backtop


Print 403 comment(s) - last by SPARTAN VI.. on Jun 22 at 2:54 PM


Rush Limbaugh is calling on Americans to boycott GM, one of the nation's largest manufacturers, to prevent what he sees as a conspiracy by Democratic President Barack Obama. Mr. Limbaugh considers the potential American jobs losses to be a necessary sacrifice.  (Source: MugshotAlley.com)

GM also is a strong supporter of hybrids, producing the upcoming Chevy Volt. Mr. Limbaugh has voiced his passionate dislike for hybrids in the past, likely another strike against GM in his book.  (Source: GM)
American job cuts are a necessary loss to avoid patronizing President Obama, they say

A bankrupt General Motors is moving well along the painful road to recovery, selling off Hummer and Saturn.  Most are hoping it recovers to preserve the jobs of the hundreds of thousands directly or indirectly employs.  However, others are wishing it would fail and are doing their best to try to guarantee this outcome.

Republican pundit and media personality Rush Limbaugh, along with fellow pundit Hugh Hewitt, has assembled a legion of red-state bloggers and are calling for a boycott of all GM vehicles according to Autoblog Green.  They say that buying GM is tantamount to patronizing U.S. President Barack Obama.

Mr. Limbaugh held a special show to discuss the boycott.  While many callers were not happy with it, one caller voiced his support, stating, "I just want to say, what you were just talking about there about not buying GM products because of Obama, it's exactly how I feel. I just... I have felt this way now for weeks. I have driven a Chevy Tahoe for several years. In fact, right now I've got about 150,000 miles on it. I won't even look at another one right now, and I just want to say thanks. At least somebody understands what's going on here."

The basis of Mr. Limbaugh's boycott apparently stems from the fact that the U.S. government will own 62 percent of a post-bankruptcy GM.  Ironically, though, the trappings and suggestion for this were first set in place by Bush advisors, who pushed through the original bailout for the company, which it has effectively repaid with equity stake.

The boycott also fails to account for the fact that GM's ownership is now on the taxpayers' balance -- Republican and Democrat alike.  It also fails to note that Canada also maintains a major stake in GM and that many other countries like Germany, are riding on its success and ability to move cleanly through bankruptcy.

However, Mr. Limbaugh may have more than one issue with GM.  Mr. Limbaugh is an outspoken critic of hybrid vehicles and has accused them as "ruining" the industry, despite the fact that current models such as the Ford Fusion Hybrid, Honda Insight, and Toyota Prius are quite profitable.  With GM pushing hardest for electric vehicles, with its Chevy Volt, it's likely this is another painful issue to Mr. Limbaugh.

For better or worse, though, he and his fellow commentators have declared war on GM.  Only time will tell whether the boycott will actually have any sort of effect on sales, though.  



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

#@@#
By DigitalFreak on 6/9/2009 1:18:11 PM , Rating: 5
Somebody needs to put this guy out of our misery.




RE: #@@#
By Fat32 on 6/9/2009 1:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
And save Clear Channel $400mil. He's wealth of knowledge and expertise in various areas of science/politics and economics... ermmmm never mind - it's all about entertainment, right?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121504302144124805...


RE: #@@#
By bhieb on 6/9/2009 4:56:33 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
it's all about entertainment

As is DT, how is this remotely a "news" article again?


RE: #@@#
By InfantryRocks on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By elmikethemike on 6/10/2009 8:08:43 AM , Rating: 4
I love how all the democrats are more focused on an AM radio commentator than they are actual policy.

Rush this, Rush that. GET OVER IT.

It's all a diversion - Keep the news on what some non-elected radio personality is doing, rather than focus on anything else. I'm so tired of this.

The fact that this is a news article on Daily Tech and else where speaks volumes. What other news could have been covered instead of this nonsense??

FOCUS ON SOMETHING ELSE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE.


RE: #@@#
By Spuke on 6/10/2009 1:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
FOCUS ON SOMETHING ELSE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE.
Ding! Ding! Ding!


RE: #@@#
By Xavier434 on 6/11/2009 8:45:35 AM , Rating: 5
It's not just the Dems. Republicans do it just as much. Case in point:

Obamassiah this, Nobama that, HATE HATE HATE NO NO NO! GET OVER IT!

However, I do very much agree with your main point. Mainstream media is nothing more than mediatainment these days. It doesn't matter if it is conservative Fox news or liberal MSNBC. It is all terrible. All of the real journalists who actually spend most of their working hours doing research to find out the facts while siting all of their sources have moved on.


RE: #@@#
By dxf2891 on 6/15/2009 4:50:13 PM , Rating: 2
What you all fail to realize is that it is his ability and freedom to spew this non-sense that is the point. Like him or not, Limbaugh does have a huge following. He's kind of like the anti-Oprah, where no matter what he spouts, there are millions who will follow him. Millions of potential consumers having their opinion jaded of GM (as well as Chrysler and Ford) at this juncture could be financially catostraphic. I think his comments are border line treasonous, and here is my reasoning. As stated by him, the United States of America is a stake holder in this company due to loans levied. If this company fails, the American taxpayer loses his or her investment. This is no different than if he went on the radio and said boycott the stock market or banks. I think we should boycott him until he realizes that what he wants should never come before what's best for this country. Like the decision or not to loan monies to the auto-industry, they have our money now and the only way we'll get it back is if they turn a profit.


RE: #@@#
By Dorkyman on 6/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By sleepeeg3 on 6/15/2009 9:17:56 AM , Rating: 1
I agree with Rush and was personally planning on boycotting Government Motors and Chrysler anyway. Continuing to bail out these companies perpetuates the overpaid union salaries and burden on the rest of America. Why should anyone with a college degree get paid less than these semi-skilled laborers? On top of that, the money is now going to expand our oversized government.

That and the proprietary EVERYTHING that Chrysler uses for their vehicles and absurd dealer repair costs had me swearing off ever buying Chrysler long ago.

I’m not sure what Rush’s exact standpoint on Hybrid’s are, but they are also a crock. They are NOT going to save us from global warming/climate change, so what’s the point? As for getting off foreign oil, they will just drive up the price to compensate for less usage! Until we have a real electric alternative and clean power source (fact: nuclear is the only option that could provide 100% of clean power needs), they make no sense.


RE: #@@#
By jmanbro on 6/9/2009 1:34:45 PM , Rating: 4
Rush is about as anti-american as it comes. All critisism, with no alternatives or answers. Imagine him trying to pull this off in the McCarthyism days, he would be tried for treason. Now is the time to support the country and its companies.


RE: #@@#
By invidious on 6/9/2009 1:52:41 PM , Rating: 1
He and many others believe that the bailout is what is anti-american. His alternative/answer is to boycott the assault on capitalism to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Are you that dense that you can't figure that out? Or did you just see his name and skip the rest of the article to post about how evil he is.


RE: #@@#
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/9/2009 2:55:41 PM , Rating: 1
How is saving the icon of American capitalism from ruin anti-capitalism? What he is hoping for is that SOMETHING, anything Obama does will fail so he can take some more pain killers and rant about it from his megalomaniacal terminal phase of substance abuse. I like how the pic is an old one. He looks a couple weeks past buried lately.


RE: #@@#
By mdogs444 on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/9/2009 3:20:42 PM , Rating: 3
Even if it works better? Now that is what I call rational constructionism for sure.


RE: #@@#
By mdogs444 on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By ClownPuncher on 6/9/2009 3:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
Europe isn't a country :( Some european countries are doing fine with socialism, some are doing fairly badly. I don't see socialism as a whole working in America, the people have to WANT it to work, and it's a tricky thing to implement properly. Wheras capitalism is far easier to implement and to a certain extent, keeps itself in check.


RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/9/2009 3:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
The problem though, is that Socialism is essentially against American values and principals.

quote:
Some european countries are doing fine with socialism


I can see where you are coming from with that remark, but you have to admit that every single country on this planet has a trade off in one way or another (ie. higher crime rates for lower taxes etc) Grass is always greener.


RE: #@@#
By dever on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By lco45 on 6/9/2009 11:12:52 PM , Rating: 5
If your country has tax higher than 0%, it is socialist.
All countries are socialist, just to different degrees.

For example, the US famously doesn't have socialized health care, but it does have socialized roads and schools, which are paid for by taxes.

There are some private roads and private schools, but mainly they are socially funded.

Similarly, in countries with socialized health care there are also private hospitals.

It's just a big sliding scale, there's no evil and good.

Luke


RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/10/2009 12:02:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If your country has tax higher than 0%, it is socialist.


Are you serious? That sentence is enough to stop me from reading the rest of your post. I hope to God that you are not a teacher.


RE: #@@#
By JKflipflop98 on 6/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By callmeroy on 6/10/2009 11:38:33 AM , Rating: 2
Talk about completely stretching the hell out of a word's meaning....

Taxes alone does not equate to socialism, merely the government paying for something isn't socialism if you think that alone is what it means -- you should read a book on socialism.


RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By MrPoletski on 6/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 11:48:57 AM , Rating: 2
I read a story last year about a woman (age 23) who lost all her teeth in the U.K., because she couldn't get proper dental care.

Oh, and I heard a nice one just last week about a woman in Canada who had a multi-pound tumor removed from body in the US -- after being wait-listed in Canada for OVER A YEAR for surgery. She was only weeks away from dying when she gave up and came to the US.

Yeah, Socialism works. Real well.


RE: #@@#
By BZDTemp on 6/10/2009 8:41:57 PM , Rating: 1
It's funny how with this total freedom thing in the US that on the same time more people are in jails than anywhere else. It's something 0.7 percent of all and only China is the same league with a country like the UK at 0.14 and Norway at 0.07.

It does seem like there is only really freedom in the US for those that are well off as the rest are either just barely getting by or in jail.


RE: #@@#
By tlampen on 6/10/2009 10:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
it is obvious that you are not from the US. WE do have great freedoms that others do not have. Yes we have a lot people in prison but the MAJORITY of those people are in prison because of drug related issues. The key to freedom is knowing the boundaries of freedom. Drugs are now and have always been a negative impact to society and therefore not within the boundaries of freedom. I am not saying that our government is perfect or even close but neither is anyone else's. However, just because our government does what it can to keep scum from the streets as apposed to "legalizing it" doesn't mean they are protecting the wealthy. What you are missing are the millions of opportunities that our government offers to "the rest" to help them succeed in life. Our government focuses on letting people make their own decisions. AKA - True Freedom.


RE: #@@#
By SPARTAN VI on 6/22/2009 2:54:42 PM , Rating: 2
@BDZTemp

It's funny how this article is about Rush Limbaugh advocated that Americans boycott GM to protest socialism and not any country's prison population.

Poof, look at that. Your straw man fell apart.


RE: #@@#
By MrPoletski on 6/16/2009 7:31:29 AM , Rating: 2
For every couple of examples of failings in our system you've found I could find 100 people in the US with no healthcare WHATSOEVER and probably plenty more who suddenly found out their insurance doesn't cover them for their affliction.

I didn't say the system was PERFECT, I said it is working. Our NHS in the UK is in definite need of reform. You'd notice I hadn't cited the UK NHS as decent example of a properly implimented social program. If you want properly implimented social healthcare then go and look at Sweden/Norway or somewhere.

In 2007, 45.7 million people in the U.S. (15.3% of the population) were without health insurance for at least part of the year.

Yeah, privatised healthcare really works.


RE: #@@#
By afkrotch on 6/11/2009 3:23:11 AM , Rating: 2
So explain to me how in the UK, hospitals were removing children's organs for no reason. Yep, national health care works there.


RE: #@@#
By MrPoletski on 6/16/2009 7:35:28 AM , Rating: 2
Because mistakes happen and our NHS is in need of reform?

Why don't you look at a decent NHS service such as in Norway, after all I am refuting the statement that socialism has 'never been proven effective'. Not that 'the NHS in the UK proves socialism works' or some other rubbish.


RE: #@@#
By mdogs444 on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By ClownPuncher on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By encryptkeeper on 6/9/2009 5:41:23 PM , Rating: 3
The other side of the coin here is that those who oppose the bailout aren't giving much in the ways of alternatives. Whether they say it or not, their only hope now is that the government bailouts fail miserably so they can claim they knew that it wouldn't work and hope Americans are dumb enough to vote for whoever sat on their ass and did nothing. Anyone who can think for themselves doesn't take anything Rush says at face value. He knows the word socialism frightens people, and saying scary things tends to get people's attention. That's what he does, he provides entertainment (if you can call it that) and gets paid to get people to listen to what he says.

But the full on socialism/communism that occurred in Russia or Cuba isn't what's happening here in the US via the bailout. The events leading up to the Russian revolution were pretty brutal, people were working 12 hour days with no safety regulations and horrible sanitary conditions, just to name a few issues. So when the Soviets formed, people were already desperate for something that could change their lives to something better. Fortunately, we aren't at that kind of desperation in the US. We aren't looking to destroy class boundaries and states. I think communism is what people are really scared of, and people wrongly seem to believe that communism and socialism are the same thing. Despite the similarities, they are pretty different. The bottom line is we already have some redistribution of wealth (welfare, social security, school vouchers) and in a small way that makes us a bit socialist already.

The government tried to approach the bailout with a few checks in place. Now many of the banks and companies that got bailout money but were unable to use it according to the rules the government laid out have to pay it back. And, once the companies stabilize themselves, government control ends, hopefully, with the overall goal of maintaining our capitalist society, not destroying it.

Remember that monopolies are illegal, but regulated monopolies (such as utility companies) are legal. It may take time, but examples like that show us there is at least a possibility for success.


