Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: GM's Barra apologizes to families

  1. #11
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,361

    Re: GM's Barra apologizes to families

    Quote Originally Posted by Mason66 View Post
    I don't understand why anybody would have to testify in front of Congress. This seems to be happening more and more. Whatever happened to law suits and fixing the problems.

    Also if there was going to be hearings, why didn't they subpoena the guy that was running GM and making decisions at the time. Why call somebody that has only been in the position for 3 months when this happened over 10 years ago?
    It's theater. You know that. These hearings are for the members of congress.

  2. #12
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,249

    Re: GM's Barra apologizes to families

    Quote Originally Posted by fmw View Post
    It's theater. You know that. These hearings are for the members of congress.
    Post of the day.

    It's a great opportunity to pontificate and ensure votes in November.

  3. #13
    Paying To Play
    AJiveMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    wisconSIN
    Last Seen
    05-15-15 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,775

    Re: GM's Barra apologizes to families

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Not sure if this post is funny (sarcastic) or not, but blaming unions for engineers' and executives' coverups isn't fair. As far as I know, management figures at the big three are non union.

    What's sad is that they covered this up since they knew about it in 2001. Bad, really bad.

  4. #14
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:23 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,438

    Re: GM's Barra apologizes to families

    She seemed reasonably sincere, but the more I listened the more I became frustrated. Her general theme seemed to be, "I don't know why/how/what..., but we'll find out and get back to you". Ok, maybe she wasn't the CEO when this stuff started, but she did have notice that she would be testifying before Congress, so I don't think it unreasonable that she had time to know some of the background so that she could have said something relevant. To me, if she knew nothing on a Sgt Schultz level, then WTH is she doing as CEO of a major corporation?
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  5. #15
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,390

    Re: GM's Barra apologizes to families

    So the government screwed up in its regulation of GM and the same government was a significant shareholder in the same company. Clearly the definition of conflict of interest I learned has changed somehow.
    People in Dubai don't like the Flintstones but people in Abu Dhabi do

  6. #16
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: GM's Barra apologizes to families

    Quote Originally Posted by AJiveMan View Post
    Not sure if this post is funny (sarcastic) or not, but blaming unions for engineers' and executives' coverups isn't fair. As far as I know, management figures at the big three are non union.

    What's sad is that they covered this up since they knew about it in 2001. Bad, really bad.
    Sarcasm
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  7. #17
    Paying To Play
    AJiveMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    wisconSIN
    Last Seen
    05-15-15 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,775

    Re: GM's Barra apologizes to families

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    So the government screwed up in its regulation of GM and the same government was a significant shareholder in the same company. Clearly the definition of conflict of interest I learned has changed somehow.
    Please. This GM coverup goes back to 2001 before Government Motors lent a dime. Your conflict of interest analogy and timing is way off.

  8. #18
    Guru
    1750Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southcental Texas
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,569

    Re: GM's Barra apologizes to families

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    OMG!!!!

    'Hand the CEO position over to a woman. We're in deep ****."
    EXACTLY...what I saw.


  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: GM's Barra apologizes to families

    Politics aside I really can't believe how GM put business ahead of lives for so long. I am sorry we bailed them out.

  10. #20
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,390

    Re: GM's Barra apologizes to families

    Quote Originally Posted by AJiveMan View Post
    Please. This GM coverup goes back to 2001 before Government Motors lent a dime. Your conflict of interest analogy and timing is way off.
    Please yourself. There were reviews of the situation in both 2007 and 2010--anything before that doesn't mitigate what happened then. It is a clear conflict of interest to have the umpire with a vested interest in the game.

    Or do you believe that the entire situation was known in 2001 and nothing knew was added to the base of knowledge about the situation after that?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •