of how to take on the Japanese transplants, recapture share and improve quality. The upper management of all three corporations should be exposed for the lack of fortitude needed to see these things through! They have ignorantly chased their tails (SUV's and minivans) for the last 15 years without really addressing the long term needs of their organizations. Had they kicked the s**t out of the unions over the past two decades they would be in a much better position right now...perhaps one similar to Toyota or Honda.
The first thing that should be stipulated regarding any sort of loans to the Big 3 would be an executive pay scale that is tied to results! For too long these organizations have paid their upper tiers far too well for what has been accomplished. Finally, as radical as it sounds, DO NOT re-tool plants in traditionally union areas. Multiple generations who have known only unions and their largess cannot be trusted to cooperate long term with the Big 3 companies in holding down labor and benefit costs. If you think that breaking the mind set of welfare recipients is hard you should try taking a crumb away from a automotive union member.
I once worked for a company who had to close down a plant for two years because they could not be profitable with their existing union wage structure. The average wage outside of that plant in the surrounding community was a dollar or two over minimum wage. When the plant was reopened the workers were forced to take a $2/hour pay reduction. They were now making on average more than TWICE the local hourly pay rate. It took less than 6 months for them to begin to rebel about their pay and take traditional union action against the company.
There is a willing and eager work force south of the Mason-Dixon Line that has gradually been coming up to speed in automotive manufacturing related companies who do not feel the need to dig their heels in constantly to extort more money and benefits from their employers. Set up the Big 3 plants there!
I have so many friends hurting right now in this industry, but throwing away our good money at companies that have very little history of self-restraint and prudent management is just that...throwing it away!
Just a little Union story.
November 9, 2008 - 22:24 ET by GregEJust a little Union story. My father used to drive a tractor-trailor for a living, carrying cars. Ford trucks would be in lots at the local shipping terminal, one of the largest in the USA, and union workers (Teamsters in his case) would drive those trucks from the lots, onto the ships, then go back to drive another, and do this for a full shift. I will never forget my dad having that duty for short stints. One day he made the comment that some of the guys doing that job with him would actually tell him to walk slower. They were paid by the hour and didn't give a rats arse how many trucks they moved from one place to the next. I'll never forget my dad telling us how he hated that mindset and paying no attention to them, instead doing it at the pace he saw proper. He didn't mind the work, since it would have him home every night, but he couldn't stand the mentality of co-workers.
Negative? - NOT!
November 9, 2008 - 17:09 ET by DoktorFrankenI think that this current 'negativity' meme that a few folks have 'mentioned' on certain Conservative sites is getting tired. Here's my opinion (which is, at this time, still protected by the First Amendment):
Hussein is not MY president. He has taken over the position through highly questionable (although you'd better not actually question him) or possibly illegal tactics. The infiltration and actions of the news and entertainment medias were a huge part of Hussein bypassing the usual vetting process (anyone find anyone who knew him at Columbia - yet?) and their campaign for Hussein was lop-sided and worth billions. Certainly not a 'Fairness' most people can live with.
For me to give this poseur the 'benefit of the doubt' (huge amounts of doubt) and to support him would be not unlike the Germans supporting some other leader who took power under questionable circumstances. I am not that stupid. Consider - We are up against a press where 'journalists' can claim that it is their 'job' to make sure Hussein has a successful presidency (and hardly anyone in the press thinks that that is strange behavior – at least it isn’t the huge story it would be were the candidates reversed.) That's, of course, after 8 years of doing everything in their power to thwart whatever President Bush did - regardless that it threatened our country or our service men and women's lives and security. For me to be complicit with a group of rabid Anti-Americans is abhorrent, so don't tell me I'm being negative for pointing all of this out.
