• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What makes a "True Conservative"

But, the person who quoted him was not asked to quote someone else on the matter... they were asked to do the work to actually think about it themselves... Like, say, if you were a student, and your professor asked you to write a paper about the American Revolution... if your paper consisted of a brief introduction which said "Well Ben Franklin said" and then was a portion of Franklin's biography, you'd write and F for a letter grade...

They weren't asked to write a paper, they were asked to give an honest assessment of Obama. If they felt that Volker's words provided that honest assessment, it qualified as a legitimate response to your request.

At no point did you specify that there was a requirement where you must be allowed to have an interactive discussion with said person. Clearly the assignment-giver failed to adequately describe the assignment in this instance and, as such, any responses that did not fit with the assignment-giver's idealized response pattern is due to the incompetence of said assignment giver, not the incompetence of the responder.

That's not what socialism is defined by though...

Really?!?!?! Then why is it the primary component in the definition of socialism? :confused:


It is important to note here, when you speak of the government in the US, we are the government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" so anything the government does has all aspects of that involved.

We aren't that, though. Just because it has been called that doesn't mean it is that. Our government is not very representative of the people at all.

The people elect the representatives, who then inact and carry out the laws and other governmental actions, and in turn those actions are meant to benefit the people...

Why do you assume that the actions are actually meant to benefit the people? I see nothing in our current government which would lead to this assumption. I think they try to give that impression, but the rubber meets the road quite differently that what they claim.

In this occasion the companies that were bailed out were bailed out because they were deemed too big to fail... not because it benefited the corportation, but because it benefited those workers who were supposed to not lose their jobs, and the economy as a whole, which would benefit the rest of the people not involved in those companies. So the main goal was not assistance of the companies.

Well, that's the reasoning that was given, but what does that have to do with anything? The bailouts weren't collective or government ownership, nor were they Obama's idea or action.


When you look at the situation with the GM takeover, it is the PEOPLE who control the company. The US Govt bought a majority ownership share in GM. They then tried to cover it up by diluting the shares. They dictated restructure terms. They then worked out negotiations with the Unions (which are socialist in nature), and used US and Canadian Govt money to fund their benefits. So the Govt is providing benefits to the UAW employees... Then, now the UAW is buying out a majority ownership in GM. This is essentially akin to GM being a Government owned and run industry.

What does that have to do with Obama? That happened before he took office.

there's been a massive expansion of farming subsidies. That's moving essentially towards a government run agriculture system.

No, it's not. Subsidies are entirely a product of capitalism, pure and simple. In a socialist environment there would be no need to pay companies to do certain things because they would be controlled by the government. Subsidies can only exist in a capitalist economy. They are mad obsolete by socialism. You are actually providing evdience that shows the opposite of your position here.


Match that up with the massive expansion of welfare, the government run healthcare, etc.

First: Obamacare is not a single-payer system, so calling it "government run" is pure nonsense. Government regulated =/= government run. Obamacare simply expands the total amount of regulations exponentially. It's not even remotely close to socialism, though.

And welfare is not socialism. Where did you get the idea that it was?


You still fail to investigate his background motivation for the policies he uses.

I didn't fail to do it, I recognized it's irrelevancy to the issue. I can just look at his policies to see how they aren't socialist ones.
 
Last edited:
Bilcore plastics auto parts factory non union closed down outsourced
Wagner wireharnessing auto factory nonunion closed to outsourcing
Mark 1 injection molding auto parts factory nonunion closed to outsourcing
Telefex auto factory nonunion closed to outsourcing
I could give you a link but these factories aren't there any more.
Now I could go on but the list is quite long these factories are from 1 county in Michigan

So what's the difference between a nonunion factory in Michigan and a nonunion factory in Tennessee?:peace

They obviously weren't competitive, just as the automakers in Detroit stopped being competitive.

Unions understand that companies have to remain competitive but union bosses don't care about the working man. If they did they would want the companies to succeed in order that people continued to purchase their product and their members would have work.

Unions may have done good at one time but no more. They are big business, big corrupt business, and working people are better off without them,.
 
WOW! This isn't even remotely close. The only question is, do you actually believe this nonsense?

