PDA

View Full Version : Partisanship: America Divided.



Sev
06-04-2012, 06:57 PM
So much for the great uniter.
I seem to recall another time when the US separated into opposing factions.
Interesting times.


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-pew-partisan-divide-poll-20120604,0,3088351.story
Poll: Sharp increase in partisan divides among Americans

Partisan differences now divide Americans more sharply than distinctions of race, religion, education or sex as a decade-long wave has pushed Democrats and Republicans to opposite corners on a wide range of formerly less partisan issues.

On matters as disparate as environmental protection, support for the social safety net and immigration, former areas of bipartisan agreement have dissolved as Democrats have moved left and Republicans have shifted to the right, according to a major new study by the Pew Research Center, http://www.people-press.org/values/ which has tracked American values over the last 25 years.

That polarization has important practical consequences -- forecasting continued gridlock in national politics.

One of the hottest debates among people who study American politics centers on whether the trench warfare so obvious in Congress mostly involves conflicts among elected officials and political interest groups or reflects a deeper divide among voters. Are politicians ignoring constituents’ desires for bipartisan solutions or representing a divided electorate all too well?

President Obama first became nationally famous in 2004 in part for a memorable statement of one side of that argument: “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America,” he said in a speech to the Democratic convention that year, “there is the United States of America.”

That sunny picture of national consensus has fared poorly during Obama’s presidency. Now the Pew study joins a growing body of data and analysis which rebuts the belief that voters are far more unified than their elected representatives. The study was based on a survey in April of more than 3,000 adult Americans and has a margin of error of +/-2.1 percentage points.

Americans “are more polarized along partisan lines than at any point in the past 25 years,” the study’s authors say. The average gap in views between Democratic and Republican partisans has nearly doubled, with most of the increase coming during the Obama and George W. Bush presidencies, Pew’s research found. Moreover, people’s consistency in hewing to one side or the other has increased.
http://i.imgur.com/oCMMz.jpg


“There are more people who are uniformly on the right or left,” said Michael Dimock, Pew’s associate director for research.

Pew researchers developed an index of several questions to test ideological consistency -- to see, for example, if a person who supports the social safety net also takes a liberal stance on affirmative action. Using that measure, they found that the percentage of both consistent liberals and consistent conservatives has risen. In 1987, fewer than one-in-three Americans fit into one of those two ideological categories; today 44% do.

Americans, particularly Democrats and independents, do say they want compromise. Asked if they agreed with the statement, “I like political leaders who are willing to make compromises in order to get the job done,” 80% in the survey said yes. Support for compromise has grown among Democrats over time, from 77% in 1987 to 90% now. Among Republicans, the number has remained fairly constant and now stands at 68%.

But on substantive issues, particularly those on the scope of government, which is at the heart of the battle that has divided Congress for the last year and a half, the gap in views leaves little common ground.

About three-quarters of Democrats, for example, say that the government has a “responsibility to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves.” Among Republicans 54% reject that idea, and only 40% agree. That question illustrates the strong conservative shift within the Republican party. In the final years of the Reagan administration, 62% of Republicans agreed on the need for a safety net.
http://i.imgur.com/q2y5T.jpg


Similarly, although members of both parties express skepticism about how well government regulation of business works, 80% of Democrats say that a “free market economy needs regulation to serve the public interest.” Republicans are evenly divided on that question. Tea party Republicans by a 2-1 majority reject the idea that regulation is needed.

When Pew first began its surveys, Americans’ views about the environment showed no significant partisan divide -- nearly 90% of Democrats, independents and Republicans agreed on a need for “stricter laws and regulations to protect the environment.” Today, after several decades of increasing environmental regulation, a huge, 46-point partisan gap exists on that question. Democrats’ views on the need for more regulation have remained steady, and independents have shifted a relatively small amount. Republican support for further environmental regulation has plummeted: 47% now say yes.

Those three questions illustrate how a conservative shift among Republicans has widened the partisan gap. On other issues, shifts to the left by Democrats have been the major force for greater division.

While the Republicans overwhelmingly are a party of white conservatives -- 87% of self-identified Republicans are white, and 68% are conservatives -- the Democrats have become a coalition heavily based on minorities and white liberals. The number of Democrats calling themselves liberal now equals the number who identify as moderate -- 38% each.

One result of the racial gap between the parties shows up in a question about whether “blacks and other minorities” should be given “preferential treatment” to improve their position. Majorities of both parties used to say no to that, and Republicans continue to do so overwhelmingly. But among Democrats, 52% now say yes.

Views on immigration and immigrants show a similar pattern. A decade ago, about half the adherents of both parties said that immigrants “threaten traditional American customs and values.” Today, 60% of Republicans express that view, but among Democrats, the number has dropped to 40%.

The Democratic shift has come in part because Latinos have become a greater share of Democrats, and very few of them see immigrants as a threat. But the views of whites also have changed, with only 14% of white liberals saying they see immigrants as a threat. Blacks are far more likely to see immigrants as threatening.

Democrats also have become more secular. The number of Democrats saying they sometimes doubt the existence of God has increased, although large majorities in both parties still say they never experience such doubts.

As both parties have become more ideologically consistent -- Democrats to the left, Republicans to the right -- both have lost supporters, and the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as independents has increased. But most of those self-identified independents lean one way or the other, and their views closely align with those of avowed partisans, the study found.

Including those independents who lean one way or the other, Pew found 48% of adults supported the Democrats and 40% the Republicans. The relatively small group that did not lean either way stood out mostly for their disengagement from politics.

eg8r
06-05-2012, 06:28 AM
With his very first speech in the hot seat he has been a divider that is unwilling to accept any responsibility.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-05-2012, 06:49 AM
Unwilling to accept Responsibility for the colossal mess left by failed Repiglican policies of George W. Bush and the Repiglican party, who actually were the ones who divided this country?

Wake UP! This country had been divided since Repiglicans blew millions of dollars teying to impeach a president, who had not committed any impeachable offense!

It started with Ronald MacReagan, and every Repiglican President since, has been a fascist!

Repiglicans were the dividers, as Scott Walker has stated himself, divide and conquer, that is their strategy.