Ah, the Republican Party debacle. Big tent go boom, eh? I've voted Dem., Rep., and Independent in my life - for the person, not the party. I don't care what the party does, it all matters what person is running. I hated McCain yet was convinced that he was the much better choice over Hussein or Hillary. I backed him with nary (OK, twice) a complaint. When he chose Sarah Palin as VP my decision to vote McCain was a no brainer. Now, the election is over and, as far as I'm concerned, McCain can retire to one of his houses. He has been more of a hindrance to the Republican party than a help. The 'reaching across the aisle' BS is just that - most times. I am more of a Conservative at this point of my life and I want a Sarah Palin to represent me. Is that negative? I think not.
What are we going to do about the takeover of our country by Socialists, Marxists, and Communists? I, for one, will not help them in any way. I will fight and resist them at every opportunity. I will give them, and the Great Hussein, the respect they gave George W. Bush (which is absolutely none). I will point out, with great glee, each and every mistake and flaw of the Great Hussein. I am not a Christian so I don't have to throw myself to the lions.
Optimistic? I will be very optimistic that Hussein will fail miserably. I will facilitate this in any way that I can because that is what the Left would have done with McCain/Palin if they had won. And, you know what? I don't care one whit what anyone thinks about that. And, oddly enough, the people that fear that this type of action would harm our country are the ones that seem to think that a Hussein presidency couldn't possibly ruin our country. For goodness sake, people, pick one philosophy - you can't have both. I have realized who our enemies are and to what lengths they have gone to make their takeover the success that it is. Time to take off the gloves, doncha think?
Conservatives fight evil. Liberals fight Global Warming.
»→ Dok
November 9, 2008 - 17:19 ET by Cool ArrowI wish I could go back and reread some of the posts on TOWNHALL FORUM after the 2000 election.
Could swear I read the same remarks from the left about President Bush's legitimacy.
Obama won a convincing victory. I don't have to like it, but it's done.
He'll be my President. I got outvoted.
Cool Arrow
November 9, 2008 - 18:10 ET by DoktorFrankenI don't doubt that the tenor of my rant seems the same but consider the Presidents involved. Equating Hussein with Bush is dubious at best. Just considering the difference in the media, well, do I have to elaborate?
A convincing victory? Using the perspective from our media's point of view and I might agree. Using the knowledge of how this infiltration worked for over 40 years and how the Main Stream Media (and our politically adept entertainment media) were the most enormous campaign machines in the history of the earth and I must respectfully disagree.
That Bush won in 2004, with all that he had going against him, THAT was a convincing victory.
Again, just my humble opinion.
»→ History repeated.
November 9, 2008 - 18:21 ET by Cool ArrowI do recall opining that all that commotion over Bush's legitimacy hamstrung him from aggressively pursuing the Cole Bombing network.
I didn't know at the time it was Al Qaeda, but I think all that bickering over Sore/Loserman may have played a role in Al Qaeda's success in the 2nd WTC bombing.
I'm not happy with the election results, but I'm practical enough to realize Obama's going to be our President.
I hope he's astute in his analysis of situations, and wise in his decisions.
Additionally I hope all those mothers are rewarded in having given their sons a role model. A dramatic drop in inner-city crime isn't entirely impossible.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm hoping for some silver linings. I may be a big dolt here, but this is the hand we're dealt.
CA
November 9, 2008 - 19:58 ET by DoktorFrankenI have read several of your comments in the past and you most certainly are not a dolt. Just a fellow American with an opinion. As are we all.
Yes, Hussein is our president. Agreed. Your hope is just a bit more than I can muster, is all. For the sake of our service people I can hope that Hussein is not tested beyond his Community Organizer limits.
Dok - I'm with you on most of what you said
November 9, 2008 - 18:30 ET by Dee BunkObama is not My President and never will be. He was selected by the media. He had 4 big cheats as I mentioned in a forum topic. The media and illegal campaign donations were the biggest ones and then the pollsters and voter fraud also played parts. This was not a fair election by any stretch of the imagination. I will not support him except against foreign enemies.
I will not stand in a protest paid for by communists to undermine him and I won't give ammunition to terrorists to demonzie him as liberals did to Bush. Somehow I doubt it will come to that. He will continue to be supported by the communists and if the terrorists regroup and fortify under his first term, they are likely to wait until his second term to do their biggest damage. They are patient and they do need time to re-group. They are already close to being defeated and need time.
