Auto Supplier Aid Request Rejected By Obama Admin

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
What is it that bothers you so much about Winnar...that he's a troll or that he's a conservative troll?

I find it repulsive that he isn't honest with himself about his positions and he is willing to change his position just to be against his "enemies"

We have many here that have 'honesty' issues...where 'principles' are subservient to extremely partisan agendas. For example, you can bet your last dollar that many of those currently defending Obama's bailout for GM/Chrysler and also defend his no bailout postion for the auto parts suppliers...would just as easily rationalized and defended Obama for bailing out the auto parts suppliers IF he had made that choice. Ugly...but that's just the way it is.

Many here are doing the very thing you found so 'repulsive' about Winnar...yet, I found it interesting that you specifically singled him out...which is why I asked you the question.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity


On topic: So since when were the UAW and the automakers in bed with each other? If anything the automakers want the UAW to be gone.

Hehe, I don't think you've paying attention lately, the UAW are the automakers now. IIRC, in both Chrysler and GM the UAW owns the majority of the company.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: retrospooty
-snip-

I think the concern here is the lack of a consistent approach more than anything else....surely you can understand this concern without going into defensive mode. What do you think? Why should we bail out the auto manufacturers and not the parts suppliers? It ALMOST seems like you're really here for is to praise Obama regardless of what he does.

Yeah, the lack of consistancy, and some other odd moves in this whole auto bailout senario is what troubles many of us.

Yes, in dicussing the bailout the whole 'OMGz! the cascading effect on the economy will be horrible' thing was raised often. As was the whole fear that the auto copmpanies couldn't be allowed in bankruptcy because no one would buy a car from a bankrupt automaker.

Well, after blowing billions of tax dollars the automakers are in bankruptcy.

And might be, contrary to earlier concerns that the parts suppliers are allowed to fail (and yes that might negative repercussions to the automakers and the economy in general).

I never bought into the whole "the economy will total fail if the automakers go down line of BS'. Strikes me as classic fearmongering.

No therre's a reversal and the parts makers are geting blown off?

I've seen reports where strong, long etsablished dealers with very high ratings (service and sales) were forced out. Why? That makes no sense.

I'm not sure why any dealer was forced out, they cost the automaker nothing. Why not let them remain and have the market sort out the strong from the weak?

With all the money and hassle over this auto bailout all I've seen accomplished is to strip ownership and give the automakers to the AUW. I don't our government should be doing that, it should've been left up the proper route to begin with - the bankruptcy courts.

Fern

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

God could you be any bigger troll.

Mods i thought people when banned were not allowed to make/use other accounts? Why is he still here?

If you can demonstrate what his other account is, we will take action. Otherwise this constitutes as a callout and will be dealt with accordingly.

Your choice - put up or edit out your accusation.


Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

Well, lets see. I went to page 1 at P&N and sorted by originator and scrolled to P. There are 4 threads currently from this guy - all 4 obvious trolling efforts to bash the left and pardon the right.

Clearly Winnar111's MO

wow not to blow your bubble but that aint proof. I see Common said proof. That isn't hard to understand is it. Not to mention this is hardly a partisan attack. Or a lift up of the R's either.

I never said I have "proof", nor was CC's comment pointed at me - I was just offering my 2 cents to his comment to Marlin. Proof would be totally impossible for me to offer, being that I am just another internet user - not a mod, or admin at the site.

But in addition to the MO, the guys writing style and attitude are the same as winnar111 as well. I personally think its very likely that they are the same person. I could be wrong, but its all very VERY similar.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: retrospooty
...

I never said I have "proof", nor was CC's comment pointed at me - I was just offering my 2 cents to his comment to Marlin. Proof would be totally impossible for me to offer, being that I am just another Internet user - not a mod, or admin at the site.

But in addition to the MO, the guys writing style and attitude are the same as winnar111 as well. I personally think its very likely that they are the same person. I could be wrong, but its all very VERY similar.

Please read my post 4 hours earlier and act accordingly.

I wasted time cleaning up this tread earlier today. I will not do it a second time without prejudice!!:disgust:

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: retrospooty
I could be wrong

No, you ARE wrong.



Edit:
Typical liberal tactic - try and shut up anyone who doesn't agree with you - by any means necessary.

 

[JKing106]

Good. Maybe GM will start making this car again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

Then the parts companies can start making the appropriate parts for it.

Then the average commuter would have a fraction of the use for gasoline they currently have, and we can supply our gasoline and diesel needs with our domestic oil wells.

Then we can get the hell out of the Middle East, and stop killing people over their oil.

Problem solved.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Wa wa wa Obama is giving them money....

Wa wa wa Obama is not giving them money...

Maybe it depends.. Obama gives car makers money because they voted for him (car unions, uaw)? Are suppliers really unionized. I don't think so.. No, money for them... just speculation, though.

Most suppliers are just as beholden to the UAW as GM/Ford/Chrysler are.

 

[Vic]

Next up: crazed wingnuts demand Obama provide a bailout to the guy who ran the lunch truck at a GM plant.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Vic
Next up: crazed wingnuts demand Obama provide a bailout to the guy who ran the lunch truck at a GM plant.

You are missing the point. A major portion of the justification for buying car companies was that if it didn't that it would cause a chair reaction in the supplier networks and the USA would see massive layoffs.

We are seeing massive layoffs as it is and Obama isn't supporting the parts manufacturers that were suppose to be saved by buying GM. So, why the hell did we buy GM?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Vic
Next up: crazed wingnuts demand Obama provide a bailout to the guy who ran the lunch truck at a GM plant.

You are missing the point. A major portion of the justification for buying car companies was that if it didn't that it would cause a chair reaction in the supplier networks and the USA would see massive layoffs.

We are seeing massive layoffs as it is and Obama isn't supporting the parts manufacturers that were suppose to be saved by buying GM. So, why the hell did we buy GM?

I'm not missing any point at all. You can't be taken seriously. You're attacking your political opponents for NOT doing things that you would be (or should be) ideologically opposed to if they actually DID do them.
In the real world, that one outside of angry talking heads and columnists, that is known as hypocrisy.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Vic
Next up: crazed wingnuts demand Obama provide a bailout to the guy who ran the lunch truck at a GM plant.

You are missing the point. A major portion of the justification for buying car companies was that if it didn't that it would cause a chair reaction in the supplier networks and the USA would see massive layoffs.

We are seeing massive layoffs as it is and Obama isn't supporting the parts manufacturers that were suppose to be saved by buying GM. So, why the hell did we buy GM?

I'm not missing any point at all. You can't be taken seriously. You're attacking your political opponents for NOT doing things that you would be (or should be) ideologically opposed to if they actually DID do them.
In the real world, that one outside of angry talking heads and columnists, that is known as hypocrisy.

So then what was the entire point of bailing out GM aside from pandering to the unions?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Patranus
So then what was the entire point of bailing out GM aside from pandering to the unions?

Ignoring how you overlook that GM's management got 'pandered' to as well, one big picture answer is that the US requires a domestically-owned and located infrastructure for vehicle and machinery production for its own national defense. Another answer is simply that of democracy. Too many voters stood to lose if GM collapsed, and no political party could afford to ignore them. Ah, but I'm sure you've conveniently forgotten all about how McCain's campaign promises were even grander than Obama's.