Benghazi over-reaction?

[Templar]

Originally Posted by xbook

Why did nobody address the issue in the "Romney lied about Jeep" thread? It was quickly turned into a debate about the word shit. Very little mentioned about the substance of the thread. 1 person brought up the "well your guys does it too" defense, but didn't even come close to addressing the issue of the Republican candidate again using blatant lies to try and make political points. Never did a single one of the regulars here try to do anything to discuss the issue.

Yeah, you guys refuse debate. And I won't be surprised if you guys try and get me banned as well.

What substance did you add? You choose to ignore all the falsehoods that the Obama campaign produces as well... Lies spew from both sides on the regular, but just because you're a Dem doesn't mean you can ignore your own party's lies.

You then went on and contributed just as much to the derailment of the thread, so please step down from your soap box.

I honestly wouldn't mind it if you were banned either, and not because of your political affiliation, but because you're one of the biggest hypocrites on this forum.

EDIT: And before you tell me Obama has never lied:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...n-rape-incest/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lled-arizona-/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...business-deba/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...slower-any-ti/

There's more, but I'll leave it to you to come to your own, likely misguided, conclusions...

[rgrovr]

Specifically about the Jeep ad (from the WaPost FactChecker blog, emphasis mine):

Finally, the ad’s reference to Jeep production in China is technically correct but misleading, particularly in light of Romney’s comments on the campaign trail. The ad says that Obama “sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China,” but then adds: “Mitt Romney will fight for every American job.”
The unspoken message is that American jobs are being sent to China, even though the ad carefully tiptoes around that claim. (The ad, in fact, includes brief text quoting Bloomberg as saying Jeep production was returning to China.)

So while the fact checkers actually state the Ad is true, they're upset at the "meaning" or "underlying message" of the Ad. I never knew fact-checkers to pose opinion, but hey - to each his own in this economy.

The company was sold to an Italian firm, who's ideal is to grow heavily outside the U.S. Jeep themselves couldn't make a dent into China, thus why the stopped production, but Fiat - who got Chrysler basically on a dime - intends to do so whole heartedly.

So if the meaning of the Ads offends liberals, you should take umbrage with the fact that a non-U.S. company plans on making a helluva profit for themselves using a U.S. brand name outside of the U.S. they got for pennies on the dollar - thanks to Uncle Sam's "managed" bailout.

[alms211]

I'm glad I went back to re-check this thread. Templar and rgrovr saved me some additional searching. Trying to equate the Jeep statement to some of the much more important ACTUAL lies that Obummer has laid out there (cough.....Benghazi...cough) is laughable

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by rgrovr

So if the meaning of the Ads offends liberals, you should take umbrage with the fact that a non-U.S. company plans on making a helluva profit for themselves using a U.S. brand name outside of the U.S. they got for pennies on the dollar - thanks to Uncle Sam's "managed" bailout.

well that US company wasn't doing too well till Fiat bought them out
so if having foreign ownership means the company continues selling cars, and employing thousands of US workers
I don't think anyone but a xenophobe would have an issue with that.

bottom line is republicans are all up in arms about the fact that Obama lied
fact is all politicians lie, they lie through their teeth just to get (re)elected
it doesn't matter if you support the Democrats, or the Republicans or whatever
always start out with the fact that you're not picking the "honest" candidate
once you accept that, it's much easier to deal with them

and this is not just in the US, across the world, its the same thing

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by xbook

Yay, you derpers got another critic of yours banned. Easier to stifle the opposition than to debate them isn't it?

to be honest
the mods on this forum are a little trigger happy when it comes to dishing out points and banning people

i once got a 3 point warning because i was making fun of the 1m engine having a sticker on the engine that said "powered by BMW M"
guess what one of the owners of this forum owns

[mspeasl]

Originally Posted by xbook

Yeah, you guys refuse debate. And I won't be surprised if you guys try and get me banned as well.

No one minds debating you guys. In fact I enjoy it. It's when the language turns south that your friends end up getting themselves banned. We had nothing to do with it. They did it to themselves.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by xbook

Why did nobody address the issue in the "Romney lied about Jeep" thread?

Can't speak for others, but I was going to, and then the thread was locked because people were unable to maintain a discussion without resorting to immature, belligerent "debate" tactics of directing profanities at the messenger instead of addressing the message itself. I did point out in this thread the absurdity of being outraged at Romney's "lies" (which killed nobody) vs being OK with the Obama administrations misdirection during the Benghazi tragedy, which speaks to a much bigger issue of lives lost and national security.

Originally Posted by xbook

Yeah, you guys refuse debate.

Debate?!?

It's really interesting how left-wing liberals, the group that really likes to see itself as the kinder, gentler, more compassionate group of partisans, is the group that is always the first to lose the struggle in maintaining some semblance of civility and decorum. They relish in painting the conservatives and heartless and mean-spirited, and yet are very quick to resort to nasty, snarky, personal attacks, rather than attempting to deconstruct the proposition itself. I dont know of too many debate coaches who advocate shouting down the messenger with profanity instead of addressing the message. I'm not sure it's entirely a coincidence that the number of hardcore leftwingers that have been banned here recently exceeds the number of right-wingers.