I'm 100% against his domestic agenda and will not support one bit of it. I won't watch his inauguration and I won't watch any of his STU addresses. I won't watch the corrupt media either.
I'm 100% against his
November 9, 2008 - 18:41 ET by motherbeltI'm 100% against his domestic agenda and will not support one bit of
it. I won't watch his inauguration and I won't watch any of his STU
addresses. I won't watch the corrupt media either.
I'm with you 100% Delsa.
I won't watch his inauguration or any of the festivities. I won't watch any press conferences.
Unfortunately, some of his agenda we will be forced into participating in...health care for one thing.
As I've said previously, we need to write to what Republican reps we have and let them know we don't want "cooperation with the new administration to get things done"....we want them to fight tooth and nail against socialism.
I will watch the
November 9, 2008 - 21:51 ET by GregEI will watch the inauguration, and likely all STU speeches. If I don't watch the inauguration, it will simply be because I will be at work, and though the cafeteria TV will be on and masses will be watching in there, I don't think I can stomach what is sure to be many zombie-ish comments being made in agreement and awe of the Obama. That would be why I wouldn't watch, if any reason. The voters who voted for him, especially those in the bloc that broke for him at a 95% clip, will be in that room watching en masse. I probably wouldn't be able to stand the sheeple acting like I know many will, yet I also know that I'll probably be in there for a least a portion of the time. Maybe I'll walk out right in the middle of it, shaking my head in a "wtf" manner as some in the orgasmic room notice my leaving. It's sad that people are so in awe of an empty suit giving speeches setup by in-depth psychological marketing of the otherwise nothingness of the person. Not watching or watching, either way, does nothing against or for anyone other than myself. I want to always know what the Obama says. If I don't, then I can't rebutt when some liberal zombie spews something that they heard from the Obama. Yes, I know, I'm probably in need of a pallet of duct tape for my skull for the next 4 years, but, I'm simply interested.
I don't like that he will be president of the United States, but because I live in the United States, its president is my president, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with any or all of his agenda. Outside my simply living in America, he's not my president, but I can't live outside of that fact with regard to the nation he will be president of. Perhaps I can just say he's president of the nation in which I live, but not "my" president. That actually does make sense. "My president" is too personal, and makes me want to take a shower right after saying it. The liberals always would say to me, "your president" when referring to Bush, and I'd correct them if they live in America. They didn't have to like it for it to be true that Bush was elected as "our" president.
It's obviously everyone's choice to say what they wish. I won't ever actually say he's "my" president, unless to simply give my opinion such as I am here, or in response to a liberal boob who may say "he's not your president." To which my reply will simply be........yes, you're right, he's not my president, but unfortunately he's the president of the nation in which I live.
I don't like that he will
November 9, 2008 - 23:36 ET by Dan The Man 2I don't like that he will be president of the United States, but
because I live in the United States, its president is my president,
regardless of whether I agree or disagree with any or all of his agenda - Yes and he is everyones President. We will work our darndest to oppose him at every turn but he is still President, or will be if nothing comes up.
Personally I am praying the BC is bad.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I hope
November 9, 2008 - 18:52 ET by pwozI hope Ford/GM crash and burn. The UAW can DIAF.
Out on a limb...
November 9, 2008 - 21:01 ET by RukusI'm gonna go out on a limb here and talk about myself and who I am.
I am 48 years old, am married to a wonderful woman. I have 4 kids that I am very proud of. My oldest is in th Navy and will be serving in Irag this month in an IS service to the Navy. My second son is serving in A'ganistan as a weapons specialist. My daughter is in her second year at the University of Mobile in AL. She is a very God Loving, Christian young lady. Very conservative! My youngest boy is a senior in high school has just received a scholership to Troy University. I have great kids and am proud of them all! I tell you all this so you know who I am. I just want all of you to know who I am. I love NB and those who speak here, I apprecieate it greately. You guys, and gals, rock! Big time! I just want to let you all know that I trust you enough that I can let you all know about me. Thanks for the great site and the great people that post here. NB is great, thank you!