Remove president Obama, that was the stated main goal, at the outset and in the midst of the Bush worst recession since The Great Depression!

When President Obama took over, we were losing over 700,000 to 800,000 jobs a month, dealing with the Bushh residue of two F-ed up, infinished, unpaid for wars, deficits through the roof, a country fallen in disgrace, from the Repiglican War Crimes of the Repiglican Torturers, a politicized and ocrrupted Department Of Justice, a failed, "Surge" in Iraq, where there was a car bomb, killing many, just yesterday, results of the FAILED Bush SURGE, and his ignorant and deceitful Cowboy Diplomacy!

We have the greatest economic inequality of any industrial country in the world, with the wealthy top one percent, owning over twenty percent of the wealth, corporate fascist CEO's hoarding their wealth at a time of economic stress, and nejoy reduced taxes, more loopholes, and allowed to hide their wealth, and buy our elections, for their Fascist corrupt partners in crime.....all, in order to re-elect more Fascists from the Repiglican Party to continue their assault on Liberty and Justice, for all.


Why would our new president take responsibility for any of it? It was YOUR GEORGE BUSH, who left it all behind his sorry ass.

This country has BEEN divided long before president Obama ever moved into the oval office, and McConnell, vowed to keep it that way, before president Obama was even sworn into office!

G.

eg8r
06-05-2012, 07:16 AM
LOL, you never were very skilled at comprehending what you read. No, by immediately placing blame he attempted to create an "out" when he failed. Well he has been a miserable failure and he is still trying to place that blame elsewhere. LOL, he changed up his blame game by trying to blame his estimators when "they did not correctly estimate the extent of the issue". He accepts no responsibility and he set that up right from the get go. Now, little minions like yourself who have their heads shoved up his rear end wouldn't see it but the fact is that it is clear as day.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-05-2012, 08:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, you never were very skilled at comprehending what you read. No, by immediately placing blame he attempted to create an "out" when he failed. Well he has been a miserable failure and he is still trying to place that blame elsewhere. LOL, he changed up his blame game by trying to blame his estimators when "they did not correctly estimate the extent of the issue". He accepts no responsibility and he set that up right from the get go. Now, little minions like yourself who have their heads shoved up his rear end wouldn't see it but the fact is that it is clear as day.

eg8r </div></div>



<span style="color: #CC0000">FYI, Bill Clinton, AND this president are two of the most beloved American Leaders IN THE WORLD.


Bush and Cheney, both of whom YOU voted for twice, are two of the MOST HATED PEOPLE IN THE WORLD! They committed WAR CRIMES, which is why they can't leave the country!

I suppose that makes YOU among the denying little minions. </span>

eg8r
06-05-2012, 08:47 AM
Why are you arguing a strawman? Another problem with comprehension? No, not this time. You have been backed into a corner with the truth and when that happens you always revert to changing the subject. Sorry gaylio but no one is talking about how American leaders are viewed around the world.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-05-2012, 09:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why are you arguing a strawman? Another problem with comprehension? No, not this time. You have been backed into a corner with the truth and when that happens you always revert to changing the subject. Sorry gaylio but no one is talking about how American leaders are viewed around the world.

eg8r </div></div>

LMAO!

You, little man, couldn't back a flea into a corner.

G.

eg8r
06-05-2012, 11:57 AM
LOL, and you prove I am correct by changing the subject. Sorry granny but it is plain as day.

eg8r

LWW
06-06-2012, 04:37 AM
The left must be defeated.

Sev
06-06-2012, 05:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, you never were very skilled at comprehending what you read. No, by immediately placing blame he attempted to create an "out" when he failed. Well he has been a miserable failure and he is still trying to place that blame elsewhere. LOL, he changed up his blame game by trying to blame his estimators when "they did not correctly estimate the extent of the issue". He accepts no responsibility and he set that up right from the get go. Now, little minions like yourself who have their heads shoved up his rear end wouldn't see it but the fact is that it is clear as day.

eg8r </div></div>



<span style="color: #CC0000">FYI, Bill Clinton, AND this president are two of the most beloved American Leaders IN THE WORLD.


Bush and Cheney, both of whom YOU voted for twice, are two of the MOST HATED PEOPLE IN THE WORLD! They committed WAR CRIMES, which is why they can't leave the country!

I suppose that makes YOU among the denying little minions. </span> </div></div>

Obama is no Clinton.

Clinton is head and shoulders above Obama as far as presidential ability goes.

Gayle in MD
06-06-2012, 09:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, you never were very skilled at comprehending what you read. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>No, by immediately placing blame he attempted to create an "out" when he failed. </span>

<span style="color: #CC0000"> Where should the blame have been place?

He didn't "Create" blame, it was what it was, a result of failed Repiglican policies.

Additionally, the crash led to the BUSH RECESSION, as it will always be known, regardloess of whether you deny it or not, AND it proved what I had stated all along, as I watched CROOK AND LIAR, George the chimp, removing regulations, sending out the ownership society message, bloocking the states from protecting themselves for the growing predatory lending, and giving corporate corruption and greed a bye, through his politicized DOJ......and hence, just as I had stated all along,<span style='font-size: 20pt'>'Corporations cannot be trusted to regulate themselves!' Wall St. proved that for sure, and even Greenspan, ended up agreeing with my original statement, which I made right here many, many times, when he said in so many words that even he didn't think these Bank, ratings agencies, financial institutions, would be stupid enough and greedy enough to cut their own throats! Again...."Corporations cannot be trusted to regulate themselves!"

Which party obstructs corporate regulations?

Hence, the CRASH, happened on George Bush's watch, and after six years of Repiglican control, and a Repiglican Federal Reserve Chairman at the helm, an Ayn Rand worshipper, who flamed the housing bubble with his absurdly low interest rates, eventually knew damned well exactly what was coming, and HE RAN OUT ON THE COUNTRY!

Greenspan, and the other economists agreed on several issues regardless of their party!

1. The crash was written in stone before the end of 2006.

2. The Bush Recession was so deep that when this president took office we were teetering on another great depression, predicted to be the worst depression in history, in fact, a global depression.