Absolutely. Saying those 4 things is what's winning it for santorum, so logically, it must be true.
 
What about aborting a gay, Muslim Mexican fetus?

Yes, conservatives would support that. For example, if I ran for the office of Governor or Sheriff in AZ promising to abort all gay, Muslim, Mexican fetuses, I would win in a landslide, as long as I opposed abortion for non-gay, non-Mexican, Christian fetuses.

Unfortunately, I don't live in AZ and my skin is dark so I wouldn't qualify to run for public office there.
 
What I don't understand is why santorum hasn't blamed rising fuel prices on the "illegal immigrant" driving. Seems like a logical thing to say considering the kind of people that support him.
 
FAIL (0 FOR 2)


No one asked what the Chairman of the Fed under Reagan had to say...

asked for a liberal defender of the President on here to go through Obama's political influences, his policies, and compare and contrast them with the comprehensive definition of what socialism is...

By delegating it to someone else's


I have already stated my case on many occasions, and you chose to ignore it, or just spout off partisan rhetoric...

I am not asking to prove a negative... I am asking for an honest compare and contrast discussion on the topic. That's a fair request. Since you can't (or choose not to so you don't have to admit to it), then it shows that you pretty much agree with it, but chose to ignore it.

So, unless you're willing to seriously address the issue, you should obstain from commenting about it...


socialism
Definition
so·cial·ism[ sṓshə lìzəm ]To hear the pronunciation, install SilverlightNOUN
1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles
2. movement based on socialism: a political movement based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers.

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]



so·cial·ism
noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\







Definition of SOCIALISM



1

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


2

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state


3

: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


By definition, I would have to argue that Obama may be a lot of things but certainly not a socialist. By definition.

That being said I do have to give some wiggle room due to the fact that socialism, if we are to assume the given authorative definition of the same says, "There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism"

I can understand and will not give argue to the opinion that Obama does take a Robin Hood kind of approach of taking from the rich and giving to the poor and is more representative of society needs over capitalistic corporate interests. Giving the "wiggle room" in the definition I can see how a thinking person might relate that to be "socialist" in nature. But by strict definition, Obama is not technically a socialist. I didn't write the definition. I'm just being the umpire here and reluctantly, I have to call him safe on this play.

Therefore, the claim that Obama is a socialist, gets a "False" rating.

View attachment 67125328

Have a nice day everybody.
 
Last edited:
Bilcore plastics auto parts factory non union closed down outsourced
Wagner wireharnessing auto factory nonunion closed to outsourcing
Mark 1 injection molding auto parts factory nonunion closed to outsourcing
Telefex auto factory nonunion closed to outsourcing
I could give you a link but these factories aren't there any more.
Now I could go on but the list is quite long these factories are from 1 county in Michigan

So what's the difference between a nonunion factory in Michigan and a nonunion factory in Tennessee?:peace

Bilcore plastics, couldnt even find a news story about it.
Wagner is still in business in Chino, CA. I actually saw the plant. They changed their supplier?
Mark 1 injection molding? That describes a lot of products and companies.
Teleflex outsourced to China.

Im giving you one for four unless you provide some better info.
 
socialism
Definition
so·cial·ism[ sṓshə lìzəm ]To hear the pronunciation, install SilverlightNOUN
1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles
2. movement based on socialism: a political movement based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers.

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]



so·cial·ism
noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\







Definition of SOCIALISM



1

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


2

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state


3

: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


By definition, I would have to argue that Obama may be a lot of things but certainly not a socialist. By definition.

That being said I do have to give some wiggle room due to the fact that socialism, if we are to assume the given authorative definition of the same says, "There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism"

I can understand and will not give argue to the opinion that Obama does take a Robin Hood kind of approach of taking from the rich and giving to the poor and is more representative of society needs over capitalistic corporate interests. Giving the "wiggle room" in the definition I can see how a thinking person might relate that to be "socialist" in nature. But by strict definition, Obama is not technically a socialist. I didn't write the definition. I'm just being the umpire here and reluctantly, I have to call him safe on this play.

Therefore, the claim that Obama is a socialist, gets a "False" rating.

View attachment 67125328

Have a nice day everybody.