"Nuke 'em 'til they... oh hell, just shoot 'em!"
Good evening Rukus
November 9, 2008 - 21:22 ET by cocodrieThanks for the info. I have 2 boys, My youngest is 47, the oldest is 50. My wife left me to be with Jesus, but that's ok. We'll meet again someday, just beyond the moon.
Get the terms correct Newsbusters
November 9, 2008 - 21:21 ET by Lame CherryAmerica was a socialist democracy. America has entered fascism which is government ownership of private business. America with Obama is entering Marxism or communal ownership of all working for the good of society, communism.
Ford would not be in this trouble along with GM and whatever else if they had not been implementing womb to the tomb Teddy Kennedy socialism.
Ford's problem #2 is they built crappy vehicles and then decided to be sodomite sedan in promoting the homosexual agenda.
Ford and GM could fix their problems if they would produce the 6 cylinder 50 mpg light pickups and cars they should have instead of producing gas hogs to fund the world oil companies off of American consumers.
I would not give any of these communist fronts a dime. Let the Ford Foundation and all these red based globalist propaganda groups come up with the cash or let Obama have his counterfeit buddies in the Middle East print up a few hundred billion more to lend the auto industry.
None of you get this yet they are running up the tab deliberately FOR A REASON. Think on that one for a while.
I will post my blog here Lord willing when the sun shines again and for those who are not impressed as of late I will let the Holy Spirit know so He can try better to please the critics.
Everyone can't be mahdi Obama, not even God measuring up it seems in inspiring people.
agtG
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
I realize everyone here,
November 9, 2008 - 21:22 ET by GregEI realize everyone here, who is going to have children in the future, will want to be a part of this.
http://www.iht.com/a...
Heads up, Boortz fans! NEAL ON TV MONDAY
November 9, 2008 - 21:31 ET by R D HelmCatch Neal on Fox and Friends Monday morning at 6:15am ET on the Fox News
Channel.
-That came straight from the source.
-Dave
Did this country just elect Obama/Biden, or was it Soros/Ayers?
No More G*$?#% Bailouts!
November 9, 2008 - 21:51 ET by R D HelmI'm sorry, but enough is enough is enough!
Time to let the free market be just that once again.
-A free market.
-Dave
Did this country just elect Obama/Biden, or was it Soros/Ayers?
So, why does the NYTimes
November 9, 2008 - 22:33 ET by GregESo, why does the NYTimes feel compelled to report this?
http://www.iht.com/a...
Is this another case similar to their reporting of military "black sites" in foreign countries, used to hold terrorists? I swear the NYTimes makes my head explode.
As I read it and discover how delicate and classified it is, it nearly takes my breath to know that there are actions that can only be approved by the president, and that the president to be is the Obama.
God help us.
Want a Cup of Coffee - Buy from McDonald's NOT Starbucks
November 9, 2008 - 23:49 ET by Rush FanI was surprised to discover that the Chairman and CEO of Starbucks Coffee, Howard Schultz, has written an article for the far-left Huffington Post. The Huffington Post has hammered Sarah Palin since her selection as McCain's running mate.
The article by Shultz is about the responsibilities of American business and doesn't appear to be partisan. I was curious why Mr. Schultz wrote this article for the Huffington Post rather than a business forum such as the Wall Street Journal, so I decided to investigate a little further.
I found that with the exception of John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign, Howard Schultz has donated to Democrats, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Additionally, of the $107,433 that Starbucks Coffee Corporation donated to candidates and parties in 2008, 95% went to Democrats.
It appears that Republican values, including a tradition of being pro-business, has no affect on Mr. Schultz.
So the next time you go out for coffee, consider someplace other than Starbucks Coffee. How about McDonald's? McDonald's Corp was more evenly split with 55% going to Republicans. Also, I hear their coffee is pretty good.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Krauthammer has a post-election analysis titled: The Campaign Autopsy
It's as good and a whole
November 9, 2008 - 23:56 ET by Clear thinkerIt's as good and a whole lot cheaper!
