en-us http://www.intensedebate.com/users/263320 Comments by trent1280 http://tv.breitbart.com/juan-williams-palin-cant-stand-on-same-intellectual-stage-as-obama/#IDComment118260221 She may be a dunce, but at least's Sarah is OUR dunce! Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:35:59 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/juan-williams-palin-cant-stand-on-same-intellectual-stage-as-obama/#IDComment118260221 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94573119 Well, Jack, as long as you have stopped attacking the US Military, I'm satisfied. You may continue laughing at anything else you please. But the fact remains that you made a grotesque generalization, and have now had to retreat from it. The government does some things very well (hello US Marines -- Semper Fi!) and other things not so well (formerly, the Post Office). It really helps rational debate when you play fair. And for people on the far-right like yourself to accuse Pres Obama of being a socialist is akin to people on the far-left accusing Pres Bush of being a fascist and ordering the collapse of the Twin Towers. It just doesn't wash. In fact, it's nuts. But you already knew that. Say hi to Orly! You'll find her begging quarters on her website. Sat, 21 Aug 2010 18:17:06 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94573119 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94571985 To reiterate, the government's recent bailout of GM is near-identical to that in 1979 of Chrysler. In both cases they traded stock for cash. In 1979 Chrysler was bailed out by the feds. They loaned $1.5 billion, charged almost 10% interest, and obtained 14.4 million shares in warrants. The government pressed for new leadership, and Chrysler brought in Lee Iacocca. He did a brilliant job. Chrysler repaid the loans and bought out the shares SEVEN YEARS early. Our third largest auto manufacturer was saved. Clearly they obtained -- then as now -- the stocks as collateral. The loans were re-paid, and the stock was re-acquired. Government quit the Chrysler business, as they are soon to quit the GM business. That's how it should be for a Banker of Last Resort. BTW, they forced the resignation of the former Chrysler head, and brought in Lee Iacocca. That one worked out quite well, most would agree. They also forced the resignation of Rick Wagoner, the former GM head, and brought in Ed Whitacre. The jury's still out on that one. For those of us who believe in MADE IN AMERICA, this is a pretty good deal. Anything else capitulates to the Chinese. Sat, 21 Aug 2010 18:06:56 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94571985 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94488294 For which you may thank NAFTA! It was supported by Republicans, against the majority of Democrats, and Ross Perot. Sat, 21 Aug 2010 03:41:59 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94488294 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94488107 Hey Greg: If you prefer that GM and Chrysler fail, you are serving the interests of the Chinese. Not very patriotic of you. Most of us prefer MADE IN AMERICA. Sat, 21 Aug 2010 03:40:09 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94488107 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94486402 You have to laugh because you are incapable of reply. According to you, "ANYTHING the government touches..." Well, that is patently false. We have the greatest military machine in the world. It is wholly government owned and operated. It works quite well. ANYTHING?? Don't be ridiculous. You made an absurd generalization, one which even you cannot support when challenged. Such is always the case with fanatics. The more sensible argument is surely this: "Government is not well-equipped to operate..." and then name those instances which in your view are inappropriate. Your generalizations cause even you to laugh, and this is quite understandable. You may even argue that the government should have let GM fail. Fair enough -- although catastrophic for our manufacturing sector. You would be serving Chinese interests, and not American, but that may be your view. I prefer 'Made In America' myself. You will admit that the Chrysler bailout of 1979 saw the government sell off its 14 million shares, and receive the return of its loan, SEVEN YEARS earlier than planned. GM is now intent on doing much the same, and has so announced. It is clear that the federal government wants out of the car business, and GM wants to resume ownership of its car business. What really happened here is that the government became Banker of Last Resort. This began under Mr Bush, and will conclude under Mr Obama -- evidently ahead of schedule. Soon enough, GM will be owned by individual shareholders again, as it should. GM has not been 'nationalized'. It traded stock for a loan. It is now buying back that stock, and repaying that loan. I realize you prefer hyperbole, Jack, but it's really as simple as that. Chrysler, 1979. GM, 2010. The problem is not 'nationalization', which never occurred. The problem is mismanagement, which continues to recur. Blame Washington if you like, but that would make as much sense as blaming Atlantis. Sat, 21 Aug 2010 03:24:12 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94486402 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94482327 In further regard to your spelling, you originally wrote, "Don't belive me?" I expect you meant "Don't believe me?" Not that one would call you stupid, or anything quite so flattering. Sat, 21 Aug 2010 02:38:55 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94482327 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94482095 You really have to learn to read more closely, Scaggy. Why, immediately above your little squib of a retort was this... ready? Here goes. ======= **You are absolutely correct in regard to Mr Wagoner.** I took Mr Scagsdale here to mean the present and now-departing CEO, Mr Ed Whitacre. It would appear Mr Whitacre's departure was entirely of his own accord. Mr Wagoner was bounced for cause, at least in the view of those who saw GM continuing to run downhill. You will have seen that the history of GM's Volt long-precedes Mr Obama taking office, as does the original bailout of Chrysler in 1979. Thanks for the clarification. ======= REPEAT: MR WAGONER WAS BOUNCED FOR CAUSE. This is no secret. Now, as to your own most recent posting, please learn how to spell. You wrote, "As for the rest of it, get of your Marxist ass and find it yourself." Correctly, you should have written "get off your" and so on. BTW, I am as much a 'Marxist' as you are a beauty queen. Sorry to disappoint. Sat, 21 Aug 2010 02:36:25 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94482095 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94465761 You wrote, "Because anything the government touches turns to sh*t... " Think rationally now. Does this also include our military? Our national highway system? Our federally financed medical research system -- the greatest in the world? Your mother's social security? Our weather satellites? Our tanks and missiles? Our stealth technologies? The cure for polio? These are all federal government projects, paid for by tax dollars and administered by Washington. The Smithsonian? The Lincoln Memorial? Yosemite Park? Grand Canyon Park? Do you really think our Navy, Army, Coast Guard, Marines, and Air Force are sh*t? Think rationally now. Fri, 20 Aug 2010 23:50:46 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94465761 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94460922 You may well be correct. I am still holding on to my shares in Studebaker-Packard. I sold my Tucker shares long ago. Fri, 20 Aug 2010 23:00:03 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94460922 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94437164 Well then, just what do you think the expression 'Obama dorkmobile' actually means? What is it intended to convey? What is the symbolic or allusory meaning of such a concoction? Clearly, it is intended to suggest that 'Government Motors', which Mr Obama allegedly controls, is building a car designed by Mr Obama himself, or named for him as some sort of honorific. It does not appear to be a compliment. It does appear to be a poodle-brained prediction of some baseless kind. Those are the two logical options. Anything else is merely a slur on dorks, and we can't have that. I tire of crazies on the right blaming everything on Mr Obama ("Government Motors") as much as I tired of the way crazies on the left attempted to blame Mr Bush for the "conspiracy" to bring down the Twin Towers. It is all so stupid, worthy of the occasional counterpoint of fact, but mostly deserving of mockery. 'Obama dorkmobile': ridiculous, childish, and risible. BTW, I don't imagine that you would be out to 'get me'. That would be irrational, pointless, and a waste of our mutual time. You don't matter to me, and I don't matter to you. The facts should matter to all of us. I'm sure you agree. Satchmoadmirer Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:26:38 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94437164 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94421885 Uhh... you surely don't mean 'semantics'. That wouldn't make sense. Please look for the word you intended. Meantime, read more closely what was said in the first place: "Why bother with Government Motors? They will soon be building Obama dorkmobiles like the Volt that are an engineering joke." My reply made fun of that bizarre and laughable assertion. Sorry that the mockery hit closer to your home than intended. In any case, I tired of waiting for YOU to correct the factual record. The development of the Volt LONG preceded Mr Obama's election. "Obama dorkmobiles" doesn't even make sense. By attempting to affix 'Obama' to 'dorkmobile', Aldebaran committed a classical error in logic, and a contemptible slur in rhetoric. Neither pass muster. Mr Obama has as much connection to the design of the Volt, or any other GM product, as you do to fair play. He can be criticized for a great many things. Bad car design is not one of them. But you already knew that. Mr Facts Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:47:54 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94421885 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94406065 Anyone more interested in history than hysterics might want to consider these facts. In 1990, GM introduced the predecessor to the Volt, this prototype called the Impact. Mr Obama was not our President at that time. In 1996-1999, they marketed its successor, the EV-1. Mr Obama was not our President at that time. GM discontinued this line, and actually crushed the remaining EV-1 vehicles, a subject of much controversy. Mr Obama was not our President at that time. In 2007, GM V-P Robert Lutz announced that GM was going to produce the latest iteration, the Chevy Volt. Mr Obama was not our President at that time. In 2010, they are rolling out the Volt. Hysterics may now return to their hysteria. Why you imagine that Mr Obama is busy designing electric batteries is beyond laughable. People interested in facts need only go to the GM website, and the files of the WSJ. Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:41:40 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94406065 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94383693 Yup. Some might argue that management hasn't learned a thing since 1979. Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:16:56 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94383693 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94383387 You are absolutely correct in regard to Mr Wagoner. I took Mr Scagsdale here to mean the present and now-departing CEO, Mr Ed Whitacre. It would appear Mr Whitacre's departure was entirely of his own accord. Mr Wagoner was bounced for cause, at least in the view of those who saw GM continuing to run downhill. You will have seen that the history of GM's Volt long-precedes Mr Obama taking office, as does the original bailout of Chrysler in 1979. Thanks for the clarification. Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:15:55 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94383387 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94338337 Anyone more interested in history than hysterics might want to consider these facts. In 1990, GM introduced the predecessor to the Volt, this prototype called the Impact. Mr Obama was not our President at that time. In 1996-1999, they marketed its successor, the EV-1. Mr Obama was not our President at that time. GM discontinued this line, and actually crushed the remaining EV-1 vehicles, a subject of much controversy. Mr Obama was not our President at that time. In 2007, GM V-P Robert Lutz announced that GM was going to produce the latest iteration, the Chevy Volt. Mr Obama was not our President at that time. In 2010, they are rolling out the Volt. Hysterics may now return to their hysteria. Why you imagine that Mr Obama is busy designing electric batteries is beyond laughable. People interested in facts need only go to the GM website, and the files of the WSJ. Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:45:12 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94338337 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94337284 Uhhh... exactly when and how did Pres Obama "fire" the old CEO? What evidence, or proof, or documentation do you have to support this claim? Can you produce it? Which old CEO introduced the Volt in the first place? Which Board of Directors approved development of the Volt in the first place? Sheesh. You hysterics really have to learn how to read -- starting with corporate history. When all of the corporate decisions of which you are complaining were made, our President was George W Bush. Are you going to attack him too? Get serious. Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:33:52 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94337284 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94336268 People are reacting as if this is new. Have they no memories? In 1979 Chrysler was bailed out by the feds. They loaned $1.5 billion, charged almost 10% interest, and obtained 14.4 million shares in warrants. The government pressed for new leadership, and Chrysler brought in Lee Iacocca. He did a brilliant job. Chrysler repaid the loans and bought out the shares SEVEN YEARS early. Our third largest auto manufacturer was saved. What is happening again today is, in fact old history. People ignorant of history are yelping hysterically about 'Marxism'. Silly children. The government made money on that deal, and Chrysler reverted to private hands, where it belongs. Today, GM seems to be recovering early, and Chrysler has been taken over by Fiat. Managing quite nicely on its own is Ford, which has been rewarded with increased market share. Perhaps if these companies were better managed in the first place? Made more cars that people wanted to buy? Made cars that were expected to remain roadworthy longer than eight years? Mismanagement in Detroit is enough to give capitalism a bad name. I urge the young yelpers on this board to read history, and look at what happened with Chrysler in 1979. It actually worked out quite well. Let's hope they -- and GM -- do as well this time. Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:23:05 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HMAP700&show_article=1#IDComment94336268 http://biggovernment.com/cdevore/2010/08/17/california-and-the-international-green-energy-racket/#IDComment93909772 A further reply to SpankyToo: our hubris kills us. Consider Detroit. While we were still building cold-blooded behemoths, the dinosaurs of energy waste, the Japanese were building little warm-blooded mammals. It took us thirty years, but eventually we realized that they were beating us at our own game. Sure enough, Toyota became the largest auto manufacturer in the world, and GM went on life support. Hubris cuts both ways, and Toyota has now lost its reputation for quality. GM has reported a quarterly profit for the first time in years, builds reliable cars, and has declared they will be buying back the federal shares that kept them afloat. Do we need more Detroit-like failures before we wake up to the fact that some of our competitors (notably BC Hydro, and Bonneville Power) follow a better game plan than ours? We have an advantage they will never enjoy: that of scale. Wiring our vast cities is much cheaper for us than for them. The land mass of British Columbia is greater than that of California, Oregon and Washington State COMBINED. They have transmission costs unknown here. Even so, they make more money on lower rates than we do. Let's learn from their success, and our failures. I appreciate your comments. Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:39:05 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/cdevore/2010/08/17/california-and-the-international-green-energy-racket/#IDComment93909772 http://biggovernment.com/cdevore/2010/08/17/california-and-the-international-green-energy-racket/#IDComment93906738 Hi SpankyToo: you are quite correct. Certain comparisons fail on their face. An argument could be made that the severity of their winters matches the severity of our summers, but I have never seen reliable data on that point. It may prove to be a draw. You make the vital point that, in our drive to deregulate, we drove off a cliff. We deregulated only half the ledger, and we all know the result. This fundamental blunder was compounded by price and supply manipulation, chiefly in the Southland and Texas, that led to further distortion of the market, and to grotesque price increases. But that is well-known economic and criminal history. I would make the central point that if we are to compete effectively with a well-managed public utility in Canada, we have to have a better business model in California. Otherwise, we lose both ways. Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:21:13 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/cdevore/2010/08/17/california-and-the-international-green-energy-racket/#IDComment93906738