Is he increasing government's profile in private American industry? The answer is unequivocally yes. Do his goals match with increasing government ownsership of private industry? The answer is yes. Does he believe government is the answer to societal issues? The answer is yes. I dislike the fact that you go for a canned answer and dont think for yourself about the degrees of government control he supports and endorses.
 
Is he increasing government's profile in private American industry? The answer is unequivocally yes. Do his goals match with increasing government ownsership of private industry? The answer is yes. Does he believe government is the answer to societal issues? The answer is yes. I dislike the fact that you go for a canned answer and dont think for yourself about the degrees of government control he supports and endorses.

Yes, yes and yes. Ding! Ding!

To be clear, I was just answering the respectfully posed question with a respectful, factual, answer. It is what it is.

The question was a canned question that got a canned answer. If someone asks me, "What does two plus two equal?" I will answer four.

And then here you come with the personal attacks. Typical. :roll:
 
Yes, yes and yes. Ding! Ding!

To be clear, I was just answering the respectfully posed question with a respectful, factual, answer. It is what it is.

The question was a canned question that got a canned answer. If someone asks me, "What does two plus two equal?" I will answer four.

And then here you come with the personal attacks. Typical. :roll:

Its a personal attack that your post is a cut and paste and doesnt show any thought on your part? Ok. Show openers at least, dude. Give us some idea of your thoughts on the idea posted, not someone elses.
 
Its a personal attack that your post is a cut and paste and doesnt show any thought on your part? Ok. Show openers at least, dude. Give us some idea of your thoughts on the idea posted, not someone elses.

My thoughts pretty much align with yours. Obama is a take from the rich give to the poor kind of guy. I think if he had his way we would be a nanny state depending on government to take care of us. He tries to fix problems that are not his to fix.

But I was asked to compare Obama to the definition of socialism. I posted the definition. Which clearly clears him of the charge. Call it a technicality if you must. But facts are facts. That's not my fault. No reason to attack me.

And you should develop a clearer definition of "personal attack" for your own wisdom. I never personally attacked you in any way. Wear your big boy panties.
 
Last edited:
But I was asked to compare Obama to the definition of socialism. I posted the definition. .

Posting the definition of socialism does not mean BHO is not a socialist. It does seem he's wanting the United States to move in that direction however.
 
Is he increasing government's profile in private American industry?

What does that mean, exactly? Obama enacted fewer requlations in his first three years than Bush did.

Do his goals match with increasing government ownsership of private industry? The answer is yes.

The answer is certainly no. The auto bailouts were nothing more than an attempt to save private manufacturing. In doing so it was necessary to temporarily take an ownership stake in one of the companies.

Does he believe government is the answer to societal issues? The answer is yes.

Again, WTF does that mean? Even libertarians believe that government is the answer to some societal issues.

Does Obama believe that the government should have a bigger role than conservatives think it should have? Of course. He is moderately liberal. Liberalism is not the same thing as socialism, any more than conservatism is the same thing as anarchy.
 
Posting the definition of socialism does not mean BHO is not a socialist. It does seem he's wanting the United States to move in that direction however.

I understand that. But by definition, technically he has not enacted anything that qualifies him as such. Yet.

But I agree he would like too.

It's like he wants to be everything to everybody. Their own personal Jesus.

I appreciate his concern and conviction but I can do fine on my own. But he's the best we got. What ya gonna do?
 
Last edited:
FAIL (0 for 4)
socialism
Definition
so•cial•ism[ sṓshə lìzəm ]To hear the pronunciation, install SilverlightNOUN
1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles
2. movement based on socialism: a political movement based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers.

-----
Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

-----
so•cial•ism
noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

Definition of SOCIALISM

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


By definition, I would have to argue that Obama may be a lot of things but certainly not a socialist. By definition.
This is where you fail most of all… You just listed several incomplete sources of the definition of socialism… but even with their limited approach to the concept… There are numerous ways in which the president’s policies fit the definitions which you have just provided… Yet, without comparing and contrasting his policies to the definitions, you just dismiss it outright…

You’d truly have to go through the auto-bailout and the current state of GM, the massive expansion of the welfare state, the expansion of farm subsidies, the government takeover of the medical field, distributive tax policies, etc.