3. Our colossal debts under Bush, along with his TWO unfinished wars, accumulated costs of the interest he had ran up borrowing to pay for everything he spent, warring, cutting taxes, spending and borrowing, his mantra, "The deficits don't matter" had left our country with huge disastrous results, and trying to get out of TWO UNFINISHED WARS, along with the <span style='font-size: 20pt'>colossal debts he had run up as president, under the Repiglican blank check congress, </span>spending and borrowing all the way through, and leaving the war costs off the radar completely, left this country at great risk, with no reserves to rebuild the country and recover from THE DISASTROUS BUSH RECESSION, AND THE DISASTROUS BUSH LEGACY, THE WORST EVER LEFT TO A NEW PRESIDENT, AS MANNY, MANY ECONOMIC EXPERTS, FROM THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT, AGREED UPON.

JUST TRY TO GET OUT OF TWO UNFINISHED WARS, OUT OF MIDDLE EAST WITH DIGNITY, IF WE COULD REBUILD OUR DIGNITY, AFTER ALL OF THE BUSH WAR CRIMES, TAKE CARE OF OUR MISTREATED VETERANS, AND AVOID THE IMPENDING BUSH DEPRESSION, WITH NO MONEY LEFT IN RESERVE, BECAUSE GEORGE BUSH AND THE REPIGLICAN BLANK CHECK CONGRESS, SPENT ALL OF IT, AND THEN SPENT EVEN MORE!

aND LASTLY....


4. Job recovery would be the slowest we had ever seen.

ALL of the respected economists and experts, agreed upon those points. All of them recognized that no president had ever faced so many F-ed up circumstances upon taking office.


For you to say that this president 'Placed" blame, is absolutely absurd, and it proves your continued denial of tne many BUSH AND REPIGLICAN FAILED POLICIES!

The fact is, the Repiglicans decided they would obstruct everything that would hastenend our recovery from the Bush Recession, Impending Depression, for political purposes, AND THAT they would and did block and filibuster every traditional economic tool for pulling the country up, every single one, blocked by Repiglicans for their STATED MAIN GOAL, to destroy the administration of our first African American and DEMOCRATIC President.


Their own number one stated goal was not to help the country to recover, but to lay the path to obstruction, only caring about gaining back their own political power, even though they were mostly responsible for the failed policies which devastated this country, and the global economy.

Nothing better demonstrates that FACT, than their own actions, and when they refused to raise the debt ceiling, an unheard of political trick, which not only hurt and weakened our recovery, but their obstruction was a huge set back to recovering, AND it hurt the entire global economic recovery.

Facts are facts, regardless of how many little men attack and insult when the facts are presented.

</span> </span>


Well he has been a miserable failure and he is still trying to place that blame elsewhere. LOL, he changed up his blame game by trying to blame his estimators when "they did not correctly estimate the extent of the issue". He accepts no responsibility and he set that up right from the get go. Now, little minions like yourself who have their heads shoved up his rear end wouldn't see it but the fact is that it is clear as day.

eg8r </div></div>


<span style="color: #CC0000">The rest of your BS is not deserving of a response. Your continuous defense of THE Bush Administration, continued personal attacks on every documented post written by anyone and everyone here while defending what Bush was doing to this country, are legendary, and no matter how hard you TRY to deny it, those of us who were here, all remember your vicious attacks over every documented post about the FAILURE AND THE DANGEROUS POLICIES OF Bush's Lies, Bush's Corruption, Bush's failures as the Commander and Chief in prosecuting his trumped up war in Iraq, AND the colossal SPENDING AND BORROWING OF BUSH AND HIS BLANK CHECK REPIGLICAN CONGRESS.

G. </span>

eg8r
06-06-2012, 11:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where should the blame have been place?
</div></div>LOL, how did you get this far in life with so little common sense. When you campaign and beg to be in the position he was begging to be in you don't start out right from the beginning placing blame. You start out telling people what you are going to do. It is common sense that he is not the one that created it. Does he really need to restate it for the stupid lefties? Did you really need him to clarify that for you and the rest of the stupid lefties? Or did he say it because he wanted to create his escape clause right from the get go? Either way you look foolish.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-06-2012, 09:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where should the blame have been place?
</div></div>LOL, how did you get this far in life with so little common sense. When you campaign and beg to be in the position he was begging to be in you don't start out right from the beginning placing blame. You start out telling people what you are going to do. It is common sense that he is not the one that created it. Does he really need to restate it for the stupid lefties? Did you really need him to clarify that for you and the rest of the stupid lefties? Or did he say it because he wanted to create his escape clause right from the get go? Either way you look foolish.

eg8r </div></div>

I'll try this one more time, although I have no clue why I should bother with you, at all....


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> When you campaign and beg to be in the position he was begging to be in you don't start out right from the beginning placing blame. </div></div>

Your first lie.

I have never heard President Obama BEG for anything! Nor have you! That would be completely out of character for a man of his dignity and grace.

Additionally, he has not been known for placing blame, nor for blowing his own horn, for his achievements, although Cheney has been known throughout the Obama Administration, for constantly trying to take credit, for president Obama's achievements, regardless of how absurd his claims were, laughable, actually.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You start out telling people what you are going to do. </div></div>

President Obama not only told us what he was going to do, but he has already done most of what he said he would do, WE have a AHCA, just as he promised, we are out of perfmorming combat in Iraq, just as he promised, ANd he refused to leave any troops in Iraq, unless their safety was assured to him by the Iraqi Leader.

He has focused on Afghanistan, and getting bin laden, just as he promised.

He saved us from The Bush Depression, although, he never promised he would, yet he did, so far, and given the disaster he faced, that was quite an accomplishment.

He has stood up for equal rights, for women, and for our Gay population, which he referenced during the campaign.

He ended the Bush Torture program, just as he promised he would.

He killed our worst enemy, bin Laden, and has taken the most aggressive actions to date, to smashed al Qaeda to pieces, far more successfually than anything Bush ever did while he was spreading democracy to the Middle East, LMAO! That turned out to be a real disaster for us, didn't it!

