Jump to content

Obama Committed to Auto Industry

mlhm5
 Share

Recommended Posts

snooter

snooter

Posted
Posted (edited)

LMAO..yes the messiah cares...can you imagine what will happen when GM comes to the guillitine and pelosi saves them...kalifornia EPA, CAFE mandates made country wide....the workers in detroit north are going to look like deer in headlights when they finally hear what they are no longer expected to do but forced to do....it really is the end of em....oh well...they wanted it..they got it...me...dont care what happens to em

Edited by snooter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
timmm55

timmm55

Posted
Posted
LMAO..yes the messiah cares...can you imagine what will happen when GM comes to the guillitine and pelosi saves them...kalifornia EPA, CAFE mandates made country wide....the workers in detroit north are going to look like deer in headlights when they finally hear what they are no longer expected to do but forced to do....it really is the end of em....oh well...they wanted it..they got it...me...dont care what happens to em

 

California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California's rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation's automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that would potentially benefit the entire country.

 

36 MPGs is not that stringent in face of last years gas price run up. They may look like the proverbial deer in headlights (Bambi better get a move on!)....but it sure beats the dead deer carcus on the roof they are doomed to be now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ovaltine

Ovaltine

Posted
Posted (edited)

I suspect that the Dems and his our soon-to-be King finally did the math and realized that if the auto industry goes down, so then does a large portion of the funding (aka: tax $$$) for such mind blowing recent revelations as this:

 

http://conservablogs.com/bluecollarmuse/20...security-force/

 

What in the World is Obama’s “Civilian National Security Force”?

 

From Obama's July 2nd speech in Colorado:

“We
cannot
continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a
civilian national security force
that’s
just as powerful, just as strong, just as
well-funded
.
”

 

VIDEO:

Above quote:

Full speech:

( Quote is at the 16:00 mark )

 

 

All I have to say to that is..... WTF is he talking about with this little gem?!?!?

 

:headscratch:

 

 

A little more follow-up on this topic:

 

WND states:

 

"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret
national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together
?

 

"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?"

 

AND....

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=80539

 

The official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website's wording was softened.

 

 

FINALLY...

 

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

-George Santayana

 

11hitler_youth_02.jpg

 

 

-Ovaltine

Edited by Ovaltine
Link to comment
Share on other sites
twintornados

twintornados

Posted
Posted
LMAO..yes the messiah cares...can you imagine what will happen when GM comes to the guillitine and pelosi saves them...kalifornia EPA, CAFE mandates made country wide....the workers in detroit north are going to look like deer in headlights when they finally hear what they are no longer expected to do but forced to do....it really is the end of em....oh well...they wanted it..they got it...me...dont care what happens to em

Hurry up snooter....the "saved by zero" Toyota campaign needs a spokesperson.....I nominate you......you can now star in the Toyota commercials as "Captain Zero"

:hysterical:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fxcomet

fxcomet

Posted
Posted
Did you really compare Obama to a Nazi? You guys can't have it both ways. He can't be both Stalin and Hitler.

 

Get over it. You lost.

 

Why not? He's doing his darndest to be JFK, MLK, Carter, and Hoover all rolled into one. The last one to combine parts like that was Frankenstein and we all know how that turned out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
timmm55

timmm55

Posted
Posted
Why not? He's doing his darndest to be JFK, MLK, Carter, and Hoover all rolled into one. The last one to combine parts like that was Frankenstein and we all know how that turned out.

 

Hoover? LOL you'd better study your history a little better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moosetang

Moosetang

Posted
Posted (edited)

Ovaltine, he's talking about increasing the size of the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, and create similar organizations for other domestic and foreign issues. He's not coming to get you, though the guys in the white lab coats may be.

 

Also, the "requirement" as President-Elect Obama said in several public speeches was to service in exchange for additional aid. That the wording on the website was poorly done (and it's now corrected, btw) does not make him a friggin Nazi you ignorant tool. Don't believe everything a rich fat guy with a god complex tells you.