I do recognize the 2nd definition, as coming from Wikipedia… in which there is a few more paragraphs to that introduction that you have chosen not to include, that further investigates the meaning of socialism. That Wikipedia article also elaborates more of different types of socialism, many of which describe what the President actually feels, and is doing… Id suggest you go back through that site and consider closely how they refer to wealth distribution, worker collectives, state-directed economy, market socialism, democratic socialism, social democracy, etc…

That being said I do have to give some wiggle room due to the fact that socialism, if we are to assume the given authorative definition of the same says, "There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism"

I agree with your assessment there. There are many definitions which include wealth distribution, and the robin hood approach…

From your same source;
Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Socialists generally argue that capitalism concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society that controls the means of production and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This creates a stratified society based on unequal social relations that fails to provide equal opportunities for every individual to maximise their potential,[11] and does not utilise available technology and resources to their maximum potential in the interests of the public,[12] and focuses on satisfying market-induced wants as opposed to human needs.[citation needed] Socialists argue that socialism would allow for wealth to be distributed based on how much one contributes to society, as opposed to how much capital one holds.

Socialists hold that capitalism is an illegitimate economic system, since it largely serves the interests of the owners of capital and involves the exploitation of other economic classes. As such, they wish to replace it completely or at least make substantial modifications to it, in order to create a more just society that would guarantee a certain basic standard of living.[13][14] A primary goal of socialism is social equality and a distribution of wealth based on one's contribution to society, and an economic arrangement that would serve the interests of society as a whole.”


And yet, you follow with…
I can understand and will not give argue to the opinion that Obama does take a Robin Hood kind of approach of taking from the rich and giving to the poor and is more representative of society needs over capitalistic corporate interests. Giving the "wiggle room" in the definition I can see how a thinking person might relate that to be "socialist" in nature. But by strict definition, Obama is not technically a socialist. I didn't write the definition. I'm just being the umpire here and reluctantly, I have to call him safe on this play.
So you’re willing to accept that there are ways this president is a socialist, but then you dismiss the fact that he is? You just gave several reasons that describe that he is, without even considering the full aspect of how or why he is. It seems you know he is a socialist, but aren’t willing to go that extra step to call a duck a duck.

Are you afraid that once you do you’ll be comparing him with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, and the ramifications of that happening? Are you afraid that once you label Obama correctly as a socialist, then he instantly becomes no longer a viable candidate in the election?

Are you unwilling to accept that the White House has been infiltrated by someone who espouses the same ideas as some of our long pursued and combated against enemies? All this coming at a time, when one of those former enemies, has been re-electing an old guard of people who were well entrenched in the Soviet leadership. One we had defeated by exploiting ideological differences that made our economy flourish in comparison with theirs. One where their people wanted a complete revolt to share the same economic freedoms that we had. Now, instead of championing our ideals, our president is instituting theirs. He also dropped missile shields that were set up to ensure the safety of their neighbors (our allies) against their undue influence. What was gained in return for the dropping of the missile shields? Nothing! He just did it to please them. Odd don’t you think?


Therefore, the claim that Obama is a socialist, gets a "False" rating.

Have a nice day everybody.

Oh, and you as well… and I agree, you have falsely rated the claim... :D

I’m all for civil discourse. I’m not trying to talk down at anyone on this, but I’ve seen several immediate dismissals as being unfounded without truly addressing the concept. You took us to the door, you stepped in it… you even are willing to accept it, but still deny it.

He is in fact a socialist, by most definitions of the word. His views on most positions represent it. His policies as a Senator and President reflect it.

Also, realize what we see as President is just a portion of his political beliefs, that he doesn’t think Americans will trash him about, that he thinks he stands a shot at passing. We aren’t seeing the other outlandish stuff he thinks, just yet…

That’s where the discussion of his political background, his education, his influences, things he has professed to support on a number of occasions, his connections, his inner circle in the administration, etc. comes in really handy… and none of the liberal defenders of the President has been willing to open that door to consideration yet. My guess is once you open that door and investigate the skeletons, that you know you’ll be able to identify the bones…
 
“Socialists generally argue that capitalism concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society that controls the means of production and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This creates a stratified society based on unequal social relations that fails to provide equal opportunities for every individual to maximise their potential,[11] and does not utilise available technology and resources to their maximum potential in the interests of the public,[12] and focuses on satisfying market-induced wants as opposed to human needs.[citation needed] Socialists argue that socialism would allow for wealth to be distributed based on how much one contributes to society, as opposed to how much capital one holds.