And President Obama, saved the automobile industry....amazing, and our recovery would have been even better, had he not had to deal with unprecedented Repiglican Obstructionism, the idiot pigs, trying to force the country into maintaining the same policies which brought the country to the brink of depression, and blatantly making their main goal, destroying the president, their major goal, in the midst of emergency circumstances, which THEY created! From day one, of the Obama Presidency, before anyone could have had any opinion whatsoever, of what the President might be able to accomplish, the Republicans slandered him and insulted him, insulted the office of thhe presidency, failed to speak out against incredible racist, rude attacks, by thier own party members, and lied their sorry asses off, using fear, just as they did to lie us into a war in Iraq, to lie their sorry asses back into majority.

They have been even worse, since they are back in the majority, and many, many experts agree, the Repiglican Party has moved so far to the right, no one can ever recall such a radical shift in any political party, in such a short amount of time. They ARE OUT THERE!



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It is common sense that he is not the one that created it. Does he really need to restate it for the stupid lefties? Did you really need him to clarify that for you and the rest of the stupid lefties? Or did he say it because he wanted to create his escape clause right from the get go? Either way you look foolish.

</div></div>

LMAO! Now here is Egh8tr performing his most reasonable, adult little man show!

Not even worthy of an answer.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

cushioncrawler
06-07-2012, 02:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama is no Clinton. Clinton is head and shoulders above Obama as far as presidential ability goes.</div></div>Only last nite i saw them together on tv, and obama woz a good inch taller then bill.
mac.

What woz bill clinton having for dinner when the planes hit the twin towers.
Chineze.

Sev
06-07-2012, 06:25 AM
I think it was identical twins.

Gayle in MD
06-07-2012, 08:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama is no Clinton. Clinton is head and shoulders above Obama as far as presidential ability goes.</div></div>Only last nite i saw them together on tv, and obama woz a good inch taller then bill.
mac.


What woz bill clinton having for dinner when the planes hit the twin towers.
Chineze. </div></div>


And where waas George Bush?

At a fund raising dinner, after eight months of ignoring urgent requests from our CIA and Counter Terrorist Czar, Richard Clarke, that ....

"al Qaeda Planning attack Inside The United States"

George Bush did NOTHING!

Course, his Da Da was in busines with the al Qaeda Leader's entire family, and having meetings with them on the day of the attack!

Butdonchaknow....President Obama is the Muslim terrorist!


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Never underestimate the success of mud slinging Repiglican lies and corruption!

And Never think for a moment, that the wealthiest in this country, have not already destroyed my former America, through their tight links with the REPIGLICAN PARTY, the party of lies, deceit and murder!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Monday, January 31, 2011
Former Bush-Administration Official Was Beaten to Death

John P. Wheeler

John P. Wheeler, the former Bush-administration official whose body recently was discovered in a Delaware landfill, was beaten to death.

The Delaware Medical Examiner's Office has announced that Wheeler died from blunt-force trauma, according to a report at delawareonline.com. Does that mean Wheeler was the victim of a mugging gone wrong? That's what one of Wheeler's friends thinks, according to delawareonline, but we find that to be an unlikely explanation.

Wheeler, who had served as a Pentagon official and presidential aide, had extensive experience in the areas of aerospace, technology, logistics, intelligence, and cyber warfare. His body was discovered on New Year's Eve, and officials took almost four weeks to announce a cause of death. Many mysteries, however, remain about the case. Reports delawareonline:


The official cause of Wheeler's death was "blunt-force trauma," agency spokesman Karl Kanefsky said about a case that has drawn worldwide media coverage. Kanefsky would not say which part of Wheeler's body sustained the lethal blows.

Police reiterated Friday that the case remains under investigation but acknowledge they cannot fill in critical gaps in the mystery and don't have any suspects.

Within hours of the grisly mid-morning discovery, state pathologists had ruled that the 66-year-old New Castle resident was a homicide victim, but until Friday authorities had been mum on the cause of his death--an unusual posture in Delaware, where such information is usually released promptly.

There has been no shortage of speculation about what happened to Wheeler, fueled partly by the release of videotapes that appeared to show him in a disoriented state just hours before his death:


The four-week delay has helped fuel rampant speculation that Wheeler, a defense consultant and expert on chemical and biological weapons, was poisoned by enemies--a theory that persisted in part because he was seen stumbling around Wilmington in the days before he died and officials said they were awaiting the results of toxicology tests.

Hal G. Brown, deputy director of the Medical Examiner's Office, said he did not know what medications or chemicals, if any, were in Wheeler's system, but said the death certificate makes it clear that toxicology "didn't play a role" in Wheeler's death.

We now know that Wheeler was beaten to death. But what does that tell us about who killed him and why?


Brown said blunt-force trauma describes the result of being struck with an object or a body part such as a fist. Brown added that Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Adrienne Sekula-Perlman, who handled Wheeler's autopsy, met with police and prosecutors Friday about her conclusions.

Newark police are the lead agency on a multi-force investigation because the garbage truck that dumped Wheeler's body at Wilmington's Cherry Island Landfill was emptying debris it had collected at trash bins in Newark. The FBI is also assisting with the probe.

Why would someone assault John Wheeler, and how many people might have been involved? Police don't seem to have the answers to those questions at the moment:


Lt. Mark Farrall, a Newark police spokesman, was mum Friday on the official word that Wheeler was killed in an assault. "I can't comment on his injuries," Farrall said.

Farrall said detectives still do not know how Wheeler got to Newark or ended up in the trash bin.

"We're still attempting to determine how he made his way to Newark and who is responsible for his murder," Farrall said. "How he got the injuries, I just don't know."

Wheeler's family has offered a $25,000 reward for information about his death. The general public seems baffled about the Wheeler case, and so are those who were closest to the victim.


The announcement of the reward came Sunday through lawyer Colm F. Connolly, a former U.S. attorney for Delaware, whom the family hired to represent them and act as a go-between with law enforcement.

Connolly said Wheeler's death is as much a mystery to the family as it is to the public. He said Wheeler's family is despondent over his death and "desperate" for information.

One of Wheeler's closest friends has a theory about what happened:


Retired Army Col. Doug Thormblom, a former roommate of Wheeler's at West Point, said the autopsy results indicate his old friend was a victim of a mugging gone awry but that many unanswered questions remain--such as why he was so disoriented in the days before he was killed, whether any drugs or chemical agents were in his system and how he got from Wilmington to Newark, about 13 miles away.

