Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 36 of 36

Thread: Congressional Hearings - A Question?

  1. #21
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,928
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2893478]Really?

    Thats odd, I've heard (here and elsewhere) that the entire problem with the Auto Industry today is their lack of focus on Green Technology, i.e. they're not giving the people of America the environmentally Friendly Cars they desperately wish to buy.

    Is that true, or not?[/QUOTE]

    The American auto companies failing has very little to do with them not going green. Not sure where you are hearing that it is the "entire problem" in their failure. Their problem is poor product quality and management.

    The criticism of the private jets a couple of weeks ago stemmed from the irony of the executives going to Congress to beg for financial help after they flew into Washington on their private jets. The argument is that they should be cutting back on luxuries in an attempt to save their companies instead of looking for handouts while continuing their wasteful habits. It had NOTHING to do with going green.

    [QUOTE]So my question stands, will our Congreepeople lead by example, and mandate that they and their staff use power in the lower percentile of Americans, stop flying private, and truly lead in this vital cause?

    I can only assume para, based on previous statements, that you would support such moves, right?[/QUOTE]

    I would support such moves, not solely because of "green" motives, but because it is excessively wasteful in a financial sense.

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=parafly;2893835]The American auto companies failing has very little to do with them not going green.[/quote]

    You should take that up with our friend Nuu. That was his claim.

    [QUOTE=parafly;2893835]It had NOTHING to do with going green.[/quote]

    Then why drive (and drive "green" cars at that)? Why not fly public airlines, as that is MUCH faster, and spends less of these executives (and their staffs) time in transporting themselves to DC and back.

    [QUOTE=parafly;2893835]I would support such moves, not solely because of "green" motives, but because it is excessively wasteful in a financial sense.[/QUOTE]

    Great! I'll be sure to watch you for future posts calling out our Govt. when they fail to live up to this responsabillity. Great to have you on the "Green Train"!:yes:

  3. #23
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,805
    I like how nobody asked the financial big wigs how they got to the hearings, no questions about their private jets. It's OK...those manufactureing a-holes suck anyway.

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2893477]you could still film both[/QUOTE]

    no breaks for makeup when you are live

  5. #25
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,928
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2893918]You should take that up with our friend Nuu. That was his claim.[/QUOTE]

    It is your claim that Global Warming is the core issue revolving around the transportation methods used by the Auto Executives in getting to the hearings in Washington. I haven't seen Nuu make this claim, and I personally doubt he would do so.

    [QUOTE]Then why drive (and drive "green" cars at that)? Why not fly public airlines, as that is MUCH faster, and spends less of these executives (and their staffs) time in transporting themselves to DC and back.[/QUOTE]

    How should I know what's going through their minds? All I can speak to is what the criticisms were when the executives began their hearings in Washington. I don't recall the core of the criticisms having anything to do with being green or not.

    [QUOTE]Great! I'll be sure to watch you for future posts calling out our Govt. when they fail to live up to this responsabillity. Great to have you on the "Green Train"!:yes:[/QUOTE]

    While I think it would be a noble cause, I'm also fully aware that there is almost no realistic chance of it happening under current conditions. People have the right to use their earnings as they see fit (as long as it is legal), and that includes the use of private jets.

    It's funny that you have taken such a strong position on this issue as it's exactly the type of behavior Obama was targeting with his ethics reform bill after becoming a US Senator. I seem to remember you downplaying such actions instead of praising them.

  6. #26
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,928
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2893918]Then why drive (and drive "green" cars at that)? Why not fly public airlines, as that is MUCH faster, and spends less of these executives (and their staffs) time in transporting themselves to DC and back.[/QUOTE]

    They are executives in the car manufacturing business, and a potential bailout could come with conditions concerning the purchase of future government vehicles.

    Once they were criticized for flying their private jets, their best move was to market their product to the best of their ability and provide some good PR for their industry. Flying public airlines doesn't do much for them, but driving their future/green cars shows confidence in their product and lays the groundwork for a potential relationship with the government.

    This thing has economic, political, and financial ties all over it. I just don't think that Global Warming and the environment are their primary concern right now.

  7. #27
    [QUOTE=parafly;2894041]I haven't seen.....How should I know.....I don't recall.....no realistic chance.....I seem to remember.[/QUOTE]

    You don't know or recall much do you, expect what you do recall is wrong. Excuse making like this is just sad.....sad, sad, sad.

    It's truly sad Para, I really was hoping to have you on the Green Train. But I guess saving our Planet just isn't for everyone.

  8. #28
    The plane saga was a ruse. It was asked to make the Senators seem like they were not going to hand over any money to a bunch of out of touch fat cats who mismanaged their businesses. But in reality, the Senators all along were going to dole out cash. It would be political suicide for them if they didn't. The unions who backed these guys would take them down the next election cycle. It's not about reasonable ways to spend tax dollars to stimulate the economy. It's about looking tough and covering your ass for these guys.
    Last edited by chicadeel; 12-05-2008 at 07:26 AM.

  9. #29
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,805
    [QUOTE=chicadeel;2894574]The plane saga was a ruse. It was asked to make the Senators seem like they were not going to hand over any money to a bunch of out of touch fat cats who mismanaged their businesses. But in reality, the Senators all along were going to dole out cash. It would be political suicide for them if they didn't. The unions who backed these guys would take them down the next election cycle. It's not about reasonable ways to spend tax dollars to stimulate the economy. It's about looking tough while cover your ass for these guys.[/QUOTE]

    Plus they look a little stupid after they just handed over 20 times the amount Detroit is asking to a bunch of stupid f*ck, empty suit, brainless dumb **** Wall Street morons with no questions asked. "Here you guy, finance guys...we know how much you love playing with you puds and other peoples money."

  10. #30
    Didn't a recent UN report say that the world is cooling?

  11. #31
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2894580]Didn't a recent UN report say that the world is cooling?[/QUOTE]

    So we have yet another Heretic among the ranks, eh?

  12. #32
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2894576]Plus they look a little stupid after they just handed over 20 times the amount Detroit is asking to a bunch of stupid f*ck, empty suit, brainless dumb **** Wall Street morons with no questions asked. "Here you guy, finance guys...we know how much you love playing with you puds and other peoples money."[/QUOTE]




    Your right.

    I must have missed the part where the Senators asked the finance guys to name the last luxury resort they stayed at and the cost they incurred. Also the part where the media made such a big deal out of it the the financial guys stayed at a motel 6 the day before they came to Washington to testify.

    I think it was more productive to *****slap the guys from Detroit because people in general can relate to car companies and how they operate. Everyone seemed so thrilled that the plane question was asked. It was a stupid question whose purpose was to get a sound bite that would make the public think these guys are getting tough. They're not.
    Last edited by chicadeel; 12-05-2008 at 08:29 AM.

  13. #33
    [QUOTE=parafly;2893442]I agree with your overall point, but Global Warming is not the issue at all in this case. The hearings with the Auto Executives and the criticism of their use of private jets are [b]completely based on financial reasons.[/b] I don't see how Global Warming plays any part in this situation other than you trying to criticize a green movement every chance you get.[/QUOTE]


    Yup, the 'rats want to keep their union voters pay at $73/hr so the avg. $28.50 non-union worker has to pay for it!
    [QUOTE]Economists in Michigan, the long-time home of the auto industry, say they don’t support the proposed multi-billion dollar bailout of Big Three automakers Chrysler, GM and Ford.

    One reason why, they say, is the ultra-high labor costs for union workers employed by the Big Three. It costs over $73 per hour on average to employ a union auto worker, according to University of Michigan at Flint economist Mark J. Perry.

    “Is it right to tax the average worker making $28.50 to bailout workers whose labor cost is over $73 an hour?” Perry asked.[/QUOTE]
    [url=http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39499]more[/url]

  14. #34
    It is always the labor force's fault? You wonder why our country is in the sh@tter. The first thing every company wants to get rid of is the labor. This country isn't going to have any jobs left and then what?

    Those non-union workers also are subsidized by the gov't. Who do you think gives these car companies tax breaks and free land to build on? Good old gov't.

    [QUOTE=asuusa;2895739]Yup, the 'rats want to keep their union voters pay at $73/hr so the avg. $28.50 non-union worker has to pay for it!

    [url=http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39499]more[/url][/QUOTE]

  15. #35
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,710
    [img]http://hoboken411.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/hoboken-dog-begging.jpg[/img]

  16. #36
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,805
    [QUOTE=asuusa;2895739]Yup, the 'rats want to keep their union voters pay at $73/hr so the avg. $28.50 non-union worker has to pay for it!

    [url=http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39499]more[/url][/QUOTE]

    Maybe that's what we should have done to the financial a**holes...shipped their pansy a** pu**y jobs overseas. Look at me! I sit at a desk all day, play with other peoples money and make 6 bazzilion dollars a year. Bail me out you stupid f*cks and look at how I'll convince simple minded Republitards to look the other way and save their ire for working stiffs with bad backs and callouses on their hands.

    [B]'Rats[/B]

    [B][SIZE="5"]'Rats[/SIZE][/B]

    [B][SIZE="7"]'Rats[/SIZE][/B]

    But we are the party of the common man. Joe the plumber. Wait. If Joe the Plumber belonged to a union I would have advocated Al Qaeda flying a plane into their union hall!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

Follow Us