Joined
·
2,526 Posts
enough with the fact-less white papers--the only way to put out this fire is to fight these extremist agitators with the truth.
I get what you are saying, as some anti Chrysler garbage has come from misdirected anger resulting from the continued insistance of tying Chrysler to Obama. He made basically one decision, it that decision turned out well ultimately, and that is where their ties end. It does need to stop. Especially, speaking purely politically, that it would be far more logical, more convincing to recognize Chrysler's success and specifically not attribute it to Obama.Dr. Z said:There's a ten year limit, humdrum. As Bill Cawthon pointed out and as we had in this iteration.
At the risk of having this post removed as political, the fact is that as long as Chrysler is marked as a stand-in for President Obama's performance, this sort of thing will keep on going, along with crazy lawsuits by dealers with deep pockets and lots of rage, and Indiana officials (y'know, neither the courts nor I bought the claim that the Indiana Treasurer really expected Chrysler not to have risks, when he bought lots of bonds at something like nine cents on the dollar.)
Agreed.He made basically one decision, it that decision turned out well ultimately, and that is where their ties end. It does need to stop.
Many of those who call themselves conservative aren't. Just because they're in the same party as real conservatives, doesn't mean anything. I must point out that it's "conservatives" who keep enacting state laws that strip automakers of their contracts with dealers, and keep regulating and regulating and regulating automakers in the specific case of franchise law.Since most conservatives see the system as overregulated / with the wrong regulations - it would be quite ironic to switch gears and decide the regulation was insufficient.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one.Dr. Z said:Nader became famous for attacking a vehicle that was patently unsafe at a time when Detroit's concessions to safety were, well, padded dashboards and safety wheels. Regardless of what he's doing now, his early work had merit.
You will notice I did not mention the lead instigators by name.
Part of the issue in this case is very definitely political, there is Big Money behind this publicity campaign (which is why it won't freakin' die).
And yes, I'd like to stop it.
This Country needs a third party! Now!Dr. Z said:Agreed.
Many of those who call themselves conservative aren't. Just because they're in the same party as real conservatives, doesn't mean anything. I must point out that it's "conservatives" who keep enacting state laws that strip automakers of their contracts with dealers, and keep regulating and regulating and regulating automakers in the specific case of franchise law.
The same organization that screamed bloody murder over the closure of dealerships as "government interfering with business" simultaneously demanded that government step in and overrule automaker contracts with other dealerships.
The people who I suspect are funding this nonsense scream and cry constantly about government overreach but they sure take a lot of government money and support legislation that takes away our right to sue or manage our own property.
Calling one’s self a conservative does not make it so.
Probably a 4th party really. Both parties are terrified of a 3rd party dipping too much into the support of the respective party and losing the election for the both of them. Inevitably, nearly every independant party still has a particularly leaning, which means they're likely to take votes away from only one of the main parties. That detours them, the voters themselves, and makes the respective mainstream party more aggressive in uprooting any such effort. If you had 2 successful independant parties or opposing leanings, that could well ease those concerns.tryphon said:This Country needs a third party! Now!