Edited by Moosetang
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ovaltine

Ovaltine

Posted
Posted (edited)
Ovaltine, he's talking about increasing the size of the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, and create similar organizations for other domestic and foreign issues. He's not coming to get you, though the guys in the white lab coats may be.

 

Also, the "requirement" as President-Elect Obama said in several public speeches was to service in exchange for additional aid. That the wording on the website was poorly done (and it's now corrected, btw) does not make him a friggin Nazi you ignorant tool. Don't believe everything a rich fat guy with a god complex tells you.

 

My last word on the subject, I give you all my solemn promise.....

 

 

Geesus, MT! YOU are the friggin' tool here if you can't see the eyebrow-raising possibilities of what Obama's telegraphing to us in that speech.

 

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, LISTEN TO THE VIDEO AND RE-READ THESE EXACT PHRASES FROM THE SPEECH!

 

"...to achieve the national security objectives"

"...we've got to have a civilian national security force"

"....we cannot continue to rely on our military"

"....just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. " (as the military)

 

 

As far as yours and other media outlets' "explanation" (read: spin) of his comments, I've got a nephew who just got out of the Peace Corps down in Peru, and his mission there had NOTHING to do U.S. national security, or national security objectives. Other than maybe making a few pro-American friends for us, the Peace Corps wouldn't appear to be too aptlly suited to "achieving national security objectives".

 

And here's what the Americorps' main intent is:

 

AmeriCorps members address critical needs in communities all across America. As an AmeriCorps member, you can:

 

* Tutor and mentor disadvantaged youth

* Fight illiteracy

* Improve health services

* Build affordable housing

* Teach computer skills

* Clean parks and streams

* Manage or operate after-school programs

* Help communities respond to disasters

* Build organizational capacity

 

Again.... I DON'T see too many "national security interests" in THAT list!

 

If the words "security" and "military" had been left out of his speech, I'd be having a lot less of a problem with what I heard and read. But alas, the words ARE there, and I do have a problem with them.

 

To me, the local police, FBI, and National Guard.... all currently employed and funded professionals..... should be all we need to cover the military's back for any open "national security objectives". No?

 

Why then would ANOTHER organization funded as well as the military be required for "national security objectives"?

 

Just like I tried to inform readers on here nearly 5 years ago that Korean cars weren't the "shitboxes" that everyone was chuckling over, I'm just making another well timed point that everyone needs take a few steps away from the Obama Kool-Aid Stand and keep a vigilant eye on what he's saying (or already said), and what he does. My inclusion of the "Hitler Youth" photo was to remind us all of what CAN possibly happen when the "cult of personality" of a well spoken persuasive leader snake charms a society to their ever willing demise. Facism comes in many flavors, MT. Not just the "National Socialism" kind. Just check out a recent event via YouTube here: http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/man_arres..._palin_t_shirt/ . Based on the primary event captured in the video of this event, at about the 1:20 mark, you can almost hear the faint echos of "Sieg Heil!" wafting back from the crevasse of time.

 

The bottom line is, our founding fathers would expect nothing less of us than to be wary of ANYONE, Democrat OR Republican spouting such nonsense as Obama does above. Try grabbing a copy of the HBO "John Adams" mini-series if you need a little refreshing about how this country came to be. It's an excellent watch.

 

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

-James Madison

 

So apologies to everyone. However, I still stand by the relevance of my post, due to fact that I believe that the current (and incoming) leadership HAS done the math and are realizing that their aggressive agenda(s) can't be realized without a functioning tax base.

 

-Ovaltine

Edited by Ovaltine
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fxcomet

fxcomet

Posted
Posted
Hoover? LOL you'd better study your history a little better.

 

I know my history quite well, thank you. Hoover presided over a depression that he blamed on the preceeding administration. Sound familiar? I noticed you found little argument with the Carter comparison nor the Frankenstein analogy. Point made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
snooter

snooter

Posted
Posted

So apologies to everyone. However, I still stand by the relevance of my post, due to fact that I believe that the current (and incoming) leadership HAS done the math and are realizing that their aggressive agenda(s) can't be realized without a functioning tax base.

 

exactly....you will never get the rich anyhow and without the rich or those willing to risk capital investment whats left?..nothing

Link to comment
Share on other sites
2005GTP

2005GTP

Posted
Posted (edited)

Obama is committed to the big 3 long enough to get their unions to vote for him. Someone who is against carbon emissions (tailpipe exhaust) and drilling for more oil cannot possibly be supporter of car companies. How naive are UAW workers anyway?

Edited by 2005GTP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
probeGT

probeGT

Posted
Posted
Not trying to take sides in this argument but I am curioius about something: how many years did you complain about Bush being in office? It seems rather disingenous to now tell those on the other side to "get over it".

 

Well, for one thing most of the complaining about Bush came AFTER he was in office and we saw what awesome skills he had. The Bush complaints are based on DEMONSTRATED ineffectiveness. Obama's not even in office yet and these people are telling us what he's going to do, what his motives are and that he's a communist/socialist/terrorist/king/messiah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TomServo92

TomServo92

Posted
Posted
Well, for one thing most of the complaining about Bush came AFTER he was in office and we saw what awesome skills he had. The Bush complaints are based on DEMONSTRATED ineffectiveness. Obama's not even in office yet and these people are telling us what he's going to do, what his motives are and that he's a communist/socialist/terrorist/king/messiah.

 

There was PLENTY of complaining about Bush prior to actually taking office. I don't see any difference in the situations. Both sides have whined about the others victory. IMO, both sides need to "get over it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
probeGT

probeGT

Posted
Posted
Obama is committed to the big 3 long enough to get their unions to vote for him. Someone who is against carbon emissions (tailpipe exhaust) and drilling for more oil cannot possibly be supporter of car companies. How naive are UAW workers anyway?

 

50 years from now, do you think ANYBODY's going to be mass-producing internal combustion engine-based automobiles? How much oil do we want to drill for? We can't do this forever, and the quicker we all realize it the better.

 

Paul Krugman, the NYT columnist who just won a Nobel Prize (I know, NYT=Communist), likens the "drill baby drill" calls to people in the late 1980s saying "no no no computers, build more TYPEWRITERS!"

 

Saying you don't/can't support car companies just because you want them to do things differently is like saying you don't/can't support America because you want it to be different.

 

Oooops. . . you guys probably DO say that. My bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ovaltine

Ovaltine

Posted
Posted (edited)
50 years from now, do you think ANYBODY's going to be mass-producing internal combustion engine-based automobiles? How much oil do we want to drill for? We can't do this forever, and the quicker we all realize it the better.

 

Paul Krugman, the NYT columnist who just won a Nobel Prize (I know, NYT=Communist), likens the "drill baby drill" calls to people in the late 1980s saying "no no no computers, build more TYPEWRITERS!"

 

The trouble with Krugman's analogy is that by the late 80's computers were ALREADY INVENTED and sitting next to the shelf of typewriters at the office supply / technology store. The consumer's choice was actually pretty easy at that point. Only Luddites gravitated to typewriters at that stage of the product cycle.

 

If we fast forward to reality, a viable replacement for the internal combustion engine ISN'T READY YET, and is no where to be seen for the average consumer to purchase. The Volt? A nice first try, but a 40 mile range? Get real. That is NOT a replacement for the internal combustion engine. Thanks for playing.

 

Thus the near future of petroleum is still VERY viable, and in the meantime BILLIONS UPON BILIONS of U.S. dollars are being vacuumed out of American coffers and sent to regimes that ARE NOT necessarily friendly to us.

 

To paraphrase the posters on here who always defend the sale of a Mexican-built Fusion as " .... at least the dollars still come back to Dearborn", why wouldn't it behoove the U.S. to drill and consume it's OWN oil for the next 20 or so years? During that time Doc and Marty (or whoever) can invent the equivalent of the "Mr. Fusion" and the flux capacitor and we'll have kept mega-dollars on our shores and in our financial system.

 

mr-fusion.jpg

 

dangerflux_th.png

 

fluxcapacitor.jpg

 

 

-Ovaltine

Edited by Ovaltine
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...