The whole Stacey Dash twitter debacle is a perfect example. Some D-list celebrity, whose opinion really shouldnt matter anyway, expresses support for Romney, and the left-wing twitterverse reacts with an astonishing display of vile personal attacks, including threats of violence and worse. Oddly, when other celebrities publicly declare support for Obama, you dont find them being attacked in the same sort of way by the right wing at all. I wonder why that is? When you think about that behavior pattern, and then think about the lack of progress in Congress, it gets harder and harder to believe that is caused by only the right-wing refusing the collaborate in a civil manner.

[rgrovr]

Originally Posted by kmarei

well that US company wasn't doing too well till Fiat bought them out
so if having foreign ownership means the company continues selling cars, and employing thousands of US workers
I don't think anyone but a xenophobe would have an issue with that.

This is a bit of a strawman argument. The choice for Chrysler/Jeep wasn't dissolution, it was Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Just like in the late 70's when Chrysler was a hair trigger away from bankruptcy and received and gov't bailout - it sustained the company temporarily until it started making crappy cars again.. AMC, Eagle or making dumbfounded decisions like buying Lamborghini (A little Italian payback I guess from Fiat)

The minivan saved Chrylser thru the 90's but never to regain its foothold. The company back then and now - should have went thru a managed bankruptcy to sell off its non-performing assets, downsize and restructure.

Airlines have been going thru managed bankruptcies since the 60s and the industry is still around in the U.S. last I checked. A non-profitable company has no right to continue to be profitable at the government's dime. That may sound cruel to you but not all businesses succeed, and those that do not give opportunity for someone else to compete (like SouthWest for e.g. in the Airline business).

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by rgrovr

Airlines have been going thru managed bankruptcies since the 60s and the industry is still around in the U.S. last I checked. A non-profitable company has no right to continue to be profitable at the government's dime. That may sound cruel to you but not all businesses succeed, and those that do not give opportunity for someone else to compete (like SouthWest for e.g. in the Airline business).

Exactly ! If this happened to Detroit, then the resulting entity that came out on the other end would have less liabilities as well, thus making it less costly for the taxpayer to backstop or guarantee things if that was still necessary. (that is what Romney advocated, NOT the distorted picture Obama paints, which cleverly exploits the general public's ignorance of the managed bankruptcy process to make it sound like Romney wanted to comprehensively kill the American car industry as a whole and put all the staff out of work)

That would have freed up BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars, which could have been directed at other industries, to save even MORE jobs overall. Instead, what resulted was some folks keeping their jobs despite working for a company with an unsound business model, and others lost their jobs because their employer was not "too big to fail".

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by rgrovr

This is a bit of a strawman argument. The choice for Chrysler/Jeep wasn't dissolution, it was Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Just like in the late 70's when Chrysler was a hair trigger away from bankruptcy and received and gov't bailout - it sustained the company temporarily until it started making crappy cars again.. AMC, Eagle or making dumbfounded decisions like buying Lamborghini (A little Italian payback I guess from Fiat)

The minivan saved Chrylser thru the 90's but never to regain its foothold. The company back then and now - should have went thru a managed bankruptcy to sell off its non-performing assets, downsize and restructure.

yes but the reason they are doing well now is because Fiat has a lot of expertise in making fuel efficient engines, a totally alien thing to US car companies.
so they are doing well BECAUSE they were bought by Fiat
not because they restructured

[rgrovr]

Originally Posted by kmarei

yes but the reason they are doing well now is because Fiat has a lot of expertise in making fuel efficient engines, a totally alien thing to US car companies.
so they are doing well BECAUSE they were bought by Fiat
not because they restructured

Holy mackeral - that is the OPPOSITE reason Fiat purchased Chrysler. From the Detroit Free Press (emphasis mine):

Sergio Marchionne outlined a plan to export new Alfa Romeo, Maserati and Jeep models from Italy to prevent plants from closing, protect Italian jobs and reduce Fiat's dependence on Chrysler's profits in the U.S.

Marchionne -- who turned around Fiat in 2004 and resurrected Chrysler from near death -- is aiming to strengthen Fiat by exporting premium brands from Italy to the U.S., Canada and Asia.

I don't begrudge Fiat making a decision, but to pretend Chrysler's primary objective is to grow Jobs in the U.S. is crazy. And their current profitability isn't derived from the fuel-efficient development of cars (yet).

Fiat took over in 2009. The Dodge Dart is the first vehicle off the plant with Fiat's change towards fuel efficiency (the car just came out late this year). The rest of the fleet is planned on being released 2013 and 2014. So there is nothing they've done so far to in fuel efficient cars that has driven market-share. But government leased/fleet sales are up 24% - go figure.