Comrade Obama - I Told You So!
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Hey Clear
November 10, 2008 - 00:30 ET by Dee Bunkread your blog - Good one. It's right on - he's going full speed ahead with his radical pro-Abortion agenda. Very very sad. Eliminating the secret ballot is said to be at the top of his list also.
I sure hope someone out there is figuring out how to organize us and get us ready to fight. I'm ready to take to the streets.
Oh yeah Rush Fan - Starbucks is very left wing
November 10, 2008 - 00:12 ET by Dee Bunkthey have copies of the New York Times in all their stores.
I have mixed emotions about them - I don't like their coffee - it's too strong for me so I rarely go there anyway, but I do admire them for giving health benefits to even their part time employees. At least they walk the walk.
They are very different from the slobs like Michael Moore or most of Hollywood who suck up all the profits while other people in the industry make peanuts and then they go complaining about CEO pay and hate on Corporations.
Well Mr. Schultz IS from
November 10, 2008 - 01:31 ET by katainkentWell Mr. Schultz IS from Seattle, a very liberal city however as a businessman I doubt his business practices run too liberal. His company has been fighting unionization for years and Obama giving carte-blanche to the unions can't sit too warmly with him. That aside, the article you posted seems very non-partisan. Do you specifically have links to him doing Palin bashing?
As for the company itself... Well I am Seattle-born, therefore I was born with a caffeine habit. What can I say?
member of the Conservative Independant Witness Protection Program since Nov. 5, 2008
katainkent
November 10, 2008 - 01:52 ET by Rush FanI agree with you that his business practices don't seem too liberal. Certainly, the Bush tax cuts, including cuts in capital gains, benefited his company. That's why I'm surprised he almost exclusively supports Democrats.
I'm not aware that Mr. Schultz did any Palin bashing. It was the Huffington Post (link included) that participated in the Palin bashing.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"They are actively promoting the decline of America." ~ Rush Limbaugh on liberals and Democrats
New Mexico Governor/Actor Val Kilmer
November 10, 2008 - 03:17 ET by Rush FanThe New York Post is reporting that actor Val Kilmer is considering a run for governor of New Mexico. "There's sort of a rumor around that I'm maybe thinking about running to be governor of New Mexico? Well, it's sort of true. It's been my home 25 years. I really love my state. Poor, hardworking, decent people - Native Americans, carpenters, artists, expats mixed in with hundreds of the world's smartest physicists at Los Alamos. I've always thought of myself as functioning as a candidate for them.
Surprisingly, unlike most Hollywood actors, Mr. Kilmer doesn't appear to be strictly a Democrat. In this year's general election, he contributed not to Barack Obama but to independent Ralph Nader.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm reminded every single day, that I am not a perfect man. I will not be a perfect president." Barack Obama
So...Ralph Nader is?
November 10, 2008 - 13:04 ET by PewahSo, let me get this right. Are you thinking that he might be alright because instead of being 100% for the Democrats he also supported Ralph Nader?! Isn't that like a Lib thinking that somebody who, in addition to supporting the Republicans, tosses some money to David Duke and is therefore an alright kinda guy?
First act as President..
November 10, 2008 - 08:14 ET by Sergeant ROCK.. ban flying kites.
PALIN/McCain 2008
UNION SUPPORT IS NOT CHEAP!
November 10, 2008 - 09:23 ET by billbWe are about to bail out NOT the auto industry, but the UAW/BIG THREE. Not only is the taxpaer's money going down the drain, but I wonder how the many employee's who work for all the other auto companies in the USA feel about paying for the UAW's retirement fund. I must repeat, it's NOT the auto industry, it's the UAW/BIG THREE! Bush better have his veto pen sharp!
UAW
November 10, 2008 - 09:36 ET by Sergeant ROCKNo kidding. The unions are responsible for the big three not being competitive. So, unless the states involved become 'right to work' states, let them fail.
PALIN/McCain 2008