Socialists hold that capitalism is an illegitimate economic system, since it largely serves the interests of the owners of capital and involves the exploitation of other economic classes. As such, they wish to replace it completely or at least make substantial modifications to it, in order to create a more just society that would guarantee a certain basic standard of living.[13][14] A primary goal of socialism is social equality and a distribution of wealth based on one's contribution to society, and an economic arrangement that would serve the interests of society as a whole.”

Swans are white, and I am white, therefore I must be a swan. :lol:

Let's see, under Obama we have experienced 24 straight months of private jobs growith -- while public sector job growth has fallen dramatically. Corporations have turned in quarter after quarter of record profits. We've had a historic, three-year bull market that started to rise a few months after Obama was elected and hasn't stopped since. GM and Chrysler are quite profitable and the government contols neither corporation. Clearly all the hallmarks of socialism are in place.
 
Last edited:
Swans are white, and I am white, therefore I must be a swan. :lol:

Let's see, under Obama we have experienced 24 straight months of private jobs growith -- while public sector job growth has fallen dramatically. Corporations have turned in quarter after quarter of record profits. We've had a historic, three-year bull market that started to rise a few months after Obama was elected and hasn't stopped since. GM and Chrysler are quite profitable and the government contols neither corporation. Clearly all the hallmarks of socialism are in place.

Public sector growth HAD to fall, it was propped up by the simulus. Corporations had dramatic losses in 2007-2008, their profits had to go up, further after the layoffs and the resizing they did, their overhead decreased, the companies that were left were a good deal leaner. They grew because after 2007-2008, they had to have growth or go under.

The government owns 26% of GM and the Unions own 39% of it. How did the unions get it? Not through an IPO, I can tell you that much. Obama took control of the auto industry and turned it over to his political allies through dubious means. You do realize that GM realized almost 70% of that profit from its sale of Delphi and its financial arm. Its profit per unit is $1000 less than Ford. Its going to need another money boost to get its unfunded liabilities in order and drop its hourly average down. The sole saving grace about the Unions owning part of GM is they cannot act with impunity about labor contracts, they control part of the company and experience the financial pain of contracts that give away too much.

Adam, we have been over this ground before, the bottom fell out of the labor force. Unemployment has improved but Obama promised it would never go over 8% and it has yet to stay under it since the stimulus. The problem with toting job creation numbers is they are not net creation. We still have anemic job creation when factored against those remaining unemployed, newly unemployed, and those who have given up looking. By your methodology every President ever has had private sector job growth. All you have to do is have 1 job created.

I do give you props for the justified avatar though, its a good show :)
 
Unemployment has improved but Obama promised it would never go over 8% and it has yet to stay under it since the stimulus. The problem with toting job creation numbers is they are not net creation. We still have anemic job creation when factored against those remaining unemployed, newly unemployed, and those who have given up looking. By your methodology every President ever has had private sector job growth. All you have to do is have 1 job created.

There is the question of how high the unemployment rates might be if the government didn't continue to hire more employees. Of course these government hirings are also union jobs, loyal to the party, and will also increase the national debt. The next generation will be paying for the benefits these Obama hirings for many years to come.

Federal Workforce Continues to Grow Under Obama Budget
 
Public sector growth HAD to fall, it was propped up by the simulus. Corporations had dramatic losses in 2007-2008, their profits had to go up, further after the layoffs and the resizing they did, their overhead decreased, the companies that were left were a good deal leaner. They grew because after 2007-2008, they had to have growth or go under.

The stimulus helped states retain workers -- prevent contraction -- and it's true that that's mostly over. Corporate profits certainly fell in '07 and '08, but they didn't have to go back up in '09-12. The could have suffered a prolonged recession or depression if the government hadn't made the right moves. But the point is -- Obama ... not a socialist. His policies have been very good for business.