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by rgrovr

Holy mackeral - that is the OPPOSITE reason Fiat purchased Chrysler. From the Detroit Free Press (emphasis mine):



I don't begrudge Fiat making a decision, but to pretend Chrysler's primary objective is to grow Jobs in the U.S. is crazy. And their current profitability isn't derived from the fuel-efficient development of cars (yet).

Fiat took over in 2009. The Dodge Dart is the first vehicle off the plant with Fiat's change towards fuel efficiency (the car just came out late this year). The rest of the fleet is planned on being released 2013 and 2014. So there is nothing they've done so far to in fuel efficient cars that has driven market-share. But government leased/fleet sales are up 24% - go figure.

everything you are saying is about what Fiat wants to do with Chrysler.
my point is chrysler is doing much better now with Fiats input
in 2009 they had no vehicles that could achieve 31mpg
now they have 6.
their market share has increased more than their 2 other US competitors.
september was their 30th consecutive month of year-over-year sales gain.

[DieselDiner]

Originally Posted by kmarei

their market share has increased more than their 2 other US competitors.
september was their 30th consecutive month of year-over-year sales gain.

When your market share is zilch there's nowhere to go but up.

Let's look at some real numbers:

Chrysler's Q3 2012 profit was $381 million.

Ford's Q3 2012 profit was $1.63 BILLION.

Who is doing well here?

[smohr33]

Originally Posted by DieselDiner

When your market share is zilch there's nowhere to go but up.

Let's look at some real numbers:

Chrysler's Q3 2012 profit was $381 million.

Ford's Q3 2012 profit was $1.63 BILLION.

Who is doing well here?

Here's another number to choke on:

Taxpayer loss on the sale of Chrysler to Fiat - $1.3 BILLION

[DieselDiner]

Originally Posted by smohr33

Here's another number to choke on:

Taxpayer loss on the sale of Chrysler to Fiat - $1.3 BILLION

- and - how much exactly did Fiat "pay" for Chrysler? You know, since Fiat "bought" them.

[OldArmy]

I believe it's the Mercedes DNA from a little while ago that makes the difference, not Fiat. My Jeeps both have underpinnings that are a match for Mercedes SUVs. So, thanks to the Germans.

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by DieselDiner

When your market share is zilch there's nowhere to go but up.

Let's look at some real numbers:

Chrysler's Q3 2012 profit was $381 million.

Ford's Q3 2012 profit was $1.63 BILLION.

Who is doing well here?

i don't know if you're kidding or if you are serious
so in that case apple is the best company on earth and all the others suck?
i mean if you are talking absolutes!

yes ford if more profitable
does that mean that we close all the companies that make less money?

yes chrysler was doing badly, but now its doing much better
what's so hard to understand about that?

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by smohr33

Here's another number to choke on:

Taxpayer loss on the sale of Chrysler to Fiat - $1.3 BILLION

if you want to compare apples to apples
what would the tax payer loss be if the government had not stepped in and rescued it?
and don't tell me the tax payer would not have paid for all these thousands of employees that would have been fired
because one way or the other
we will foot the bill

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

I believe it's the Mercedes DNA from a little while ago that makes the difference, not Fiat. My Jeeps both have underpinnings that are a match for Mercedes SUVs. So, thanks to the Germans.

then why was it making a loss all the years mercedes owned it?
the first year it made profits was 2011, when Fiat owned it
the entire time mercedes owned it, it didn't post a yearly profit

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by kmarei

then why was it making a loss all the years mercedes owned it?
the first year it made profits was 2011, when Fiat owned it
the entire time mercedes owned it, it didn't post a yearly profit

Technology transfer and profit are not the same thing. Chrysler's advances technologically are largely carry over from the Mercedes days.

[DieselDiner]

Originally Posted by kmarei

yes chrysler was doing badly, but now its doing much better
what's so hard to understand about that?

Chrysler is doing better than sucking, which was its previous state. All I'm doing is giving you some perspective about what a truly well performing car company looks like, if you can pause from genuflecting for a moment.

What's so hard to understand about that?

[smohr33]

Originally Posted by kmarei

if you want to compare apples to apples
what would the tax payer loss be if the government had not stepped in and rescued it?
and don't tell me the tax payer would not have paid for all these thousands of employees that would have been fired
because one way or the other
we will foot the bill

Sure. Let's do it apples to apples. Had the government not stepped in, the private company would file bankruptcy, restructure, and probably lay off a good number of employees, like any other private company. Say Chrysler fired 10,000 of their 50,000 employees. I think that's a high estimate, but lets walk with it...

For it to be more expensive to the taxpayer than the bailout, each unemployed person would have to cost taxpayers over $130,000.

There are currently 12,000,000 people in the US unemployed. That would mean Chrsylers share of unemployment would be .00083%. Less than one thousandth of a percent.