"I'm glad there was no direct poisoning that caused his death, but his disorientation still hasn't been explained," said Thormblom, who thinks Wheeler suffered a stroke or some other kind of physical or mental breakdown.

We think Thormblom probably is off base. For one, authorities have already ruled Wheeler's death a homicide, which means someone set out to kill him. That does not sound like a mugging gone awry. And why would muggers go to the trouble of putting Wheeler's body in a trash bin so that it would be carried away to a land fill? That sounds like the work of someone who did not want Wheeler's body to be discovered. And if that was the case, it probably means the killers knew who Wheeler was. Why would random muggers know Wheeler's identity and target him specifically? That sounds unlikely to us.

The evidence suggests that someone knew exactly who Wheeler was, planned to kill him, and planned to dispose of his body in a way that it probably would never be found.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Given Wheeler's background, a motive likely is connected to his many professional pursuits involving intelligence, the military, and technology.

John Wheeler's killers failed in their efforts to make sure his body never would be found. That should make this a solvable crime. But as we have shown in numerous posts here at Legal Schnauzer, America's law-enforcement mechanism is badly broken. The FBI, the U.S. Justice Department, local law-enforcement agencies . . . in many instances, they simply cannot be trusted.

We feel certain honorable individuals exist within those corrupt organizations, and we can only hope ethical folks are handling the John P. Wheeler investigation.</span> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Sadly, that hardly is a certainly in post-Bush America. </span> </div></div>
G.
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.html

eg8r
06-07-2012, 09:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your first lie.

I have never heard President Obama BEG for anything!</div></div>Pull your head out of your rear and maybe you would start hearing a lot more. There is a whole world around you, you just need to open your eyes and see it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And President Obama, saved the automobile industry</div></div>Isn't that a joke? LOL, Obama helped keep two companies head above the water by providing funds but the automotive industry did not need "saving". Ford did just fine without Obama.

eg8r

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-07-2012, 10:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your first lie.

I have never heard President Obama BEG for anything!</div></div>Pull your head out of your rear and maybe you would start hearing a lot more. There is a whole world around you, you just need to open your eyes and see it.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'> <span style="color: #CC0000">NOPE. You just need to learn that when you can't prove your own lies, you look even more ignorant, rude and immature, when you stoop to filthy personal attacks. </span> </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And President Obama, saved the automobile industry</div></div>Isn't that a joke? LOL, Obama helped keep two companies head above the water by providing funds but the automotive industry did not need "saving". Ford did just fine without Obama.

eg8r

eg8r </div></div>


<span style='font-size: 14pt'> <span style="color: #CC0000">And just how well do you think FORD would have done, after millions of jobs had been lost in the parts industry, and other auto related companies, as many as five million jobs! The recession would have deepened, over all those millions of jobs, gone? How manny people would be ut buying autos right now?

Do you think that ONLY FORD could have kept them all going?

You're a waste of time. </span> .</span>

eg8r
06-07-2012, 11:59 AM
LOL, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Obama did not save any industry.

eg8r

LWW
06-07-2012, 01:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Ford did just fine without Obama.

eg8r </div></div>

So did Toyota ... and Honda ... and BMW ... and Mercedes ...

Soflasnapper
06-07-2012, 03:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Obama did not save any industry.

eg8r </div></div>

Sure he did, as to American auto manufacturing. Likely the Hondas and Toyotas built here would still be made down the road, but the profits are repatriated overseas to the foreign owners of those companies.

Ford itself has said the loss of the supply chain had GM gone down would have doomed their capability to survive as well.

And note, they did 'fine' as a result of being able to borrow approx. $45 billion dollars** (from memory-- maybe somewhat less, but a ton of money). They could get this money as their balance sheet was not in tatters as was GM's-- Bain Capital among others turned down GM when they went begging for loans. GM could not get the money.

As for Honda and Toyota or others manufacturing here, they did not have the legacy costs of the health care and pension plans for some millions of retired workers, having only started here far more recently.

**It was $23 billion, and they got it a couple of YEARS before the financial crisis, or they would not have been able to get it then, either. They also were able to sell off Jaguar and some other acquisitions (for billions, but at steep losses compared to the purchase price). THEY ALSO SOUGHT GOVERNMENT LOANS THEMSELVES.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In 2006, Mulally led the effort for Ford to borrow US$23.6 billion by mortgaging all of Ford's assets. Mulally said that he intended to use the money to finance a major overhaul and provide a cushion to protect for a recession or other unexpected event." [22] At the time the loan was interpreted as a sign of desperation, but is now widely credited with stabilizing Ford's financial position, compared to crosstown rivals General Motors and Chrysler, both of whom had gone bankrupt during the Automotive industry crisis of 20082009. Ford was the only one of the Detroit Three that did not ask for a government loan [at the end of the day. They entertained the idea, and attended hearings about that-- my edit here].[23].

In 2007, he presided over the sale of Jaguar Cars and Land Rover to Tata Motors, an Indian car and truck manufacturer. Mulally said he had "no regrets" over the sale, preferring to concentrate on the Ford brand, as then-CEO Jacques Nasser was criticized in 2001 for paying too much attention to new overseas acquisitions while letting the main Ford operations in the US decline. Ford received $2.3 billion USD on the sale, considerably below what they paid for it under Nasser and Donald Petersen. However, analysts said that Ford would have gotten much less or may not have found a buyer if they tried to sell it later in 2008, as Jaguar Land Rover sales subsequently plummeted due to high oil prices in the summer, causing Tata to request a bailout from the British government.[24] Mulally also sold off Aston Martin and Volvo Cars, and reduced Ford's stake in Mazda.[23]

In 2008, amid mounting losses during an economic downturn, Ford announced a proposal on December 2, 2008 to cut Mulally's salary to $1 per year if government loans were received and used by Ford.[25][26] During hearings for government loans to Ford [...] </div></div>

Then, hilariously for this discussion, Ford WENT TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR MONEY anyway!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> When the narrative of the Great Recessions effect on the U.S. automotive industry is penned, Ford will more than likely be remembered as the company with theforesight to turn itself around in 2006, allowing it to subsequently decline government money while the remaining Big Two floundered in bankruptcy and bailouts.