The government owns 26% of GM and the Unions own 39% of it. How did the unions get it? Not through an IPO, I can tell you that much. Obama took control of the auto industry and turned it over to his political allies through dubious means. You do realize that GM realized almost 70% of that profit from its sale of Delphi and its financial arm. Its profit per unit is $1000 less than Ford. Its going to need another money boost to get its unfunded liabilities in order and drop its hourly average down. The sole saving grace about the Unions owning part of GM is they cannot act with impunity about labor contracts, they control part of the company and experience the financial pain of contracts that give away too much.

The company could not have been restructured without dealing with the UAW. The union got a bunch of stock, but in exchange they also got hundreds of billions of dollars worth of GM's liability for its pension and health plans. Delphi was sold long before the bailouts, when GM was trying to restructure on its own. Delphi's big plan to restructure itself was to outsource as many jobs as possible to China. GMAC was a MASSIVE liability. Claiming that GM profitted from it is a joke. If they hadn't spun off GMAC during the bankruptcy it would have been impossible to save GM.

Adam, we have been over this ground before, the bottom fell out of the labor force. Unemployment has improved but Obama promised it would never go over 8% and it has yet to stay under it since the stimulus. The problem with toting job creation numbers is they are not net creation. We still have anemic job creation when factored against those remaining unemployed, newly unemployed, and those who have given up looking. By your methodology every President ever has had private sector job growth. All you have to do is have 1 job created.

Yes, we have gone over it, but apparently to no effect as you keep misstating what Obama promised. He never "promised" that unemployment would not go above 8%. They thought they could accomplish that, but they didn't realize the extent of the recession, which was still deepening at the time. And of course you have to view the job creation numbers in the context of a once-in-three-generations recession that vanished $14.5 trillion dollars in U.S. capital almost over night.

I do give you props for the justified avatar though, its a good show :)

Raylan rocks. ;)
 
Last edited:
You know the old saying: "it takes one to tango!" Or did I get that wrong?

You can do the tango by yourself but it won't get you very far.
You can also negoiate by yourself that won't get you very far either.:peace
 
They obviously weren't competitive, just as the automakers in Detroit stopped being competitive.

Unions understand that companies have to remain competitive but union bosses don't care about the working man. If they did they would want the companies to succeed in order that people continued to purchase their product and their members would have work.

Unions may have done good at one time but no more. They are big business, big corrupt business, and working people are better off without them,.

Chrysler used "foreign cheap labor" to compete,
Who owns the majority of stocks in Chrysler today?

GMC used "cheap foreign labor" to compete.
How much money did they need from bailouts from the government to keep from losing their company in 2008?

Do these two companies have anything in common?:peace
 
Bilcore plastics, couldnt even find a news story about it.
Wagner is still in business in Chino, CA. I actually saw the plant. They changed their supplier?
Mark 1 injection molding? That describes a lot of products and companies.
Teleflex outsourced to China.

Im giving you one for four unless you provide some better info.

You don't have to give me anything it's true
What used to be Bilcor is now a parking lot
What used to be Mark 1 is now a fast food
Telefex a retail store going out of business
Wagner they may be a Wagner in Chino California today but in 1980 Wagners contracts went to Mexico.

You have ask for my info I have tried to provide it, all you have to do is provide your info to me.

How many nonunion factory shops were outsourced between 2000 and 2008?
Perhaps your answer is none or I don't know or there is no way to obtain that info?
It will be what I expect but at least it will be more than you have given.:peace
 
Unfortunately, I don't live in AZ and my skin is dark so I wouldn't qualify to run for public office there.

Have you informed Congressman Raul Grijalva that he's not qualified to hold public office for Arizona due to his skin color?
 
Last edited:
During the 1980 presidential election, the Republican National Chairman at the time, Bill Brock, urged the party to embrace a “big tent” strategy. That year, Ronald Reagan won in a landslide over President Jimmy Carter and Republicans gained control of the Senate — the first time Republicans controlled one of the Houses of Congress since 1954.

http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2009/11/lee-atwater-republicans-have-big-tent.html
What makes a "True Conservative"

What distinguishes the "True Conservatives" of today, as compared to the "True Conservatives" of the Reagan period, is the size of the tent!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom