Here is the distinction;
You can discuss current and former reactions of Chrysler and and the auto industry to regulations.
Where topics go off the rails is when politics are injected and the discussion moves to the validity or non-validity of the regulation. That’s when topics get shut down.
I'm still a bit confused and am trying to figure out the difference between these 2 posts:
You posted:
"At the time anti-trust laws were very strict. Each of the Big 3 had to develop solutions separately. Only AMC benefited somewhat from the work other manufacturers did. However, the Japanese were free to share these costs among themselves if they so desired."
Thinking along the same line and in agreement I posted:
"Some of Chryslers problems were self inflicted but many were due to the federal govt.
EG: Illegal for Ford, GM and Chrysler To collaborate on emissions where the Japanese could.
Etc, Etc, Etc......"
There are many more regs I think were detrimental but I only responded in agreement to your post.
Then Bob Lincoln commented on my post:
"Absolutely ridiculous and untrue. This is trolling."
I can't see why I'm a lying troll and you are not.
For the record, I don't think your post was trolling or in any way incorrect.
Anti-trust laws are no doubt govt laws.
I'm sure we have read the same books, mine was not opinion, I also read it and agreed with you.
At the same time, Bob Lincoln gets to openly disparage me and my post.
For the record I try and post things I know to be true, not just my opinion, unless clearly stated.
Also, I think it's unfair some members are allowed to bash other members, while others are not.
Not that it matters as I would never accuse another member of lying and or trolling.
Thanks
Randy