But a closer look at history will no doubt reveal thats only part of the story. Case in point: four years after borrowing money as part of its turnaround plan spearheaded by then new CEO Alan Mulally, Ford now finds itself securinggovernment loansas part of an effort to help itpay back its initial debt.

On the surface, the situation sounds confusing: How can Ford, which reported $7.3 billion in profit since the end of 2009, still be in debt? And especially after announcing record repayments earlier this summer? According to The Wall Street Journal, Fords debt began to accumulate right after taking outthe $23.5 billion loan back in 2006. Even with the repayments, Fords debt reportedly still stands atmore than$25 billion.

As part of an initiative to elevate its credit rating, Ford has asked for, and received debt assistance from the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The guarantees come from the Export-Import Bank of the U.S., which recently pledged $250 million, as well as the European Investment Bank. Meanwhile, as Ford began to lessen its debt, the automaker took out a $1.8 billion loan from the U.S. government as part of an effort to advance its technologies aimed at improving fuel-efficiency.

Read more: http://wot.motortrend.com/ford-takes-ste...l#ixzz1x9E0yaP3 (http://wot.motortrend.com/ford-takes-steps-to-reduce-debt-by-borrowing-government-cash-9443.html#ixzz1x9E0yaP3)


Read more: http://wot.motortrend.com/ford-takes-ste...l#ixzz1x9DqveNv (http://wot.motortrend.com/ford-takes-steps-to-reduce-debt-by-borrowing-government-cash-9443.html#ixzz1x9DqveNv)
</div></div>

eg8r
06-07-2012, 06:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sure he did, as to American auto manufacturing</div></div>The auto industry would have continued just fine without Cheverolet or Chrysler. Common sense tells you that they would have been swallowed up by competitors. To think he saved the industry is the most ridiculous lie ever perpetuated by Obamatrons.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for Honda and Toyota or others manufacturing here, they did not have the legacy costs of the health care and pension plans for some millions of retired workers, having only started here far more recently.
</div></div>Wow, that statement should have knocked you out with clear common sense as to why the unions have done their best to kill american manufacturing.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">**It was $23 billion, and they got it a couple of YEARS before the financial crisis, or they would not have been able to get it then, either. They also were able to sell off Jaguar and some other acquisitions (for billions, but at steep losses compared to the purchase price). THEY ALSO SOUGHT GOVERNMENT LOANS THEMSELVES.
</div></div>Nothing you are saying has anything to do with Obama but rather sound management by Ford. You are coming up with reasons why Ford succeeded but you are not capable of realizing the fact that they did it without Obama. Obama did not save the industry. The industry would have struggled but come through just fine without Obama.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-08-2012, 12:54 PM
The auto industry would have continued just fine without Cheverolet or Chrysler. Common sense tells you that they would have been swallowed up by competitors. To think he saved the industry is the most ridiculous lie ever perpetuated by Obamatrons.

Then why did Ford disagree with your point? They said the opposite.

Common sense ACTUALLY says entirely different engines and body moldings and manufacturing lines and degrees of automatization of the lines make old legacy manufacturing plants of no use to the foreign makers, who would save money by starting from scratch. There is no evidence any of GM or Chrysler's stuff would have been bought and utilized I have seen. Perhaps you have such an analysis indicating your point is true? Or perhaps, and most likely, you are spitballing off the top of your head?

There's no reason to think that Ford would have absorbed GM's plant and facilities, or that GM would have done that with Chrysler's, even if both were in good financial shape, which they were not. And those would have been more likely than a foreign maker.

Soflasnapper
06-08-2012, 01:40 PM
Would auto companies that were all down 80% in sales volume (the Nissans and Toyotas were down like the domestic manufacturers) really think adding incompatible production capacity was a good idea, when they were forced to idle so much of their own existing plants?

And Ford would not have been able to raise the money they did in 2008 on. The money players were frozen at that time.

eg8r
06-08-2012, 07:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no evidence any of GM or Chrysler's stuff would have been bought and utilized I have seen. </div></div>LOL, like you would recognize it if you saw it. LOL, in a thread about Walker winning the election all you can say is, "yeah but the WI Rep party did not win everything". LOL, you only see what you want through your doom and gloom glasses.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There's no reason to think that Ford would have absorbed GM's plant and facilities</div></div>I love watching you dive down these rabbit holes and argue with yourself. No one ever made metnion of this but if you like to hear yourself talk have at it.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-08-2012, 07:35 PM
You are arguing with the president of Ford Motor Company, not me.

You have yet to acknowledge this, or explain why he is wrong and you are right. Instead you mildly insult me as a form of ad hominem. I guess that's all you have on this one. No facts. No evidence. Nothing but scoffing. Luckily, you are a great Johnny-one-noter in that tactic. If it's all you have, use it, I suppose.

Seriously dude, it is highly unpersuasive, I must say.

Gayle in MD
06-09-2012, 08:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are arguing with the president of Ford Motor Company, not me.

You have yet to acknowledge this, or explain why he is wrong and you are right. Instead you mildly insult me as a form of ad hominem. I guess that's all you have on this one. No facts. No evidence. Nothing but scoffing. Luckily, you are a great Johnny-one-noter in that tactic. If it's all you have, use it, I suppose.

Seriously dude, it is highly unpersuasive, I must say. </div></div>


eh8tr, less informed on the subject than the president of the Ford Motor Company? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif

Impossible!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

eg8r
06-10-2012, 01:31 AM
When did Ford say the only reason they are still in business is because Obama took over Chevy.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-10-2012, 11:53 AM
Here's the Economist, the free-market supporting right-leaning very highly respected UK publication, explaining it, as they changed their own minds and apologized for their early position on the bailout (where they'd originally agreed with Romney's position to let the normal bankruptcy process take place).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The purpose of Mr Romney's op-ed is to clarify his position on the auto bail-out ahead of Michigan's primary on February 28th. And the piece rivals Cirque du Soleil in its display of contortions. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Mr Romney seems loth to gush about the success of the bail-out, noting only the good news that "Chrysler and General Motors are still in business". He certainly doesn't mention that 2011 was the best year for America's carmakers since the financial crisis, with each of the big three turning a solid profit.</span> But he does imply that this achievement is a result of his own advice. "The course I recommended was eventually followed", Mr Romney writes.

As with much of Mr Romney's excessive rhetoric, there is some truth to this statement. Following the bail-outs, the president eventually forced Chrysler and GM into bankruptcy, a step Mr Romney thought should occur naturally. And the government oversaw painful restructurings at both companies, which were largely in line with Mr Romney's broad suggestions. But the course Mr Romney recommended in 2008 began with the government stepping back, and it is unlikely things would've turned out so well had this happened.

Free-marketeers that we are, The Economist agreed with Mr Romney at the time. But we later apologised for that position. "Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk", we said. But <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"given the panic that gripped private purse-strings...it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended." Even Ford, which avoided bankruptcy, feared the industry would collapse if GM went down. </span>At the time that seemed like a real possibility. The credit markets were bone-dry, making the privately financed bankruptcy that Mr Romney favoured improbable. He conveniently ignores this bit of history in claiming to have been right all along.</div></div>

Link (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/mitt-romney-and-car-industry)

From the apology they mention above:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So was the auto bail-out a success? It is hard to be sure. Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk.<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Many observers think this unlikely, however. Given the panic that gripped private purse-strings last year, it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended.</span> As for moral hazard, the expectation of future bail-outs may prompt managers and unions in other industries to behave rashly. But all the stakeholders suffered during GMs bankruptcy, so this effect may be small.

Socialists dont privatise

That does not mean, however, that bail-outs are always or often justified. Straightforward bankruptcy is usually the most efficient way to allow floundering firms to restructure or fail. The state should step in only when a firms collapse poses a systemic risk. Propping up the financial system in 2008 clearly qualified. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Saving GM was a harder call, but, with the benefit of hindsight, the right one.</span> The lesson for governments is that for a bail-out to work, it must be brutal and temporary. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The lesson for American voters is that their president, for all his flaws, has no desire to own the commanding heights of industry. A gambler, yes. An interventionist, yes. A socialist, no.</span> </div></div>

So here you have it directly from a leading publication from the capitalist side.

Here's Ford CEO Alan Mulally explaining why he thought the bailout was necessary, which was why he accompanied GM and Chrysler to the Congressional hearing (and actually asked for money for Ford himself, although not liking the terms, eventually declined the money).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But that ignores a crucial fact: Companies that are broke require money to keep operating, even while under the protection of a Bankruptcy Court. And as Ford's chief executive, Alan Mulally, pointed out during a visit with The Times' editorial board Tuesday, "There was nobody that was going to give them money for [debtor-in-possession] financing."

Mulally's comments weren't offered as a criticism of Romney. Rather, he was defending Ford's decision to go to Congress with GM and Chrysler in 2008 to call for a federal rescue. Ford didn't need the money itself -- it had previously arranged a multibillion-dollar line of private credit. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>But Mulally said he believed then, just as he believes now, that GM and Chrysler threatened to drag the entire country into a depression.

"This could be upwards of 13% of the U.S. GDP if they were to go into freefall," Mulally said. "We believed [seeking the bailout] was the right thing for the industry, the right thing for the United States of America.... I'd do the same thing today." </span></div></div>

LA Times article (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/19/news/la-ol-ford-ceo-rebuts-mitt-romney-auto-bankruptcy-view-20120418)

And here's the actual borrowing Ford asked for and got from the government (apart from what they asked for but refused to take given the terms):

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Ford borrowing timeline looks like this:

10-27-08 Ford Motor Credit borrows $1.980 billion from the CPFF
10-29-08 Ford Motor Credit borrows $990 million from the CPFF
10-31-08 Ford Motor Credit borrows $991 million from the CPFF
11-18-08 Mulally flies to Washington in the companys corporate jet and asks for financial assistance. The event is a PR nightmare because the CEOs of GM and Chrysler also fly to Washington in private jets.
12-3-08 Mulally drives a Ford Escape hybrid to Washington and asks for a $9 billion credit line to use if industry conditions worsen. Mulally says hell work for one dollar per year if he taps the credit line.
12-8-08 <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Mullaly declares, Ford fully supports an effort to address the near-term liquidity issues of GM and Chrysler, as our industry is highly interdependent and a failure of one of our competitors could affect us all </span>For Ford, a line of credit would serve only as a critical backstop or safeguard against worsening conditions, as we drive transformational change in our company.
12-18-08 Ford Motor Credit borrows $1.984 billion from the CPFF
12-19-08 Ford Motor Credit borrows $992 million from the CPFF, to bring its today CPFF borrowings to nearly $7 billion. Ford would continue rolling over these loans for the next several months.
1-29-09 Ford announces a $5.9 billion loss for the quarter but insists it does not need financial help from the government.
1-29-09 Ford Motor Credit rolls over $1.488 billion of CP with the CPFF
2-13-09 Ford Motor Credit rolls over $496 million of CP with the CPFF
3-2-09 Ford Motor Credit rolls over $1.984 billion of CP with the CPFF
3-18-09 Ford Motor Credit rolls over $1.984 billion of CP with the CPFF
3-19-09 Ford Motor Credit rolls over $1.980 billion of CP with the CPFF
5-19-09 Ford Motor Credit rolls over $992 million of CP with the CPFF
6-17-09 Ford Motor Credit rolls over $992 million of CP with the CPFF

Read more: The Half-Truth and Nothing But the Half-Truth http://dailyreckoning.com/the-half-truth-and-nothing-but-the-half-truth/#ixzz1xPlhg0ig
</div></div>

eg8r
06-10-2012, 05:06 PM
LOL, so you attack LWW for using a british paper to talk about Clinton but you find it acceptable to use one to talk about Ford?

You did not answer my question though, when did Ford say they would go under if GM and Chrysler were allowed to fail? All you have quoted is Mullally saying he agreed with the bailout and would do it again but nowhere does he say it was a necessity for the future of Ford.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-10-2012, 08:49 PM
The Economist is a first rate periodical magazine that is highly respected.

LWW's citations come from known to be disreputable tabloid press and highly partisan writers from the right.

Big difference.

Check your eyeglass prescription, or get some glasses, but I will use EVEN LARGER TYPE so perhaps you can see this repeated citation:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>12-8-08 Mullaly declares, Ford fully supports an effort to address the near-term liquidity issues of GM and Chrysler, as our industry is highly interdependent and a failure of one of our competitors could affect us all</span></div></div>

Hmmm. What COULD he mean? 'Our industry is highly interdependent and a failure of one of our competitors could affect us all...'???

They depend on the same suppliers, and if those suppliers lost 1/3rd of their business or 1/2 of their business, they themselves would GO OUT OF BUSINESS and not be able to supply Ford with its necessary parts components.

eg8r
06-11-2012, 10:37 AM
LOL, you are clearly stretching what he is saying to what you want him to say. He did not say he would go under. What he did say is that without helping GM and Chrysler then Ford could be affected. NOT going bankrupt. Common sense would tell you that costs would go up but not send the entire corporation belly up.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-11-2012, 12:20 PM
HOW would it have affected Ford?

And how would TWO such failures further harm Ford (in whatever way) compared to just the ONE he mentions would harm them? Twice as badly? Isn't 'catastrophically' more likely?

You think the supplier chain companies could make a go of it, and stay in business, having lost <span style='font-size: 11pt'>2/3rds</span> of their business? An interesting claim, but based on WHAT?

eg8r
06-12-2012, 03:11 AM
Like I said, costs would go up but you are putting words in the man's mouth. He did not say what you said. Also, you have started making your own assumptions about the suppliers. Would some go under sure, would they all go under, nope. Also, many of the vendors have competing products so if one goes under then the other picks up the business. Also there is no indication that the vendors would lose 2/3rds of their business either. Sure there are some suppliers whose sole business is one of the big three but that is not necessarily the case for all or even a major chunk of them.

I am not saying there would not be any difficulties. I am not saying costs would not go up. All I am saying is that Mullally did not say what you said he said. You have made broad assumptions that simply cannot be substantiated. There is no indication that Ford would have gone bankrupt if Chevy and Chrysler had.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-12-2012, 07:29 AM
What a convoluted exercise in denial! One of your most "out of touch with realilty" statements of all times!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
06-12-2012, 09:49 AM
What is it about common sense that alludes you? The man never said what sofla said. I have met him in the middle to say there would be price increases and difficulties but Mullally in no way said Ford would go under.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-12-2012, 10:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is it about common sense that alludes you? The man never said what sofla said. I have met him in the middle to say there would be price increases and difficulties but Mullally in no way said Ford would go under.

eg8r </div></div>

He doesn't hhave to say it, it's common knowledge, and the facts around this issue, prove it, but I'm sure if I bothered to search around for those occasions, when he clearly has stated how much the American Automobile Bailout helped him, and the entire American Automobile Industry as well, and post them, you'd find something about the post, some little insignificant "nothing much" to argue about.

As far as your graspoing what Sofla took the time to thoroughly lay out for you about why Ford would not have succeeded, without the American Automobile Bailout, you obviously didn't get it, IMO, because the fact is, no one was lending money after the Bush Crash, and they STILL aren't lending....So Ford, after all of the projected losses in the industry, may well have gone down, as Sofla has already covered.

You really should have been an attorney, since you love to agrue so much.

In fact, so should I have, according to all of my school and college aptitude testing.

However, I find it isn't a good use of my time to go out of my way anymore to prove, what most people accept as common knowledge, to hard headed righties who thrive on denials.

IMHO, they are not receptive to facts.

Funny, the C.B.O. is learning that lesson as well, after Repiglicans got snarky with him because they couoldn't force him to say that the stimulus failed to boost the economy.

G.

eg8r
06-13-2012, 01:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He doesn't hhave to say it, it's common knowledge, and the facts around this issue, prove it, but I'm sure if I bothered to search around for those occasions, when he clearly has stated how much the American Automobile Bailout helped him, and the entire American Automobile Industry as well, and post them, you'd find something about the post, some little insignificant "nothing much" to argue about.

</div></div>I did not say it the bailout did not "help" him. What I am saying is that he has never said the bailout saved his company from bankruptcy. That is what you and sofla want it to mean but the man simply has not said it or implied it (based on the "proof" you have provided).

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-13-2012, 05:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He doesn't hhave to say it, it's common knowledge, and the facts around this issue, prove it, but I'm sure if I bothered to search around for those occasions, when he clearly has stated how much the American Automobile Bailout helped him, and the entire American Automobile Industry as well, and post them, you'd find something about the post, some little insignificant "nothing much" to argue about.

</div></div>I did not say it the bailout did not "help" him. What I am saying is that he has never said the bailout saved his company from bankruptcy. That is what you and sofla want it to mean but the man simply has not said it or implied it (based on the "proof" you have provided).

eg8r </div></div>

It doesn't matter if he said it or not, it's a FACT.

As we all know, no one was lending money, after the crash, and without the ailout, as we have tried to explain to you, no American automobile company would have survived.

See, arguing over common sense, accepted facts, is childish. Nit-picking every post just because you like to argue, gets really boring for the rest of us.

Like when you kept saying that Valarie Plame, was just a Secretary. You know that wasn't the truth. You just like to argue.

Beats me what you get out of it! You and the other one trick pony on here lower standards. I don't know where Sofla gets his patience!

G.
G.

eg8r
06-13-2012, 07:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It doesn't matter if he said it or not, it's a FACT.

</div></div>LOL, in your imagination. Sofla is the one that said Mullally said that but in reality he never did. Don't argue that someone said something when you cannot prove they said it.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-13-2012, 07:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It doesn't matter if he said it or not, it's a FACT.

</div></div>LOL, in your imagination. Sofla is the one that said Mullally said that but in reality he never did. Don't argue that someone said something when you cannot prove they said it.

eg8r </div></div>

See, arguing over common sense, accepted facts, is childish. Nit-picking every post just because you like to argue, gets really boring for the rest of us.

Like when you kept saying that Valarie Plame, was just a Secretary. You know that wasn't the truth. You just like to argue.

bump?