RE: #@@#
By Tacoloft on 6/9/2009 6:42:36 PM , Rating: 3
Russia's Press disagrees:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459...

Quote: "The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker."


RE: #@@#
By ClownPuncher on 6/9/2009 7:58:04 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, link some Russian propaganda, good form (sarcasm tags). It's probably best to keep political debates centered on reality. Although that would probably eliminate all polical debates, and then I would be sad.


RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 7:58:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, link some Russian propaganda, good form (sarcasm tags).
Look, when major Russian papers are saying the U.S. is becoming more Socialist than Russia is, it's time to set up and take notice.


RE: #@@#
By MrPoletski on 6/18/2009 5:23:30 AM , Rating: 2
Just because a newspaper originates in another country, it doesn't make that newspaper a 'propaganda outlet' for that country.


RE: #@@#
By MrPoletski on 6/10/2009 6:38:26 AM , Rating: 1
HAHA!


RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/10/2009 12:10:55 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The other side of the coin here is that those who oppose the bailout aren't giving much in the ways of alternatives.


That is flat out false information. Evidently you have not been looking or listening when they have been presented. Or maybe you didn't get a chance to hear them because the only news network that would ever broadcast such stories are Fox. Look it up.

Here's an alternative: Let the failures fail instead of rewarding idiotic and bad behavior.


RE: #@@#
By SamuelW on 6/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/10/2009 1:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
You really sound like the poster child college grad liberal that has fallen for Obama's scare tactic campaign. Here is what would happen in my alternative: lets take GM for example

GM goes bankrupt. Honda, Ford, and whoever else buys them out. A good chunk of GM staff would probably be laid off. Unions would start to realize that they are only shooting themselves in the foot. The rest is total speculation.

But seriously, you are a perfect example for hook, line, and sinker for Obama's scare campaign.
quote:
If you're in favor of what easily could be a decades long depression
LMAO, are you serious? "OMG AMERICAN PUBLIC!! IF WE (the government) DON'T TAKE COMPLETE CONTROL OF YOUR LIVES RIGHT NOW, YOU WILL DOOM YOURSELVES INTO DEBT AND SLAVERY. MASSIVE HURRICANES AND EARTH QUAKES, APOCALYPSE PLAGUE....(insert other horrifying words here)."

quote:
Your alternative is the likely destruction of the United States through armed insurrection, or invasion on the really bad range and just crushing poverty for many/most in the less bad range.
WHATT??!!!! There is no way, in a million years, that you would have the guts to say something that stupid in a public (not internet) setting. People would laugh in your face.

quote:
Want to start punishing those responsible? Start by breaking your ideological commitment to tax breaks as the great panacea to all our economic ills. Those responsible really love those tax breaks, gives them a much bigger hookers and blow budget.


Let me paraphrase what that quote means, "Bad people will do bad things" Only a liberal has the solution to problems like that lol. You are a world class moron.


RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 1:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
WHATT??!!!! There is no way, in a million years, that you would have the guts to say something that stupid in a public (not internet) setting. People would laugh in your face
You fell for it. He's obviously being paid to pose as a liberal and make idiotic statements like that. No one able to find keys on a keyboard could really be that dumb.


RE: #@@#
By HaB1971 on 6/9/2009 6:05:08 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The current UK elections process that migrated from Left to Right overnight


You mean to say that the short term memory of voters has changed the local political landscape based on a myriad of recent scandals, problems and ludicrous decisions of one bunch of political numbskulls to turn over local, not national power to a group that is equally ineffective. These elections were for councils and not elected members of parliament.

This wasn't overnight, stop trying to make it more dramatic that it actually is. The decline of the Labour party's power has been a long and winding road and the end of the honeymoon for them was can be traced back to beyond the invasion of Iraq. The usual scandals and poor decision making (attributed to all elected officials) put the final nail in the coffin for them there.
Anyone want to watch their local authority (city) spend $1.5 million on a 700 yard long lane for buses in s stupid attempt at traffic control? that will make you want to vote for someone else other than the current people in charge would it not?


RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 7:38:16 AM , Rating: 2
Some European countries are doing just fine with socialism? That depends on your definition of "just fine". Back in the days when the US really was a capitalist country, it produced as many manufactured good as the rest of the world combined -- the Soviet Union, Europe, Asia, Africa, all put together. Now, we're hardly less socialist than Europe (and moreso than some European countries) and surprise! Our economy is no better than theirs either. Go figure.

Oh, and lets not forget Europe allows the US to foot its bills for national defense. A few hundred billion a year i n savings goes a long way to help subsidize inefficient economies.


RE: #@@#
By MatthiasF on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By straycat74 on 6/9/2009 4:49:30 PM , Rating: 5
More correctly, national socialism.


RE: #@@#
By Tacoloft on 6/9/2009 8:15:28 PM , Rating: 3
nationalism? You mean Nazism. Don't believe me? Your own description is very similar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAZI


RE: #@@#
By SamuelW on 6/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By Tacoloft on 6/11/2009 1:16:13 AM , Rating: 2
and I would still refer you to learn about what nationalism REALLY is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussolini
scroll to the part 'Creation of Fascism'

Quote:
An important factor in fascism gaining support in its earliest stages was the fact that claimed to oppose discrimination based on social class and was strongly opposed to all forms of class war.[16] Fascism instead supported nationalist sentiments such as a strong unity, regardless of class, in the hopes of raising Italy up to the levels of its great Roman past. The ideological basis for fascism came from a number of sources. Mussolini utilized works of Plato, Georges Sorel, Nietzsche, and the socialist and economic ideas of Vilfredo Pareto, to create fascism. Mussolini held great admiration for Plato's work, The Republic which he kept a copy and often read to gain inspiration.[17] The Republic held a number of ideas that fascism promoted such as rule by an elite promoting the state as the ultimate end, opposition to democracy, protecting the class system and promoting class collaboration, rejection of egalitarianism, promoting the militarization of a nation by creating a class of warriors, demanding that citizens perform civic duties in the interest of the state, and utilizing state intervention in education to promote the creation of warriors and future rulers of the state.[18] The Republic differed from fascism in that it did not promote aggressive war but only defensive war, unlike fascism it promoted very communist-like views on property, and Plato was an idealist focused on achieving justice and morality while Mussolini and fascism were realist, focused on achieving political goals.

Your link does nothing to clarify the evils of Nationalism but seeks to render it null and void simply because I referenced Nazism....which utilized nationalism just like Musolini did. Not to mention the many comparisons Obama himself is creating with his meddling in the affairs of private businesses promoting the state as the ultimate end as well as burdening the American citizens (using taxes) into a socialist bailout plan which is failing. Obama's actions speak for themselves.


RE: #@@#
By Tacoloft on 6/11/2009 1:22:13 AM , Rating: 2
One more thing: quoting from above ...demanding that citizens perform civic duties in the interest of the state, and utilizing state intervention in education to promote the creation of warriors and future rulers of the state.

sound familiar? just replace education with business and warriors with jobs...


RE: #@@#
By Dribble on 6/9/2009 7:03:44 PM , Rating: 5
Check out the tables for quality of life, quality of education, healthcare, etc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571445/Wor...
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg...

America isn't at the top. It doesn't even make it into the top 25 for education. There are lots of significantly more socialist countries that are better places to live, get educated or get ill in then USA.


RE: #@@#
By Tsuwamono on 6/10/2009 12:48:07 AM , Rating: 2
Its all about implementation. Canada does great with socialism.


RE: #@@#
By LoweredExpectations on 6/10/2009 1:46:31 AM , Rating: 5
You guys who go on about European socialism just crack me up. Have any of you actually been to a European country?

There are no socialist states in Europe. Every European country is a capiatalist economy tempered by the application of social policies. Just as is the case in the United States. The only difference is degree.

In fact, there is no capitalist country on the face of the earth that does not imploy a lot of social policy in order to function in the real world with real people.

The hard-core American right has got to get over it's knee-jerk hatred of the word 'socialism' and understand that the reason there are no pure capitalist societies is that it doesn't work any more than pure socialism.


RE: #@@#
By BZDTemp on 6/10/2009 4:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
LOL

You so do not get what Europe is. We just had an election the EU countries which put the balance a little further to the right. However there are few details you missed.

1. EU is not Europe and for example Russia is part of Europe but very far from being a member of the EU.
2. The EU right with the exception of extreme right is more like the right of you left. In essence what we have in the EU is like pretty much what you find in the Democratic party in the US.


RE: #@@#
By safcman84 on 6/10/2009 5:18:13 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Hell, even Europe's elections turned to the right because the left and socialism destroyed their country in the last several years.


You need to adjust your political scale when comparing EU countries to the USA.

- Obama would never be considered a socialist in the EU. He would be center right or center.

- This is because we have never had the same kind of extreme capitalism as you have in the USA. We have always had access to free healthcare, state welfare, subsidised higher education and other things that you would consider socialist. no EU political party would ever try and take those away - we take them for granted and there would be hell if anyone tried.

- So even if the EU has turned to the Right on the EU political scale, its still way more "Socialist" than Bush (and/or the Republicans) will ever be.

Obama a socialist! always guaranteed to make me laugh. You Americans wouldnt know a socialist if he/she weighed 200kg and sat on you!


RE: #@@#
By BZDTemp on 6/10/2009 5:52:58 AM , Rating: 2
LOL

I am sorry to be the bringer of bad news but Bush left your global status, your economy and the standard of living for many US people in a pretty bad way.

Before Bush most of the western world would take anything said by the US gov. as the truth. But after the lies used to make us part of the Iraq war, Gitmo, renditions, illegal flights with people to be tortured it is another matter.

Also the unregulated US financial market plays a big part in the current crisis so guess what that did for your global status. There is even talk about trading oil in Euro rather than dollar due to the weak dollar.

The EU economy is bigger than the US and your record national deficit is gonna hurt for generations if something is not done now. I say you should pray Obama can fix just some of the mess left by Bush.


RE: #@@#
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/10/2009 5:51:35 PM , Rating: 1
There were no lies... Very possible bad information which may have lead to bad actions, that will never be known... Unless you can read the minds of others.

People forget, the US was have one bad quarter after another quarter of negative economic growth under Clinton (called a recession - 2 or more negative quarters back to back). They forget because the business banking account reserves keep them employed. Under Bush we only had 3 total negative quarters out of 32 total (the very first quarter after Clinton left office, 2nd one - the quarter the twin towers were attack - not his fault there, and third quarter was the last quarter in office - may actually be last two quarters actually). The 28 or 29 other quarters were positive growth however they were not strong growth quarters, but much better then the negative growth quarters under Clinton. However, the media will have your head spinning around and confused about who caused what verse saying things have been cr.appy for 14 years and if Obama is not careful he will turn our economy negative very, very fast because there is nothing left in the reserves.
Do not try blaming this on one person... It's been a group effort...


RE: #@@#
By BZDTemp on 6/10/2009 8:50:20 PM , Rating: 1
Pardon but economic growth is easy for a while if you keep essentially borrowing money trouble is at some time that money must be payed back. It is like using credit cards to shop you can get away with shopping big for a while but eventually you run into problems.

And as for the "There were no lies" I suggest you read a little on how the Iraq war was sold to the US people (and the people of the allies). Then I think you will see things differently. In fact you may even learn that Iran offered to assist the US with intelligence about Iraq but of course that did not match the picture Bush had been painting.


RE: #@@#
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/12/2009 5:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
I did read,again no lies... mis-informed maybe. We know there were WMD.... Why do we know this, because the USA provided the them with these chemicals. The CDC in GA will provided the chemical to foreign countries. It country is to keep full records and use and disposal of the chemicals. Iraq never submitted the reports.
You do a little more studying and you will find that throughout all time that the USA has tried to work with Iran never once has the Iranian government been honest and trustworthy to the US Government. So, information not matching Bush makes 100% perfect sense as they would be out to undermine the US efforts.


RE: #@@#
By nycromes on 6/15/2009 1:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the fact that failure to find any WMDs doesn't imply that said WMDs didn't/don't exist. At the same time, I'm not saying that they did/do exist either. But simply not finding them doesn't qualify the statements made prior to entering Iraq as lies.

It all comes down to what was told to the politicians at the time that the claims were made. If they knowingly made statements without intelligence to back them up or in the face of substantial counter evidence then they were lying. If they were acting in good faith that the intelligence they had was valid and very little evidence contradicted the reports, they were telling the truth. Hindsight is 20/20, sadly most of us will never know what was in those intelligence reports with 100% certainty. It all comes down to what you want to believe rather than being able to nail down for sure what happened.


RE: #@@#
By MrPoletski on 6/10/2009 6:56:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
History has shown that to NEVER be true...as evidence of our global status, GDP, and standard of living.


You should probably try visiting another country some time.

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

You are not top of that list. Luxembourg has nearly twice the per capita GDP of the USA. Norways is about 25% higher.

Let's focus on Norway.
Sales tax is 25%
Income tax varies but I believe the top end is 50%, it once had the most aggressive income tax rate of the world.
Yes it is to pay for socialist programs.

Yes Norway is a nice (albeit expensive) country to live in.
It also has some of the best healthcare available in the world. It is also rated as the worlds best place to live:
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article828...

Hence, you are WRONG.

Norway is far from the only example of functioning socialist system, it's just this functioning socialism is functioning better than your American socialist system.

Best thing for you is to elect Ron Paul to strip it all away and then replace him with a Dem to put it back *well* instead of having the built upon built upon built upon policies. If you followed the same logic with building a car you'd end up with a dodge neon - or worse...


RE: #@@#
By skaaman on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By Targon on 6/10/2009 6:02:57 AM , Rating: 2
There is a very basic concept in business, which is that those who put money into a company get some share of that company as compensation. GM came to the government BEGGING for money, so it makes sense that the government would get a percentage stake for the bailout money.

Now, if the government just GAVE taxpayer money to GM, that would be even worse, wouldn't it? Seriously, good money spent on a company that would just squander it.

So, it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If and when GM can pay back the money received in the bailout, then the government would no longer hold that percentage ownership, and that would be that.

People are very quick to be critical of any government spending these days, but if something is seen as an investment, rather than just spending, is THAT so bad? Governments dish out a lot of money in grants and other things, which in theory are investing in the future. If you really want to complain about government waste, how about the government spending money for research grants to foreign students.


RE: #@@#
By itzmec on 6/9/2009 3:30:15 PM , Rating: 5
when its owned by the government, thats how.


RE: #@@#
By Scrith on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 3:55:31 PM , Rating: 5
Social Security isn't " owned " by the government. its actually " owed " to the people...but the bureaucrats have torn that system to shreds by taking it and spending it on junk, and then thinking they'd just raise taxes later to fill the piggy bank back up.

The US Military and National Parks are not business in market solely for profit. Your attempt at a valid comparison was laughable at best - stay off the liberal talking point forums, they are making you dumber by the day.


RE: #@@#
By MatthiasF on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/9/2009 4:45:39 PM , Rating: 3
You are an idiot if you think the only reason SS is being depleted is because more people than ever are drawing it. If the system was setup without loopholes, the people that put money into, would get money back.

What you failed to address is how illegal immigrants and people that have never paid one cent into SS are currently drawing money from it. Do you think that's fair? And yes, the previous poster was correct, you can blame the bureaucrats for allowing this. They make the laws, afterall.


RE: #@@#
By MatthiasF on 6/10/2009 12:41:55 AM , Rating: 1
It's not just the number of people depositing or withdrawing, it also involves how much the dollar was worth when they deposited. So, you also have to factor in inflation.

http://www.economics-charts.com/images/cpi-1800-20...

Because there was a huge drop in birthrates over a period, there are less people paying in to offset the inflation.

Meanwhile, illegal immigrants can't pull Social Security. Stop painting one of your irrational fears onto another.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/socials...


RE: #@@#
By callmeroy on 6/10/2009 9:00:56 AM , Rating: 2
while your statments on population and amount of folksgoing retirement definitely have some credit it to it --- a major reason for Social Security's decline is it's misuse and abuse. It was never intended when it was originally devised to be used as sole income source, yet that's how some been using it and depending on it.

The rules are quite stupid for social security as well -- for instance if you draw any money from SS you are limited in how much income you can earn on your own -- even if its a paltry amount, unless you are fine with about half of it being taxed to high heaven as to the point that there's no incentive for you to earn beyond the limits imposed by SS in the first place.

My dad who is in his late 60's deals with this, thankfully that rule was just lifted for him (its based on your age apparently) so now he can earn whatever he can and not suffer the horrible taxes he has to pay back to the SS program. In his younger days my dad made a good living as a VP for a company, but in his semi-retirement he now works as a bus driver to supplement SS money to support my mom and their bills. Its worth noting how dumb the system is in a case like this where SS limits the amount of money you can earn because apparently the $1000 a MONTH ss pays my folks is supposed to be enough...so someone goes out and gets a job to not be so dependent or limited by the ss money and then the government says "man we are paying you $1k a month! (Yes we know you missed only 10 days of work in the last 45 years of your working life paying into the system and you always paid your taxes on time and busted your arse for every dollar you ever earned but let's ignore that part...) but now you darn want to get a job that pays a whopping additional $1000 per MONTH! DAMN YOU TO HELL we are taking half of that until you are older, now be a good government dependent zombie and just sit on your arse and cash our checks -- uncle sam will take care of you!"....

sorry got carried away there --- note my love of the Social Security program? ;)


RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/10/2009 1:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
be a good government dependent zombie and just sit on your arse and cash our checks -- uncle sam will take care of you!"....


The whole paragraph was a summary of how I feel about it as well, but this sentence justifies it all. In these times, the more honest hard work you do, the more you get penalized for it. It's horrible that our country has come down to things like this, but you have to just keep on moving I guess.


RE: #@@#
By Spuke on 6/10/2009 3:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's horrible that our country has come down to things like this, but you have to just keep on moving I guess.
In 20 years I'll probably need $1 million in pre-tax income in order to get the same post-tax income I have today. LOL!


RE: #@@#
By ianken on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By MatthiasF on 6/10/2009 1:11:45 AM , Rating: 2
It wasn't spent elsewhere. The surplus was used to buy special US Treasury bonds with 5-7 year maturities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(Unit...

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n4

The entire "Social security will go bust" argument was created to shuffle this debt into an open market instead of only special closed government holdings. In other words, the bank industry wanted it's hands on the bonds so it could wrap them into banking instruments to make tons of money.


RE: #@@#
By MatthiasF on 6/10/2009 1:34:29 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting Java applet from IBM that let's you visualize US Population growth.

http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/visual...

Sort Hierarchy by Age, Nativity, Race and then Gender for the best visualization, IMHO. (Drag the items on the gray bar around to change.)

I wish the 5-17 and 85+ plus groups would sort right, though. Would be easier to see the spikes.

If you turn on the "percentage option" in the lower right, you can see a testament to SS working to help the elderly in poverty. Notice around 1955-57 (nearly twenty years after first payouts), the faint 85+ line becomes easily visible for the first time. This would be the first batch of 65 year olds that were eligible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(Unit...


RE: #@@#
By itzmec on 6/9/2009 3:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
i dont see where i said anything about boycotting. can you point that out to me please?


RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/9/2009 3:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
What flavor is your Kool-aid?


RE: #@@#
By mikefarinha on 6/9/2009 5:02:43 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
How is saving the icon of American capitalism from ruin anti-capitalism?


Um... you don't save capitalism with socialism.


RE: #@@#
By Tsuwamono on 6/10/2009 11:11:46 AM , Rating: 1
Really? So it wasn't your lack of government watch on the financial industry that allowed them to trade sub prime(already volatile high risk investment) at a 35-1 ratio?

And then when it collapsed it brought down the whole industry..

So your saying that THAT is better then Canada for example who make sure that banks can't do that and thus our economy is much better off then yours??

You are OBVIOUSLY right... You're American.


RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/10/2009 1:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are OBVIOUSLY right... You're American.


I'm glad this is the internet, (otherwise you wouldn't have said this to someone's face) because that comment would have given you a first class ticket to "knocked the fuck out"


RE: #@@#
By Tsuwamono on 6/11/2009 1:11:03 AM , Rating: 1
What ever you say tough guy. You must be a big man to threaten someone over the internet.

Blow my dick.


RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 1:47:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Really? So it wasn't your lack of government watch on the financial industry
You're right, it wasn't. The banking industry (especially the home mortgage industry) is the most heavily regulated industry in the entire country. The government sets the prime interest rate (in effect telling banks how much they can charge), sets minimum and maximum fees, tells banks who they can and can't lend to, and under what rules. Then for good measure, the government (through Fannie Mac) DIRECTLY controls 50% of all mortgages in the country.

Then all it takes is for the Govt to let its own agent (Fannie Mac) engage in high-risk subprimes, while the Fed (another govt. agency) holds interest rates artificially low during a period of escalating risk (the exact opposite of what the free market will do).

A classic bubble situation. And 100% of the Government's making. CLASSIC.

The derivatives market made things worse. But derivates only amplify underlying market conditions. They CANNOT change the direction of the market. They only make rises and drops larger.


RE: #@@#
By tjr508 on 6/9/2009 5:04:35 PM , Rating: 2
So, since I want the Yankees to lose, that means I hate baseball?


RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By Muskrat Matt on 6/9/2009 5:47:17 PM , Rating: 5
Are you serious? Capitalism means not saving them.


RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 8:18:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How is saving the icon of American capitalism from ruin anti-capitalism?
Saving it? Don't make me laugh. Learn some history. The government owning any company is the kiss of death. Obama's "bailout" has destroyed GM.

Had GM gone through a traditional bankruptcy, reorganized, dumped its crushing $50B+ burden of pension debt to the unions, it would have emerged a smaller, more agile company and been just fine. Instead, the government is going to run it to the ground.


RE: #@@#
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/10/2009 4:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
How is saving the icon of American capitalism from ruin anti-capitalism?

It's very American to let a company big or small die after it has run out of money (think with your brain not your heart). Thousand have done it before. It is very anti-American for the government to take over any percentage of a company and influence it's daily business. Those with Economic back grounds know the name of that... It's called socialism. Which does not work never has never will. Let the company run it's natural path... File for BK, it will live or it will die. If it dies then a new company will emerge in time.... That's the American way, it has been very successful for us.


RE: #@@#
By Scrith on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By ClownPuncher on 6/9/2009 3:59:31 PM , Rating: 4
I don't much care for Rush, but because he doesn't like Obama, hes treasonous? That sounds closer to fascism than boycotting a company.


RE: #@@#
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 4:03:20 PM , Rating: 1
Perhaps I think Obama is actually the commie...and there's nothing wrong with Limbaugh. What are YOU going to do about it jerkoff? Treason my ass, the only form of treason around here is the way Obama is trashing the US global superpower status that took over 200yrs to build.


RE: #@@#
By TSS on 6/9/2009 5:29:28 PM , Rating: 5
i'd hate to throw more political debate in here, but take a look at the video halfway through this article:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/09/news/companies/chr...

the interesting part is from 0:48 to 2:00. the first 30 seconds are as suggestive as always.

what's more treasonous? boycotting a nationalized company or ignoring the constitution?


RE: #@@#
By ClownPuncher on 6/9/2009 3:40:21 PM , Rating: 3
I will not boycott GM, I think that is short sighted.

I do, however, ask that the government sell off it's shares back to private industry once the bankruptcy shake up is done. In fact, we should demand that they do just that.


RE: #@@#
By PARANOID365 on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By Tacoloft on 6/9/2009 6:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for exemplifying the "extreme left" in your post.


RE: #@@#
By Radnor on 6/9/2009 9:17:46 PM , Rating: 3
That guy was a jerk, but whats the problem with being socialist ?

Socialism is a socio-economic way of distributing and generating wealth.

Communism is a social ideal. It is the society without government.

Capitalism is just a form of generating wealth. The best form of generating wealth, but little has to say about redistributing it or manage it.

The Three can coexist and do coexist. I'm a left winger, without a doubt, and i do disagree with the bailout(s). Banks should be allowed to fall ( and thus the peoples debt be wiped out, and in some countries so as their savings ) and the market should be allowed to rebalance the way markets flow.

The same for other type of companies. If GM failed, the void left in the market would soon be filled with smaller companies, but loads of them. What was great, talking in socialist prespective, because it meant the this outsourcing cycle was ending, and new companies would emerge, thus giving birth to another bussiness cycle, and to new channels of distributing wealth.

And that was this "crisis" is all about. The death of a bussiness cycle.

I am a socialist. And i agree in what i have written. Was that a socialist/comunism text ? No, because i wrote in a pure economic view, again, what this crisis is all about.

I know im talking to wind here, but please, daily tech posters, learn how to diferenciate, socialism, comunism and capitalism. They are completely diferent gears of the same whole. With all that will to write you guys have, adding sufienct knowledge, our leaders would be crapping themselves. Because we ALL would fully understood what they were doing wrong and/or right.

Thank you.


RE: #@@#
By RandallMoore on 6/10/2009 1:49:45 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
whats the problem with being socialist ?


The problem is: People who don't contribute to the system get a free ride. I don't do handouts... I only help people that work hard and deserve it.


RE: #@@#
By KCjoker on 6/9/2009 7:00:24 PM , Rating: 1
What a intelligent post. I guess you don't believe in freedom of speech for Rush, that's one of the most important rights an American has.


RE: #@@#
By Nfarce on 6/9/2009 7:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
Put a bullet to his head? Traitor? Fascist?

1) I'm glad this blog has brought out the best (worst actually) in you far left wing hate filled pigs.

2) You little skirt wearing bedwetting libtards need to learn what "traitor" is and "fascism" is. Free speech much?


RE: #@@#
By ClownPuncher on 6/9/2009 7:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
That was pretty hate filled too.


RE: #@@#
By Nfarce on 6/9/2009 9:00:57 PM , Rating: 1
Why don't you compare me calling someone a "pig" and someone else calling for a "bullet" to the head and get back to me, clown.


RE: #@@#
By Tacoloft on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By ClownPuncher on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By Tacoloft on 6/9/2009 6:51:20 PM , Rating: 1
Quote: I do, however, ask that the government sell off it's shares back to private industry once the bankruptcy shake up is done. In fact, we should demand that they do just that.

That is like asking Senator Palpatine (the emperor in Star Wars)to give up his Dictatorship powers - it isn't going to happen. Once the government gets power it's only concern is to obtain more power and set themselves up as saviors or guardians of the world by creating problems in which they think they can solve. It's a ruse that millions are allowing themselves to be convinced of sadly.


RE: #@@#
By ccmfreak2 on 6/9/2009 4:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'm right there with Rush on this. We supposedly HAD to bail out GM with tens of billions to keep them from going into Bankruptcy. Now we supposedly HAVE to send them billions more to get them through bankruptcy. Now the US government owns a majority of GM and you believe we are going to get quality from them? They are now going to be efficient? Since when has ANYTHING the government has done been quality or efficient? Look at government housing - that's quality? Look at the rate of return on Social Security - that's effient money managment? I'm against government control of companies and refuse to support it.

Oh, by the way, I don't listen to Rush or any of these other bloggers that apparently follow him. I am just a simple capitalist who take ANYTHING the media says with a grain of salt and do my own research into these areas. Bottom line, I'm against the government wasting my money.


RE: #@@#
By MatthiasF on 6/9/2009 4:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
The entire point of the bailout is to keep capitalism running. The government has no intention of implementing socialist policies, nor will you see any in the agreements. They're doing this to keep jobs going and avoid chaos.

The Right quickly label nationalistic acts by their opponents as socialism. No one called Reagan, the Republican led congress in the 90s or Wubya a socialist when they all bailed out the banking industry for a total of three times using tax payer moneys.

Why the hell are you calling the bailout of GM socialism? Why don't you stop to think about that after you've turned off the inflammatory radio pundit making $400 million a year.


RE: #@@#
By ccmfreak2 on 6/9/2009 4:38:44 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, you didn't listen close enough because many of us Right called "Wubya" a socialist when he decided to bail out the banking industry last Fall. There were many things GW did I liked, many things GW did I didn't liked. This is one I REALLY didn't like.

We are calling the bailout of GM socialism because it IS socialism. The GOVERNMENT NOW OWNS A MAJORITY OF GM AND THUS CONTROLS WHAT THEY DO! It's socialsm.


RE: #@@#
By Radnor on 6/9/2009 9:28:20 PM , Rating: 3
No it is not.

It is communism, quoting old Karl:

"Owners of capital will stimulate working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable.

The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism."

Karl Marx, 1867

You GW is in fact a comunist.


RE: #@@#
By QuantumPion on 6/9/2009 5:24:16 PM , Rating: 3
So you don't think that Obama will direct GM to produce more hybrids and the Volt, even though the latter is massively unprofitable, and to cut back the production of SUV's and trucks which ARE profitable? These are things that the government wants but which are bad business decisions. This is the very essence of socialism. Government do-gooders thinking they know better what we want then ourselves.


RE: #@@#
By noirsoft on 6/9/2009 7:02:05 PM , Rating: 3
Um... The reason that GM is in trouble is that they made too many SUVs and large trucks, so when demand went down due to rising gas prices, their revenue evaporated. How again is that profitable? If it were profitable, why are they selling off Hummer? (Hint: It's because Hummer is losing money)

Maybe the government is just forcing them to make the needed changes that the real socialists (labor unions) were preventing?


RE: #@@#
By corduroygt on 6/9/2009 11:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
GM made those SUV's because people wanted them. They're bankrupt because they spent too much money to make those SUV's, thanks to unions.


RE: #@@#
By MatthiasF on 6/10/2009 2:18:46 AM , Rating: 3
They made them because of a tax advantages given to light trucks (for small businesses) and avoiding CAFE standards (which light trucks don't have to follow).

The loopholes were exacerbated by the fact the deduction for large vehicles was drastically increased from $25,000 to $75,000 in 2002 and $100,000 in 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_179_depreciat...


RE: #@@#
By MrBungle123 on 6/9/2009 1:53:49 PM , Rating: 3
I'm going to take a wild guess here say that you listen to Rush about as often as Mick does and based on the complete ignorance on Rush's positions spewed all over in that article is very likely somewhere between seldom and never.

quote:
Rush is about as anti-American as it comes.


Hardly, Rush promotes an America which values free markets and personal liberty which is not very popular position with the leftist progressives running the government or their cheerleading squad MSNBC/CNN.

quote:
All criticism, with no alternatives or answers.


Listen to the show, his answer to the problems of the day is to let individuals figure out what the best solution is for them at a personal level instead of the one size fits all blanket "solutions" offered by leftists politicians.

quote:
Now is the time to support the country and its companies.


Yes it is, and if Rush were here defending himself I would bet he would say the best way to do that would be to take off the hand cuffs of high taxes and over regulation imposed on them by the federal government so that American ingenuity, creativity, and industriousness could turn things around.


RE: #@@#
By Smilin on 6/9/2009 1:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
You know when Fox news says they're fair an balanced that it's just a marketting gimmick right? right?

You watch them too much.


RE: #@@#
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 2:21:28 PM , Rating: 4
So we should all appreciate that the hosts of MSNBC and CNN wear Obama Hope and Change T-shirts...at least they aren't hiding their agenda.


RE: #@@#
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 2:21:04 PM , Rating: 4
Which one is balanced? To me, "NEWS" is like "POLITICIANS".
There is always an agenda and I don't trust any of them.

So if you want to be fair, you should admit that you hate Fox News (because they're biased) and you have no problem with MSNBC, CNN, et al (because they're biased *your* way)


RE: #@@#
By knutjb on 6/9/2009 2:35:30 PM , Rating: 4
Smilin you don't listen or watch Limbaugh or Fox enough or at all, likely, not at all. If you spend a full 3 weeks listening to Limbaugh you will find he does have points that make sense, whether or not you agree with those points is for you to decide. If you listen for a while you will see him misquoted, usually way out of context, more often than not in the mainstream. If you had listened you would have heard him strongly criticize Bush, something that the mainstream fails to mention. The mainstream has a blatant bias that has grown beyond the point of journalistic irresponsibility. Fox is experiencing a rapid growth in viewership as CNN and MSNBC decline because they are consistent in showing both sides. Yes they have some commentators that lean this way or that. Have you spent time watching Special Report? I recommend you try it for a week. I have tried to watch CNN, MSNBC, the 3 broadcast channels and watch them praise everything that Obama does, all softball Q&A. I don't want propagandized news, I want both GOOD and BAD. Fox didn't do that for Bush, I know because I watched. I also listen to NPR, and some of their stories are quite good, whether I like their point of view or not.

The mainstream media has little credibility when you have those in editorial positions commenting that Obama rose above the event in a God like way. Tell me that is unbiased, that was a Newsweek editor BTW.

Use your jaundice eye when viewing both sides, otherwise you become a stooge for the side you don't question. I chose not to be a puppet for either side, will you? Get your facts straight, then comment.


RE: #@@#
By Spuke on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By Smilin on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By MrBungle123 on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By Smilin on 6/10/2009 10:14:07 AM , Rating: 1
Thanks for taking me out of context there, Rush. The following was a rhetorical question from me followed by the answer (which you left out)...

quote:

As far as liberal vs conservative who really knows where the center is?


I'll return the favor. You said:

quote:

both parties are left the Dems are being run by the extreme left and the Republicans are trying to be Democrat light (center left).


...and I'll respond by putting back in part of my earlier answer which you omitted:

quote:

There is one thing you can bet on though: If all the voices are to the left of you then most likely you are on the right.


RE: #@@#
By MrPoletski on 6/10/2009 7:00:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you spend a full 3 weeks listening to Limbaugh you will find he does have points that make sense,


I shouldn't have to listen to a guy for 3 weeks solid to finally find a point of his that makes any sense.


RE: #@@#
By ctodd on 6/9/2009 3:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
The news is fair and balanced. You are confusing news with commentary. They have analyst on panels that discuss topics with different views. Sometimes they have both sides in the discussion and sometimes they don't. Most times they do. If you go to their website, you will find many of their hosts and shows under the title 'Opinion'. Hence what they say is their 'Opinion'. With the exception of Bill O'Reilly, most hosts do not say disparaging comments about people. They don’t call people tea-baggers or retards or use profanity to strengthen their opinions. I don’t watch as much news as I use to, but I don’t find Fox as offending as many left leaning people would like everyone to think.


RE: #@@#
By Scrith on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 6:41:55 PM , Rating: 1
Don't bother quoting the fact that the positive coverage of Obama has been the most by a wide margin . . . Gee, I guess I "left" that out.


RE: #@@#
By ctodd on 6/9/2009 10:19:56 PM , Rating: 1
I doubt every word you said. I saw a poll once during the presidential elections that said the complete opposite, but I refrained from mentioning it earlier because I could not find it. So unless you can back that up I will take what you say as complete hog wash.

We all want fairness and we all want to win, but most of the time you can only have one.


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/10/2009 12:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
You don't question Scrith's post but mine. I find that highly suspect.


RE: #@@#
By ctodd on 6/10/2009 12:22:57 PM , Rating: 2
The reply wasn't to you. Please follow the lines.


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/10/2009 8:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
My bad . . .


RE: #@@#
By sgw2n5 on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By Radnor on 6/9/2009 9:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
After reading up to here, im seeing that your right-wingers are socialists, Your left-wingers are something really nuts and comunists only exist in propaganda.

Yes it is, and if Rush were here defending himself I would bet he would say the best way to do that would be to take off the hand cuffs of high taxes and over regulation imposed on them by the federal government so that American ingenuity, creativity, and industriousness could turn things around.

Central Banks system are neither left or right. And neither capitalists. About American ingenuity would have to "Barter" all the way, so it wont starve to death. Money is still the only "neutral" form of exchange we know.


RE: #@@#
By ICBM on 6/9/2009 2:36:16 PM , Rating: 4
Anti-American? LOL. He throws ideas out there, and complains constantly. I can't stand him personally, but it does get people talking and that's what's important. That is the whole point of America, different ideas being discussed freely.

Now, supporting the country and its companies. Hmm, I am trying to think of who would say that.....sounds a little like USSR propaganda to me.

Before you spout Anti-American junk, please think before type.


RE: #@@#
By InfantryRocks on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By GlobleWarmingisbunk on 6/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 7:51:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Rush is about as anti-american as it comes. All critisism, with no alternatives or answers. Now is the time to support the country and its companies.
CORRECTION: refusing to support Socialism is about as American as it gets.

And where do you get this idiotic statement he has "no alternatives or answers"? The alternative is simple. Let GM declare a traditional bankruptcy and reorganize on its own, like tens of thousands of companies have done before them.

Government ownership of a company is the KISS OF DEATH. Does no one remember that the British government did EXACTLY THIS in the 1970s. See any British car companies today?


RE: #@@#
By Zaranthos on 6/10/2009 11:39:37 AM , Rating: 2
You ever really listen to Rush? What's anti-American is bailing companies out that were failing and trying to prop them up at the expense of companies that weren't. Buy a Ford. At least they're not sucking off the taxpayers tit to feed unions that only serve themselves. The mistakes Bush made are starting to look pretty small compared to the things Obama is doing. God help us all if the global roll of the dice they're doing fails. Support the country and it companies comrade. :P


RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 11:50:42 AM , Rating: 2
There's a great quote out today from the new Govt-appointed CEO of GM, saying how he "doesn't know anything about cars". Yeah, that's gonna work out real well:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&si...


RE: #@@#
By Meinolf on 6/9/2009 1:38:25 PM , Rating: 4
Rush has all the the answers but never wants to run for office.


RE: #@@#
By Fanon on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By sgw2n5 on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 3:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
That's it, when you have no subject matter or point to stand on . . . attack them personally. Classic "Rules for Radicals" and the libtard methodology.


RE: #@@#
By sgw2n5 on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 3:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
1) He is NOT the leader of the Republicans . . . if you had listened, you would know that.

2) The reason the economy is hurting is thanks to Congress (under Dem control) passing legislation forcing lenders to commit to sub prime loans to "help" the poor. The poor defaulted on the loans and the banks backing them went bust.

3) President Obama is not "evil" . . . simply a naive person who has his ideology rooted in Marxism and economic class warfare. Unfortunately, his $10 trillion in deficit spending will cause harm for years to come and cow towing to the true evils in the world (Iranian dictators etc.) will cause even more harm.

Finally, you don't even address the very valid point that when you have no argument . . . attack them personally. Have you read rules for radicals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky) because you are using as your playbook?


RE: #@@#
By sgw2n5 on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 5:20:37 PM , Rating: 3
1) Again, listen to him, he proclaims over and over he is not the leader of the Republicans.

2) They actually did hold legislature to their heads forcing them to lend . . . try knowing what you talk about before you post.

3) $10 trillion overseas or here is still bankrupting us. btw - If you are referring to the Iraq war, it didn't cost anywhere near what Obama's estimated spending is on health care alone or the trillion dollar crap sandwich. Also, diplomacy is NOT automatically accepting everything our enemies say . . . that is weakness. Hurling into war?? That's why the majority of Democrats voted for it?? Every major intelligence community in the world agreed that Iraq posed a threat to the region and should be dealt with. Again, try actually knowing what you are talking about before you regurgitate liberal propaganda.

An finally, you resort to insults instead of facts . . . classic libtard tactics. I guess the fact that Rush's show is the most popular radio program in the world detracts from your assault on his beliefs/character. Please go back to posting on MSNBC or CNN if you have nothing of value to add here.


RE: #@@#
By sgw2n5 on 6/9/2009 5:43:01 PM , Rating: 2
Go watch some more Fox News. Your talking points need some work.

quote:
An finally, you resort to insults instead of facts . . . classic libtard tactics.

Somehow, I'm sure the irony of this is lost on you...


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 6:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, Some of us are not as intellectual as you "brilliant" Liberals. Annoy a Liberal, use logic and facts. I love it, you use personal insults as your primary tactic, get criticized for it, and then criticize the criticizer . . . Oh the hypocrisy.

I actually don't really watch Fox so keep trying. I expect a counter with a personal attack . . .


RE: #@@#
By Belard on 6/10/2009 2:29:12 AM , Rating: 4
1) He's not an elected leader... but when have the chairman of the GOP bowing down to him. People getting fired because of him. He is the loudest voice of anti-american hypocritical BS.

He preaches for years that druggies must go to prison... yet when he's busted. its "poor me!" Just like most anti-american republicans. "Do as I say, not what I do".

It doesn't matter what Obama does, you guys will always be against it. Hell, if Obama gave the rich more tax credit, you'll guys still bitch about it.

No, Dem Congress has only been in somewhat real power since this Janurary. The only thing they were able to do since the mid-elections of 2006 was to SLOW down the team-bush destruction. Al Franken is still not in office because of the games you guys play. Oh, when Al Gore won the 2000 election - you guys fought tooth and nail to stop the recount... but if its for your benifit, you guys go on and on when there is now way that guy is going to win.

Unlike Bush - who spent the half of 2001 on vacations (look it up) and not reading Intel reports. Obama is actually doing "work".

Team Bush is nothing but 8 years of FAILURE. Name once sucess.

I'll blame 100% of the blame on Team Bush for the 4000+ dead American Soilders and tens of thousands of severly wounded (missing limbs, brain damage, etc). But hey, Cheney's Haliburton has made a killing in profits from the Iraq war.

Oh and INCASE you missed it. Cheney finally said it last week "there was no connection with 9/11 Al Quadia and Iraq" - DUH! Torture gate resultes in no usable intel. They commited war-crimes. And created a mess that brought the respect of the USA down big time.

For those people who VOTED for bush in 2004 - shame on you. The blood of dead Americans is on you. Supporting retards to support a fake war and getting our friends and family wounded and killed for nothing but L I E S.

Perhaps you should watch a bit of MSNBC... they do actually show the lies quite well from FOXnews (ie FIXnews). The recent blatent lies about Obama are sick, stupid, insulting and very anti-American.

Go back to FIXnews and feel safe in your propganda and continue to wonder why things have to shit in this country. Obviously, its beyond your ability of original thought. The idea that for the past 8+ years, you've been lied to. As the saying go...

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/10/2009 8:24:37 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, you are completely delusional. I have no issue with Obama, only his policies. If he were to cut taxes, stand for strong national defense, and limited government I would support him . . . but then he wouldnt be a democrat!


RE: #@@#
By Belard on 6/12/2009 12:10:55 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah.... thats sounds rather stupid. Oh yeah, our defense has been weakened by a stressed out Army.

I hate taxes, but that is how a country runs... including the USA. How do you think "STRONG DEFENSE" comes from? How do you think those fancy tanks get built?

Good use of our money is important. And not wasting people lives.


RE: #@@#
By Belard on 6/12/2009 12:53:58 AM , Rating: 1
But everyone is AFRAID of him... they bow to him. There was a recent GALLUP Poll.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120806/Limbaugh-Gingric... But most people don't know/say nobody is the leader of the GOP.

#1 - Rush (A talk show, who is spreads hate and lies)
#2 - Cheney (Not in any official political office)
#3 - Gingrich (Not in any official political office) He, who cheated on his wife.
#4 - McCain (A Senator)
#5 - Bush (Not in any official political anything)
#6 - Steele (Figurehead, official leader of the GOP - bows to #1)

Palin... she got less than 1%. Just 4 votes.

3) Demo voted to authorize War because of POLITICS! Remember the idiots yelling "Freedom Fries!" And flag waving. To not vote for war = unpatriotic. Yeah, they pussyed out to avoid losing the elections, etc.

Rush has little character. He's the #1 popular liar for the idiots like you. He's a drug addict, a liar, a hypocrite, a racist, a neo-con (That is an insult btw) and a pussy... and that is the BEST the GOP has. He's easily smarter than Bush and can read and write. But he's still as anti-american as they come.

On a recent show, he blames Obama for the 88-yr old neo-nazi for killing a black security guard at the Holocaust
Museum. Uh... the guy was a neo-nazi before Obama was senator... and hes been listening to the crap like Rush for so long that it becomes "true". And even yesterday, Rush goes on an on about Obama's birth certificate.

JEZZZ!! Like a broken record. You people still scream "Lets see it, lets see it!" Its been shown, yes. Duh, he's an American. Then you guys say "No, its fake - we want to see the real one" etc etc... He's citizenship was proven along time ago by the schools hes gone to, the Senate he was apart of, etc. You have to be an American to be Prez... that's why Arnold never ran for Prez. He's happy to be Gov.

No. sorry little 666. Your life is a lie and perhaps some day you will realize this. Think of the naive poor guys in the middle east who think the WTC was attacked after we started the war with Iraq, etc... the leaders in those countries use the USA as propaganda to blame their problems on us (The USA) to get the typical person then to direct their anger at us, rather than their own leaders.

Just like KKK/Neocons/neonazis blame the blacks, jews, mexicans, irish, or whatever for their loser lives and living in a trailer house. Nope, because they're stupid and its easiler to blame others for their pathetic existence. (And proof why Abortion should always be legal)


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/12/2009 2:59:12 PM , Rating: 1
"#1 - Rush (A talk show, who is spreads hate and lies)"

Careful . . . your rant is full of these.

"#3 - Gingrich (Not in any official political office) He, who cheated on his wife."

Yeah, I forgot about Big Bubba doing that and then perjuring himself over it.

"Rush has little character. He's the #1 popular liar for the idiots like you. He's a drug addict, a liar, a hypocrite, a racist, a neo-con (That is an insult btw) and a pussy... and that is the BEST the GOP has. He's easily smarter than Bush and can read and write. But he's still as anti-american as they come."

Personal attacks is all you have . . .

"On a recent show, he blames Obama for the 88-yr old neo-nazi for killing a black security guard at the Holocaust
Museum"

Simply not true. I heard that segment and he was commenting to the way the drive by media immediately brands that lunatic a "right winger" when he clearly hated Bush, hated the war in Iraq, hated large corporations, hated Jews etc. The guy was a sociopath, plain and simple.

"No. sorry little 666. Your life is a lie and perhaps some day you will realize this. Think of the naive poor guys in the middle east who think the WTC was attacked after we started the war with Iraq, etc... the leaders in those countries use the USA as propaganda to blame their problems on us (The USA) to get the typical person then to direct their anger at us, rather than their own leaders.

Just like KKK/Neocons/neonazis blame the blacks, jews, mexicans, irish, or whatever for their loser lives and living in a trailer house. Nope, because they're stupid and its easiler to blame others for their pathetic existence. (And proof why Abortion should always be legal)"

Let me get this straight, you are saying I should listen to you because other people in the world are not as informed as you??? That's also an extremely racist statement to make that "they're stupid" (see the hate and lies coming out) These last two paragraphs don't make much sense at all.

As for realizing my life is a lie, well I could say the same to you and it probably wouldn't make a difference to what you so vehemently believe in.

I do know that the basic of the conservative (limited govt., free market, individual liberty, strong national defense, etc.) make a lot more sense to me than the liberal agenda. It kinda seems like common sense but I guess not everyone was born with that.


RE: #@@#
By Belard on 6/14/2009 8:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Careful . . . your rant is full of these.


Prove it.

quote:
"#3 - Gingrich (Not in any official political office) He, who cheated on his wife." Yeah, I forgot about Big Bubba doing that and then perjuring himself over it.


No, the point is; People who are hypocrites shouldn't be opening their mouths. Newt attacked Clinton for the BJs... while he himself as cheating. Limbaugh attacks drug addicts, while he himself is a DRUG addict. You have Haggard, leader of the the Evangelists - who been to the White house of Bush many a time, preached against evil, drugs, homosexuals, etc... Yet he himself was a drug-using butt pirate.

The guy is so full of himself, he blames people who "work out" and are fit as the problem of rising health care? LOL, when a huge part of hospital operations is billing caused by Insurance companies and that both are for-profit which began in the 70s... that is the cause of rising health care. Lets see, one of the Nixon tapes that is PUBLICLY available... basically "Hey Nixon, we have the business plan in which we have insurance companies run the health care system. We'll make more money by providing less medical services" Nixon: "Sounds like a good idea". (the above quotes are not exact, look them up yourself)

About your comment on the 88yr old man. While yeah, he was a nut, hates bush etc. Rush still blames Obama for it.

quote:
As for realizing my life is a lie, well I could say the same to you


No, there is a difference. I question my sources of info. I don't 100% trust what any Politician says they will do. My opinions are based on what THEY themselves say and actually do. I watched BushW on Larry King. He said, if one of his daughters (then 17) were preggers, that it would be a private matter between him and his daughter. The relation of this statement... What if she wanted an abortion. Oh so its OKAY to dictate other peoples personal lives, but if it effects him... its "private".

You say "liberal agenda", what about the neo-con Agenda?

Here's the big difference... Liberals allows people like you to say and do what you want (within the law). Neo-cons like you want to deport or kill anyone who doesn't agree with them.


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/16/2009 10:48:27 AM , Rating: 2
Attacking personally an individual for their sexual preferences, their lifestyle choices, or their habits reeks of hate and lies. If you simply read your posts, you will see how much hatred you have for everything you don't believe in.

And then you go on to say that liberals are the tolerant ones after blasting everybody and everything you don't agree with. Liberals are tolerant as long as you agree with them. If you don't, they attack you and keep attacking on any level they can. Talk about being hypocritical! The is with Bubba was the lying part, not the cheating part if you really want to debate that. I don't care what someone does in their personal life but when it comes down to lying/perjuring themselves to cover it up . . . well, that crosses the line.

I don't agree with the neo-con agenda (I'm not one) and I would argue it is for the most part marginalized and is certainly less pervasive than the liberal agenda. Take the last election for example . . . you are so proud of the liberal victory yet continue to bash the losing team. The only people I really have a beef with is those who would do harm to America and it's people. I believe we should do everything we can to stop them.

What it boils down to is you are of the opinion you are right and everyone else who doesn't agree with you is wrong. Also, you are very self righteous about that (and I might add hypocritical) by espousing tolerance while at the same time attacking and attacking.

I don't claim to be right on everything but I also don't lambaste and excoriate people who don't agree with me. I may take a stab or two at them for humor and to keep the dialog lively, but it is not the basis of my argument.

Please feel free to keep espousing your beliefs (based upon all of the intellectual "questioning of sources"you do) and I will continue to believe mine --- based empirical research and always questioning the source. If anyone has come off as a one source listener, it has been you, spoon fed by the media to walk down the path towards financial ruin and weakened national security.

It's been fun!


RE: #@@#
By Belard on 6/14/2009 8:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
Some facts for you:

CNN timeline of weapons inspectors:
http://www.mapreport.com/subtopics/w/i.html#2003

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

"President Bush asserted peaceful measures couldn't disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War" "Later U.S.-led inspections agreed with earlier conclusions that Iraq had abandoned its WMD programs in 1991"

US casualties: 4,296 dead as of May 21, 2009. As of April 6, 2009 there were 31,102 wounded in action.

Sorry you hate the facts. Unlike the old days of the USSR, your beloved prez/VP cannot re-write their version of "history".


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 5:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
Did you actually read the quote about Rush from politico or did you just Google "Rush leader of Republican Party"? The only quote there is from Rambo "Dead Fish" Emmanual about him. Here is Rush's quote from your link:
"Limbaugh said: “I'm not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don't want to be. I would be embarrassed to say that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in the sad-sack state that it's in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it's in, I would quit. I might get out the hari-kari knife because I would have presided over a failure that is embarrassing to the Republicans and conservatives who have supported it and invested in it all these years.”"


RE: #@@#
By sgw2n5 on 6/9/2009 5:49:53 PM , Rating: 3
Just because Limbaugh claims he doesn't want to be the leader of the dittohead party doesn't make it so.

He is the de-facto leader, all elected republicans are scared shiatless of him and are afraid to call him out on his massive role in ruining the party and driving out all of the moderates.

Like losing elections? Keep propping up idiots like this, and keep pandering to the loony religious right.


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: #@@#
By sgw2n5 on 6/9/2009 10:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
It's intellectually dishonest to even mention "Reagen" and "fiscally responsible" in the same sentence...

You'd also be happy to know that I voted for Barr in the last election, but hey, obviously if someone doesn't lick the boot of your dear leader Limbaugh, they're a dirty liberal right?

quote:
"A man who is not a liberal when he is young has no heart and a man who is not a conservative when he is older has no mind."

Wow... way to butcher an already miss-attributed Churchill quote. lol.

You really are a dittohead. But you're firm in your convictions... however misguided they may be... so there's that, right?


RE: #@@#
By stonemetal on 6/9/2009 9:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
cow towing to the true evils in the world


We don't have a truck, we aren't moving beef. It is kowtow all one word, and begins with a 'K'.


RE: #@@#
By ctodd on 6/9/2009 10:33:16 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely!

Here is a great artical that backs up what you say for #2. Notice the date it was published.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-age...


RE: #@@#
By SamuelW on 6/10/2009 4:47:14 AM , Rating: 2
1) Whether or not Limbaugh is the "leader of the Republicans" I sure as heck can see that no criticism of him is undertaken without a swift apology being issued immediately afterwards.

If not the leader, what exactly is he?

2) The fact of the matter is that the ones most responsible for creating the subprime loan problem are those who weren't obligated to give out loans by the CRA. Those who were by and large were more responsible than those who weren't.

Look it up, your party orthodoxy is wrong.

3) Iran is on the balance one of the least bad countries in the area. Saudia Arabia is far worse and we've worked with them for years. Same deal with Egypt. Iran is also an excellent example of why we shouldn't intervene in other countries.

Unlike many other countries in the area, it is moving in the right direction overall. Our bold threats and proclamations certainly help to shore up support for the ayatollahs though.


RE: #@@#
By ICBM on 6/9/2009 4:02:50 PM , Rating: 3
I think you are missing the point. The real question is whether the federal government/tax payers should be saving peoples' jobs. Do we go as far as Venezuela in regards to nationalizing business? How many of those jobs that are being saved are from unionized/registered democrats? It is for political purposes, plain and simple. Don't think congress is doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.


RE: #@@#
By Jellodyne on 6/9/2009 4:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
Since snide personal attacks make up about half of his show, and are "Classic 'Rules for Radicals' and the libtard methodology", you're agreeing that Limbaugh is a secret liberal parody of conservative America and driving anyone with half a brain away from conservatism and towards his secret pinko commie allies?


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 6:12:24 PM , Rating: 1
I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe listen to him and see how many personal attacks he uses . . . NONE. Its all about the Liberals policies and their statements. How is he driving people away when it's the most popular radio show in the world??? 52% of the vote is not the end of the world.


RE: #@@#
By noirsoft on 6/9/2009 7:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, Rush wasn't personally attacking Michael J Fox when he said he was faking the severity of his illness. He was just attacking the "liberal policies" (stem cell research) that might actually find a cure.

He wasn't personally attacking Sotomayor when he called her a racist. Was he attacking the "liberal policy" of appointing qualified judges who happen to be Latina?

Car accidents must be proper driving technique because more than 50% of people slow down to watch them on the highways. The majority can't be wrong.


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 8:16:13 PM , Rating: 1
Sotomayor - She made clearly racist statements on more than one occasion and he said her statements were racist, NOT that she was. I think you are thinking of Newt (who retracted that later). I guess CNN didn't cover the whole story and you got confused. Ouch, Rush calling out the truth, must hurt.

Not sure what you are talking about with majority. Are you talking about how proud the libs are of the Obamamorans that had the majority by a few points?

How about the White House Chief of Staff (Emanuel) personally attacking Rush? Forgot to mention that didn't you. I guess its politically correct to attack a private citizen when you are in the most powerful office in the world? That's not abuse of power is it? Give me a break.


RE: #@@#
By SamuelW on 6/10/2009 4:52:46 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, saying a latin woman who has had direct experience would make better decisions on relevant items than a white man who hasn't had it? Clearly racist.


RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 7:54:27 AM , Rating: 2
Nice try Samuel, but that isn't what Sotomayor said at all. You can spin her remark as being about "experience on relevant items", but the truth is it was about race and gender, and about some races and genders being better qualified than others.

That's racism and sexism. Nothing else.


RE: #@@#
By SamuelW on 6/10/2009 12:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
You've made me go look over the full context again and it was about race as well as experience, but what it was saying (in the full context) is nothing at all like how you describe:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements...


RE: #@@#
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 1:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You've made me go look over the full context [of Sotomayor's remarks] again and it was about race as well as experience
Damn right it was. Thanks for the courage to admit that truth.

When you claim race is a factor in qualifications for ANYTHING, you're a racist. Period.


RE: #@@#
By Bender 123 on 6/9/2009 2:18:14 PM , Rating: 5
He (I am not kidding) often sites daily tech as his source on technology issues...So he cant be all bad. Lets all start a game and see which frequent comment board members is actually Rush.

I am going to vote for my top three suspects:
1: Masher
2: FitCamaro
3: TheRealRushLimbaugh


RE: #@@#
By Pirks on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: #@@#
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 2:28:39 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you think that political media personnel never run for office? Because they are all good at identifiying problems, but they often lack the sight to come up with any potential solutions.

This is true for all of them: Rush, O Reilly, Olberman, Matthews, Madows, etc.


RE: #@@#
By knutjb on 6/9/2009 2:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're missing the commentator point, it is far more profitable than holding a public office, it comes without the constraints of public office, and it is, for them, a lot of fun to do. If you were to listen you would find that many of them do have their idea of the solution to be used i.e. O'Reilly has pushed Jessica's Law for years, Rush has always pushed lower taxes because believes they have a great history of fixing more than higher taxes do, etc...

I don't know about you, I want a job I can enjoy that pays a lot too, well right now I just want a job but that is a different thread.


RE: #@@#
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 3:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
I think majority of the country wants lowers taxes. And jessica's law is a good one, which is accepted in 30 something states - except the liberal ones who like child abusers.

But, my point was that neither Rush or Bill came up with the original ideas for Jessica's Law and lower taxation increasing revenue.


RE: #@@#
By hashish2020 on 6/11/2009 12:52:34 AM , Rating: 2
It's not Jessica's Law, it's Megan's Law idiot

If you are going to be polemical and vicious, at least get the name of the law right

And it is utterly unconsitutional...

Not to mention, you can get put on the list for statutory rape, public sex OR EVEN FOR PUTTING PICTURES OF YOURSELF ON THE NET if you are underage


RE: #@@#
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 3:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly you have not listened as the thing they do the most is to suggest the better way of doing it. They (Rush, Shawn, and the great one - Mark Levin) exist to suggest the path we should be following. Task 1) Point out the problem, Task 2) Suggest the solution. Whats so hard to follow about that. Please stop listening to the drive by media blasting them and listen to them yourself. If you have actually listened and tried to understand and still don't get it, then by all means . . . keep marching toward European style Socialism. Just leave the rest of us out of it.


RE: #@@#
By ccmfreak2 on 6/9/2009 4:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
Who wants to run for office? It's the most over criticized, over worked, under paid position in America. Everything you say and do is scrutized by both sides to the N'th degree. I sure don't want that either. Too much stress.


RE: #@@#
By eddieroolz on 6/9/2009 3:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yea man, seriously, who the hell doe this guy think he is?

"Hey guys, don't buy GM just because it's Obama - he's a Democrat!"

That's about as immature as it gets.


RE: #@@#
By Nfarce on 6/9/2009 6:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Somebody needs to put this guy out of our misery


As much as I dislike that radical left wing POS Keith Olberwoman, I'd never have the thought you did about people you disagree with. I just ignore the m-fer. I'd suggest you liberals full of so much rage and hate do the same.


RE: #@@#
By SamuelW on 6/10/2009 4:57:59 AM , Rating: 3
I'm willing to say that I do believe it would be better for him to be our of the public sphere in whatever way that occurs, along with Pat Robertson and others solely for the radicalizing effect they have on people. The right in the United States has been radical for some time on a global scale, they're far more so now and those guys are a big reason why.

However you cut it though, hes advocating the murder of a fellow human being. No matter how detestable and full of crap Rush is (very), that is wrong and needs to be condemned. Seriously, shame on you man.


RE: #@@#
By hashish2020 on 6/11/2009 12:54:51 AM , Rating: 2
Olbermann may be annoying, but he certainly isn't left wing


RE: #@@#
By Nfarce on 6/11/2009 9:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Olbermann may be annoying, but he certainly isn't left wing


That's a joke, right??? You ever watch his MSNBC "Count Down" show? No, you CAN'T be serious....


RE: #@@#
By KCjoker on 6/9/2009 6:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
This article mentions Bush started the bailouts. Well it fails to mention Bush's were LOANS. Only once Obama became President did they become true bailouts and not money the auto companies would have to pay back.


RE: #@@#
By Tacoloft on 6/9/2009 7:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
Even a loan was a huge mistake...as time has revealed it was fuel used for Obama's spending spree.


RE: #@@#
By Hiawa23 on 6/9/2009 9:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
Rush as usual spews nonsense, & funny, but there is a segment of the population who buys into everything he says, especially his Obama, rants & bashes, which to me along with Hannity adds nothing but fuel to a burning racial fire that clearly came out in the election.

Forget Obama, I think Americans should buy GM cause they make pretty good vehicles. I voted for Obama but this hatred that many have for him, scares the hell out of me, as the country is full of people just needing any excuse to attempt to do him harm. I prey nothing happens cause you want to talk about racial problems now that this country has, that could set us back years. GM's downfall is not Obama's fault. I guess some would have been happy to let GM go completely out & liquidate.


Why is this news?
By Tacoloft on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why is this news?
By dqniel on 6/9/2009 1:39:10 PM , Rating: 5
I think most of the people posting here agree with the ideal behind the movement. I think we just don't agree with the circumstance in which the ideal is being applied. I'd rather take a course of action that won't screw up the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and further our economic problems.

Good ideal - Government illegaly using our money to help a private business is BAD.

Bad implementation - Showing said ideal by sticking it to the entire nation rather than just those elected officials abusing power.


RE: Why is this news?
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 1:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
I keep hearing this "sticking it to the politicians who abuse their power"

How is this NOT sticking it to them? The ideal would be to vote them out, but the American people don't seem to care if their politicians are corrupt as long as they get their check at the end of the month.

Truth is, when an entity gets big and bloated, the best way for everyone to prosper is for that entity to be reborn into a new and more streamlined unit. GM needs to lose it's baggage or die. What the current administration is doing is enabling failure and buying votes in the process. When did American's become so lame to think that they are not gonna suffer sometimes? It's part of life. What's goes up, must come down and instead of whining, Americans should choose self-reliance instead of spoonfeeding and control.


RE: Why is this news?
By austinag on 6/9/2009 3:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
Listen;
I hate the bailouts, federal power creep, government ownership of private industry, Obama, politics, the iphone, Richard Simmons, Sony, NBC's fall line up, people who drive slow in the left lane, content filters, Scrappy Doo, new coke, lawyers, satan, and lime in my coconuts as much as the next guy, but not buying GM products only hurts GM employees. BHO won't be bothered in the slightest.


RE: Why is this news?
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 7:40:30 AM , Rating: 2
First of all, boycotting GM has nothing to do with "humbling" BO. It has to do with just saying no to socialism. And thats a good thing.

I don't listen to his crappy show but Rush is right on this one. Boycotting GM is the most American thing you can do right now.


RE: Why is this news?
By callmeroy on 6/10/2009 8:39:04 AM , Rating: 2
Naive --- that's the word that comes to mind when I read that comment....some folks are so simple minded and naive....the "can't see the forest for the trees" concept.


RE: Why is this news?
By austinag on 6/10/2009 10:40:58 AM , Rating: 2
I hear what your saying, but not buying GM product only hurts GM workers, and the United States future ablility to compete in the industrial sector. If you don't like socialism, don't vote for socialists, and get involved in local politics.


RE: Why is this news?
By clovell on 6/9/2009 3:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
It has to stop somewhere. With that line of thinking, it'll never stop. There is no fairness to be had in this situation. End it now, and let's all move on with our lives.


RE: Why is this news?
By Mojo the Monkey on 6/9/2009 1:52:16 PM , Rating: 5
Radio-tainment pundits, who are paid to be controversial, NEVER make "good points." Quit fooling yourself. Not even these stooges themselves believe their own rants when talking in private off the air.


RE: Why is this news?
By Tacoloft on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why is this news?
By Ratinator on 6/9/2009 2:17:34 PM , Rating: 1
People listen to him because they are clueless and simply look up to someone who's sole purpose in life is to bitch and moan about everything. Rush is an complete idiot.


RE: Why is this news?
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 2:25:31 PM , Rating: 1
So these people are clueless...because they have a different outlook on life than you do, and lean politically, socially, and economically a different way than you do. In other words, you should rephrase it to say they are clueless because they are actually using their individual minds and making their own choices instead of following the words of Harry Reid to silence a private citizen for making him look bad...all the time.

You know, its quite amusing to see you liberals preach to everyone to be accepting of gays, lesbians, antiwar protesters, socialism, higher taxes, a lower standard of living.........yet, you attack normal the first chance you get because you are not accepting that they may possibly not agree with you.


RE: Why is this news?
By Ratinator on 6/9/2009 2:32:59 PM , Rating: 1
You just did the same thing by suggesting that I attack normal.....your version of normal is not everyone elses version of normal so now you just attacked me. Hypocrit.


RE: Why is this news?
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 2:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you really are obtuse lol. I left out a word in my sentence. Read the phrase below with it editted

quote:
yet, you attack normal people the first chance...


By normal people, I refer to people who mind their own business, vote when given the chance, and live their own lives. It is meant to refer to average citizens who do not feel they are activists for every cause.


RE: Why is this news?
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 2:28:27 PM , Rating: 3
You are an arrogant blowhard for automatically discounting anyone who disagrees with you.

Pretty intolerant.


RE: Why is this news?
By Ratinator on 6/9/2009 2:36:06 PM , Rating: 1
Where did I discount everyone who disagrees with me? I discounted everyone who agrees with Rush. Now you yourself are making generalizations that every right wing republican agrees with Rush. Kind of makes yourself the arrogant blowhard thinking that Rush's opinion actually means that much.


RE: Why is this news?
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 2:50:37 PM , Rating: 1
Where did he mention anything about political affiliations or their political leaning? That was you.

You really are the epitome of a liberal - conceited, vulgar, not accepting, and hypocritical. The only thing progressive about you is how progressively fast you are to get on the defensive because you know you are an ass.


RE: Why is this news?
By austinag on 6/9/2009 3:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
We are all blowhards. Why else would we feel the need to share our opinions with complete strangers? Accept your inner blowhard, it's better then being mental pushover.


RE: Why is this news?
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 2:51:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
People listen to him because they are clueless and simply look up to someone who's sole purpose in life is to bitch and moan about everything. Rush is an complete idiot.


You state that anyone who listens to Rush is clueless. That is discounting those people (millions of his fans).

The implication is that since you think "Rush is an complete idiot" that anyone who listens to him is clueless.

So, yes. I would say that you are discounting everyone who disagrees with you *about Rush*.


RE: Why is this news?
By KorruptioN on 6/9/2009 2:33:33 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Rush is an complete idiot.


har har har


RE: Why is this news?
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 2:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
First off, radio personalities exist because they have a base of listeners, and advertisers will purchase expensive commercial time because of the potential new client base.

In case you forgot, this is a private market, which the democrats hate. Reason? Because no matter how many times the democrats and liberals try to do AM talk radio, NO ONE listens and their stations go out of business.

You can call Rush's 20M-40M daily visitors whatever you want....but just one hour of his show amasses a larger audience than the entire prime time hours of CNN, MSNBC, and NBC television combined....and then doubled.


RE: Why is this news?
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 1:50:38 PM , Rating: 5
I was gonna post the same thing. Mick's "ironically" statement is false because Limbaugh has always said that the bailouts were stupid, and Limbaugh frequently disagreed with Bush.

What gets me is that as I look around I see very little debate and a *lot* of ignorant personal attacks. I'm not a big fan of Limbaugh, but the instant barrage of personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic really shows us what kind of people are on these forums. Adults debate the issue and do not resort to ad hominem attacks. The use of ad hominem attacks usually mean that the person attacking has no knowledge to argue for their side, so they need to resort to attacking the other person instead of debating the issue at hand.

So how about we grow up in here and stop discounting one man's opinion because of his weight, his past drug problem, or his political leanings. If you disagree, then by all means, form a coherent reason why and let's talk about it.


RE: Why is this news?
By TedStriker on 6/9/2009 2:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, but why is this being brought up here? I thought this was Daily Tech, not Mick's Outlet. This topic has nothing to do with what the website is about.


RE: Why is this news?
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 2:16:38 PM , Rating: 1
It's loosely related to tech because of GM. Very loosely.

Plus Mick loves sensationalism and controversy. Clearly.


RE: Why is this news?
By TedStriker on 6/9/2009 2:51:25 PM , Rating: 1
I could give the benefit of the doubt if it were about Microsoft or another tech related company, but it's about GM which is not a tech company.

I wish there were a way to filter out the submissions from mick. I guess it's not too hard to tell which are his from the title though.


RE: Why is this news?
By Teancum on 6/9/2009 4:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
It seems Mick has a h@rd-on for Rush


RE: Why is this news?
By Bull Dog on 6/9/2009 2:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
Rate the man up. In fact, give Tacoloft a 6.

He is using things like reason and logic.


RE: Why is this news?
By Ratinator on 6/9/2009 2:21:11 PM , Rating: 3
Would like them to give you a -2 for suggesting that.


RE: Why is this news?
By jasper2008 on 6/9/2009 2:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how I can rate an article.

I wish I could rate it up.


RE: Why is this news?
By Bender 123 on 6/9/2009 2:30:05 PM , Rating: 4
Welcome to Daily Tech (As Rush says...Its a Science Website!)

Education time....Other members please correct me if I am wrong...

Must comment ten times to earn the right to vote.

One vote for every 5(?) comments in a thread

If you comment you can not vote.

If you vote and then comment, your votes will be nullified.


RE: Why is this news?
By Belard on 6/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why is this news?
By Belard on 6/14/2009 8:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
Rush is a monkey in a black suit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrfDeUL5vwk

Please... someone drop some fish food.


What a schmuck...
By roostitup on 6/9/2009 1:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
Limbaugh is such a moron, this is just another thing to tack up on his wall of dumb suggestions. Everyone who dislikes him should join the facebook group "Telling Rush Limbaugh he's full of crap". It currently has about 50,000 members which is about 5x what his own facebook page has, LOL. Does Rush actually think he has many fans?? Personally I can't stand to listen to the guy, he is just so damn ignorant and stubbern! GM needs support at this moment or it will cost even more money and job loss to solve the problem.




RE: What a schmuck...
By Mojo the Monkey on 6/9/2009 1:36:57 PM , Rating: 5
As much as I hate Limbaugh, I hate "FACEBOOK GROUPS, LOL" bs even more. Your "groups" will never accomplish anything and you look like idiots.


RE: What a schmuck...
By bigbubba on 6/9/2009 5:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree, it provides a place for people to organize and make help make change. How does supporting a cause make people look like idiots? You sir are the only idiot here.


RE: What a schmuck...
By MrPoletski on 6/10/2009 7:02:09 AM , Rating: 2
might get you some groupies...

there is ALWAYs room for groupies...


RE: What a schmuck...
By callmeroy on 6/10/2009 11:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
I concur....as much as I enjoy technology and put food on my table because of it -- some things I doubt I'll ever personally think of as "cool" ---- social networking groups, twitter accounts, texting on my phone every simple thought I have even after I JUST spent the whole night out with you , etc.....yeah the groups are definitely corny....

Btw, as much as I think Rush is a dolt --- he definitely has fans, why do you think he's rated #1 in the Radio Talk show biz --- its not because he only has 12 fans.....


RE: What a schmuck...
By Fanon on 6/9/2009 1:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
GM needs support at this moment or it will cost even more money and job loss to solve the problem.


What would've solved the problem from the get-go was for our government to deny GM bailout funds to begin with. The only way to fix this problem now is for them to fail even more, so that maybe, finally, the idiots in Washington will be removed at the next election and government get their hands out of business.


RE: What a schmuck...
By roostitup on 6/9/2009 5:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
I don't disagree, but that isn't what happened. By letting them fail now we would have to waste even more tax money, though. This would hurt our economy even more. GM can still restructure and become a good running company again, it will just take time. At least we saved some of the jobs that they provide. I agree with the free market as much you anyone else, but we have to work with what we got. Throwing away the money we put into it by letting the business fail would not be a wise choice at this moment. In my opinion the govt. is just trying to keep the economy from getting even worse by providing a buffer, they do not plan on keeping the GM as theirs and will eventually sell it back to stock holders when it has recovered.


RE: What a schmuck...
By Fanon on 6/9/2009 6:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
Our tax dollars are already wasted on GM as it is; why should we throw more money at it when it's still doomed to fail? GM failed for the following reasons:

1. Unions
2. Perceived inferiority to foreign cars
3. Build cars that didn't sell (so-called greener cars)

Unions will only gain more prevalence, people will still perceive GM vehicles as inferior to the likes of Toyota and Honda, and the government will force GM to build more so-called green cars. If a recipe didn't make a decent cake (or pie, if that's your leaning), why reuse the same recipe again?

GM needs to go bankrupt and start completely over without the influence of a very State-focused government and union leadership. Only then will GM have a real business plan and grow. Until that time, GM will continue to fail and drain more and more money from the taxpayers.

Considering our current government has no plans to get out of GM, the only choice (and the best choice) is for GM to fail. Because eventually, people will awaken and do something about it.


RE: What a schmuck...
By Tacoloft on 6/9/2009 7:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
Good point - I almost think Obama is pulling a Weimar Republic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic

Quote: The 1920s German inflation started when Germany had no goods with which to trade. The government printed money to deal with the crisis; this allowed Germany to pay war loans and reparations with worthless marks, and helped formerly great industrialists to pay back their own loans. This also led to pay raises for workers and for businessmen who wanted to profit from it. Circulation of money rocketed, and soon the Germans discovered their money was worthless. The value of the Papiermark had declined from 4.2 per US dollar at the outbreak of World War I to 1 million per dollar by August 1923. This gave the Republic's opponents something else to criticise it for. On 15 November 1923, a new currency, the Rentenmark, was introduced at the rate of 1 trillion (1,000,000,000,000) Papiermark for 1 Rentenmark, an action known as a monetary reset. At that time, 1 U.S. dollar was equal to 4.2 Rentenmark. Reparation payments resumed, and the Ruhr was returned to Germany under the Locarno Pact, which defined a border between Germany, France and Belgium.

Get out of debt, give people jobs, and start a new currency, ect... --this is the grand scheme imo


RE: What a schmuck...
By roostitup on 6/10/2009 12:16:38 AM , Rating: 2
We see things completely differently because I don't think that GM will continue to fail. Your argument is completely negated if GM fixes it's business. Unions are not necessarily bad and many businesses run perfectly fine with them. When they go unchecked and become too greedy than this is where they begin to fail, when employees of unions figure this out the end result will be much better. Without unions businesses can too easily have too much control of their workers. The best way for GM to begin to recover is to simply take away some benefits to it's union workers, if they want to continue to have their job they will accept this new fate. Many people would rather still have a job with less benefits than no job at all. Unions go both ways, the company has sway over it's employees and the employees have sway over the company. If the company is failing they should logically realize that they need to give up some stuff in order to help it last and keep their job.

What's wrong with the govt. having GM make more effecient and/or green cars?? It will only improve it's image and ability to compete. Making these cars is simply a step to reforming it's business plan which in the end could help save it and is what it should have done before it went bankrupt, but they didn't and now they have new management that will. You have as little of an idea as anyother guy if a "state focused govt. and union leadership" will continue to make it fail. When I see it happen I will agree with you. I really don't see how your arguement is logical.


RE: What a schmuck...
By Fanon on 6/10/2009 1:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your argument is completely negated if GM fixes it's business.


You're correct, but GM isn't fixing its business.

quote:
Unions are not necessarily bad and many businesses run perfectly fine with them. When they go unchecked and become too greedy than this is where they begin to fail, when employees of unions figure this out the end result will be much better.


And the UAW isn't one of these unchecked, greedy unions?

quote:
The best way for GM to begin to recover is to simply take away some benefits to it's union workers, if they want to continue to have their job they will accept this new fate.


Given the UAW's track record, taking any benefits away is going to result in a strike.

quote:
What's wrong with the govt. having GM make more effecient and/or green cars?? It will only improve it's image and ability to compete.


What market has GM focused on over the past few years? So-called green vehicles. If people wanted to purchase them, GM wouldn't be in the shape its in right now. Building these vehicles doesn't do anything for image or ability to compete. They're more expensive to make and to purchase. Building a product that costs thousands more for a very little gain is bad business no matter how you slice it.

quote:
You have as little of an idea as anyother guy if a "state focused govt. and union leadership" will continue to make it fail. When I see it happen I will agree with you. I really don't see how your arguement is logical.


Then you are blind. GM is bankrupt because of the reasons I listed. Call it exhibit A. The banking debacle in 2008 is the direct result of government getting its hands into the private sector. Call that exhibit B. Tell me why, no matter how much money we throw at education, the "war on poverty", or any other government service or program why they always continually fail. I'll save you the trouble: because government destroys anything it touches. Call that exhibit C. The proof that I'm right is littered all throughout history.

"I Don't Know Anything About Cars" - Edward Whitacre, Jr (CEO of GM as of June 9, 2009)


RE: What a schmuck...
By roostitup on 6/10/2009 3:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
You have no idea if GM will fix it's business, you cannot make that claim. Plain and simple.

the UAW WAS one of those unchecked unions, I have a feeling things will change now. I don't know this forsure, but neither do you. I think that because of the situation they are in at the moment they will be MUCH less likely to strike. If they do strike I'm sure there are plenty of other people out there willing to work for GM in their place, especially considering the unemployment rate. If the UAW don't give up some of their benefits they will simply lose their job because the whole company will go out, I think they know when to do what's best for themselves.

Ya, GM does have a bad track record of developing green cars. You fail to consider that they are under new management now with a new business plan. Therefore you arugment is flawed and not relevent.

I believe you are blind, sir. The issues you list does not prove anything about the govt's ability to help run a business. I think you are way off base by looking at services and programs. Although many govt. programs do have problems it is because of recent choices (last 20 years) that they are having these problems. These chioces did not have to occur and can be changed. The programs worked fine for a long time before problems started occuring, more checks and balances need to be issued. You also fail to consider the programs that DO still work fine. You claim that history is littered with these always occuring, but fail to give any expamples, so why should anyone belive you? You are just a negative person, another reason why no one should believe what you say or claim.


RE: What a schmuck...
By Fanon on 6/11/2009 11:21:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have no idea if GM will fix it's business, you cannot make that claim. Plain and simple.


Uh, yes I can. I can look at the factors that caused their decline, and I can look at the factors influencing the new GM. It's called observation.

quote:
the UAW WAS one of those unchecked unions, I have a feeling things will change now.


What gives you that feeling? Less than eight months ago, the big USA auto manufacturers were seeking a bailout from the government (which didn't work... more proof that government has no idea about business). The UAW refused to give up any benefit that would help save money for the auto makers. There has been no leadership change, and no change in their philosophy. What gives you an idea that they'll suddenly do an about face and change their policy for the betterment of GM?

quote:
Ya, GM does have a bad track record of developing green cars. You fail to consider that they are under new management now with a new business plan. Therefore you arugment is flawed and not relevent.


And that business plan is still more of the same, except with more of an emphasis on the vehicles that contributed to their downfall. I didn't fail at anything. I observed what happened, I observe what's happening, and I draw my conclusion based on the facts I have observed.

quote:
I believe you are blind, sir. The issues you list does not prove anything about the govt's ability to help run a business.


Believe what you want, but I'm not the one believing everything that comes out of the media and the government. The issues I listed do prove that government should stay out of business. Instead of saying I'm wrong, why not prove it? Start listing examples of how the government saved a business and allowed it to prosper. At least I back my argument up with historical facts.

quote:
I think you are way off base by looking at services and programs. Although many govt. programs do have problems it is because of recent choices (last 20 years) that they are having these problems.
...
The programs worked fine for a long time before problems started occuring, more checks and balances need to be issued. You also fail to consider the programs that DO still work fine. You claim that history is littered with these always occuring, but fail to give any expamples, so why should anyone belive you?


Why am I off base? Because the fact that government can't even succeed with its own services and programs goes more to proving my point? What choices were made that caused problems for what service/program? Other than the military, what service/program is successful and not a drain on the country?

Unfortunately, you haven't provided anything except your own opinion and feelings. You want me to provide you with more evidence while you have provided nothing. Sorry, it's your turn to backup your statements as I have. =)


RE: What a schmuck...
By roostitup on 6/12/2009 1:14:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote>It's called observation.

Observing and making judgments are just as good as any opinion, that doesn't make your argument any more factual. The simple truth is that you have just as little idea of what the future hold as anyone else.

quote:
What gives you that feeling?
<

It's called new management and business model.

quote:
And that business plan is still more of the same


You have no idea what their business plan is. You have yet to prove otherwise. Another irrelevent argument.

quote:
Instead of saying I'm wrong, why not prove it? I draw my conclusion based on the facts I have observed.


You have yet to prove your argument, too. You base all your OPINIONS on observations. Observations don't lead to the answer, they just provide people with opinions on what COULD happen. I base my opinions on observations, too...everyone does.

quote:
Unfortunately, you haven't provided anything except your own opinion and feelings


You're quite a hypocrit.

quote:
Because the fact that government can't even succeed with its own services and programs goes more to proving my point?


You do make a valid point here, but that doesn't mean they will fail with GM. It's still just and OPINION.

quote:
What choices were made that caused problems for what service/program?


Diverting funds from services like SS, highway/road maintenance, education & etc. to help fund other projects totally non-related. Many of these programs/services had a large surplus of income that they decided to use on other things, thus draining them so that later they have budgeting issues. It turns into a vicious cycle. The programs that they chose to fund in turn needed a constant supply of money that could not be kept in check by the original source, causing an increase in taxes and they became a drain on the original source.

quote:
Other than the military, what service/program is successful and not a drain on the country?


You make a valid point here, too. The same goes here though, it's still an opinion based on observation. It doesn't mean that they will fail with GM, simple as that. If you really think about it, aren't all services/programs a drain no matter if they are working correctly or not? They all cost money and are not suppose to bring in any income besides some taxes and fees. They are services for the citizens. Granted they may not be run in the most effecient manner, but no matter what they are going to be a drain otherwise we would be taxed into poverty. The best run services/programs besides military are law enforcement/public safety (besides the prison system), outdoor recreation & possibly food stamps.

quote:
You want me to provide you with more evidence while you have provided nothing


Because your evidance isn't legitimate. It's just observations that provide you with your opinion. It still doesn't prove that they will fail with GM. My evidance wouldn't be legitimate either because it would still be based off observations that I use to make my opinion, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to defend myself.

I don't know what will come of GM and I don't know if the gov't will handle it correctly or not, but I get sick of people claiming that they know what will happen like they can read into the future. You can observe and have all the opinions you want, but don't claim that you know it all based off them.


RE: What a schmuck...
By invidious on 6/9/2009 1:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
GM needs support at this moment or it will cost even more money and job loss to solve the problem.

The problem is that GM is a failing business that is still in business, the solution is to let it die. There is no such thing as too big to fail, recessions are normal and inevitable.

I really don't have any sympathy for the people who would lose their jobs, the inflated wages/benifits those people have been enjoying for the last few decades has driven their company into the ground.


RE: What a schmuck...
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 2:01:11 PM , Rating: 1
Ohh but letting things die is completely against the welfare state... and People must have nanny government spoonfeed them and wipe their arses... There is a huge number of Americans who can't get up and do anything without a government hand out. It's sad.


RE: What a schmuck...
By icanhascpu on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: What a schmuck...
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 2:32:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Not because I agree/disagree

right....
quote:
The real schmuck here, is YOU....you ARE a fan of this guy

then....
quote:
Idiots like you that disagree so much about it and are so vocal are doing more to keep these types of radio hosts alive


Why don't you just say your true agenda. Tell him to quit talking about and giving publicity to Rush, because you liberals are having a hard enough time as it is getting people to stop listening to him and passing legislation against private citizens freedom of speech to get him off air.


RE: What a schmuck...
By icanhascpu on 6/9/2009 7:18:22 PM , Rating: 3
I find it amusing you think im liberal just from that =D I just dislike sheep like him. Do I need to choose a side for that?


RE: What a schmuck...
By roostitup on 6/9/2009 5:22:01 PM , Rating: 1
LOL, your rating says all. Maybe you need to look at the whole picture. People who dislike him to not bring him ratings or good publicity, sorry.


RE: What a schmuck...
By bigbubba on 6/9/2009 5:23:25 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO, speaking of schmucks!


get the facts jack.
By Ammohunt on 6/9/2009 1:55:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The boycott also fails to account for the fact that GM's ownership is now on the taxpayers' balance -- Republican and Democrat alike.


has nothing to do with party politics. The boycott is based on the fact that the government has nationalized GM the same way Hugo Chavez nationalized industries in Venezuela. its a boycott against Socialism.




RE: get the facts jack.
By mufdvr3669 on 6/9/2009 2:05:10 PM , Rating: 1
It's party politics. He wouldn't boycott if Bush did it. Just like the stupid teabag parties. Bush spent money like it was Oxycontin to Limbaugh. There was never talk of teabagging, now Obama spends and Republicans and Faux news get all upset.


RE: get the facts jack.
By Ammohunt on 6/9/2009 2:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
Go out in the world and learn something..anything then maybe your inane posts might warrant a proper response.


RE: get the facts jack.
By jasper2008 on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: get the facts jack.
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 2:15:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
He wouldn't boycott if Bush did it.

Limbaugh didn't like Bush, nor do most conservatives. Bush was too much of a fiscal and social liberal (amnesty, spending).
quote:
Just like the stupid teabag parties.

If they were so stupid, then why do you and all the liberal media feel the need to talk about it and tell everyone? Seems like the parties achieved what they wanted - to get people talking about taxation and too much government.
quote:
Bush spent money like it was Oxycontin to Limbaugh.
And Bush lost the support of most of his party for that.
quote:
now Obama spends and Republicans and Faux news get all upset.

Um, no. Obama spent more in 60 days than Bush and Clinton did in 16 years combined. Now, we are at risk of hyper inflation, the Chinese are scared of our debt, other countries are calling for new global currency, and we may lose our AAA rating. THOSE are reasons you DO NOT spend like this...especially when you don't have it...not to mention when tax revenue went down 34% this year due to market losses and unemployment, now they want to RAISE taxes on people with a 25% VAT?

Wake up mad. That mud between your ears is starting dry.


RE: get the facts jack.
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 2:14:17 PM , Rating: 5
You're definitely mistaken. When bush started talking about bailouts, Limbaugh got pretty upset about it.

In fact, Limbaugh publicly stated many of disagreements with GW Bush.

The issue isn't politics, the issue is indeed that nationalizing an industry instead of letting it die gives power to the state and not to the people. It also undermines the idea of a free market and enables continued failure.

These are things that libertarians and conservatives don't want. More government is a bad thing.


RE: get the facts jack.
By omnicronx on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: get the facts jack.
By Jonh68 on 6/9/2009 2:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
Conservatives were against the way Bush spent money too so your strawman argument doesn't hold water. Obama has been much worse in the way he spends money.


RE: get the facts jack.
By Davelo on 6/9/2009 2:34:22 PM , Rating: 3
It was Bush who brought us Obama. Make no mistake. The debacle we are faced with is all because of Bush. But we voted the guy in two straight terms so we have nobody to blame but ourselves. (well not me personally. I knew better than to vote for him the second time.)


RE: get the facts jack.
By Ammohunt on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: get the facts jack.
By Davelo on 6/9/2009 2:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
I voted for the "putz" Kerry.


RE: get the facts jack.
By mdogs444 on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: get the facts jack.
By Spuke on 6/9/2009 4:47:37 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
So you threw your vote away on a third party canidate?
What the hell does this mean? Votes are votes. Besides I'd rather "throw away" a vote than to continue the political "Bataan Death March". The Dems and Repubs are NOT doing what we ask and we continue to vote these asses in office!!! I and many others have stopped this blind party allegiance and voted outside of the statue quo. Is there a credible third party? Ron Paul? Nope, no money to compete. Until there's a credible candidate or third party, I'll continue to "throw away" my votes.


RE: get the facts jack.
By Ammohunt on 6/10/2009 6:06:28 PM , Rating: 2
Like it or not we have a two party system. The country is not split three ways ideologically just yet. Voting outside of those two parties for a canidate that could never win is a meaningless gesture.


RE: get the facts jack.
By SamuelW on 6/10/2009 5:10:35 AM , Rating: 2
Which is precisely why Republicans won't be winning any major elections anytime soon and are running the risk of subjecting us to one-party rule.

You're presently a party of religious and cultural extremists. Anyone who can even come close to being described as a moderate (you know, the guys you need to gain support for policies or win elections) can't stand you. Even now, at a time of greatest need your party continues to offer nothing but personal attacks and deficit-increasing tax cuts.

Do you think I like the idea of the deficits being run up? No. I'm ACTUALLY fiscally conservative in ways, unlike those your party has elected since the 1980s. The military needs to be cut back drastically right along with everything else that is unnecessary/unbeneficial and a money sink.

Foodstamps are a benefit, they pay back more than they pay in and to a far larger and more certain degree than tax cuts ever have been. Your party's opposition to foodstamps offends me, both because it's a proven revenue generator and because it's a pittance compared to the degree of good it does.

Reign in the ideological and theological extremists in the party, stop denying science and facts, and start offering real suggestions. Maybe then I could actually vote Republican.


RE: get the facts jack.
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 7:57:34 AM , Rating: 1
Foodstamps are a "revenue generator"? Lol, that's straight out of Orwellian Doublespeak.

Are you being paid to make liberals look foolish by posing as one and making statements like this? You should ask for a raise!


RE: get the facts jack.
By SamuelW on 6/10/2009 12:21:50 PM , Rating: 1
Perhaps my choice of words were inaccurate, but the fact of the matter is that foodstamps create more economic growth than any other sort of stimulus and far more than most other sorts.

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Econom...

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/outreach/business-case...

Foodstamps go right back into their local economies and do so very quickly. There is no more effective stimulus.


RE: get the facts jack.
By SamuelW on 6/10/2009 12:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
Care to provide some research to the contrary or will you just continue to down rate because you can't argue my facts?


RE: get the facts jack.
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 1:31:09 PM , Rating: 2
Your links are just plain silly, and they don't even say what you claim they do. Yes, every dollar spent on food stamps generates additional spending. And since money has velocity in any economy, every dollar spent generates *more* than $1 in total spending.

So? The fallacy here is that every dollar spent on food stamps is one LESS dollar spent elsewhere. You forget that we pay for food stamps by taking money away from someone else.

Now it gets worse. When you take dollars away from a productive citizen, they tend to work less. When you give dollars to people who aren't working, they tend to stay not working. That means every dollar spent on government assistance tends to decrease overall economic output.

This is pretty simple to understand. Most people work only because they have to, not because they love their job. When you give someone free food and housing (and in some states and countries, free education, entertainment, and medical care) there is very little incentive to work. When you take away 50% or more of someone's incremental income between state, federal, and local taxes, even hard-working productive people tend to work less. That's bad.


RE: get the facts jack.
By Ammohunt on 6/10/2009 6:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
Fiscal and Cultural Conservatism exists outside of party lines. Only an ignorant leftist uses Republican and Conservative interchangeably. Each party has its extremists personally i would take a religious extremist over a moveon.org fanatic any day because the at least the religious extremist believes in the American way and American exceptionalism.


News Flash!
By randomposter on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: News Flash!
By Jonh68 on 6/9/2009 1:56:02 PM , Rating: 4
This just in! You just won the most unimaginative post award!


RE: News Flash!
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 1:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
I think he is just trying to say that free market solutions and limited government are the way to prosperity and freedom.

He is not trying to boycott America but simply making a point about the current administrations desire to expand its influence and power and that they should be stopped.


RE: News Flash!
By randomposter on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: News Flash!
By Jonh68 on 6/9/2009 2:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
Do you actually listen to his program or read what other people say about him? From his point of view, this bailout CAUSES misery and destruction. If the government can come in a dictate terms here, what is stopping them from coming in and taking control of the company you work for?

I think "bitter" and "hateful" are more reflections of the Rush bashers than Rush himself.


RE: News Flash!
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 2:19:15 PM , Rating: 2
You're obviously kinda clueless about Limbaugh. But at least you like spouting off and name calling like a two year old. That's always a plus, eh?


RE: News Flash!
By Zingam on 6/9/2009 2:20:23 PM , Rating: 2
USSR and the socialist system failed because of economic practices similar to these bailout plans.

Greetings from Eastern Europe


RE: News Flash!
By Tacoloft on 6/9/2009 8:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
Your words are falling on deaf ears unfourtunatly. There are a few of us over hear across the pond that agree with you. Greetings from America!


RE: News Flash!
By Pedrom666 on 6/9/2009 2:37:56 PM , Rating: 2
You couldn't be more wrong. Yes he is energetic and sometimes rants but the basis of the conservative philosophy (and his) is what I stated above . . . Limited government, free market capitalism, individual liberty/responsibility. As is stated, the misery caused by the bailout and the "redistribution of wealth" as proposed by the current administration will be much greater than anything else. Pray these four years go fast!


RE: News Flash!
By skaaman on 6/9/2009 10:44:54 PM , Rating: 2
Pedrom666

The problem with your argument is it's blind. You are incapable of comprehending the misery that would have been had the World (no i'ts no just the US) not stepped up to alleviate a market collapse that would have dwarfed the crash of 29. Say what you want, but 10's of millions are better off because governments acted. Who knows, maybe you wouldn't have been personally affected. But I really don't care. The right thing was done. History will prove us right or wrong. But we'll be dead.


RE: News Flash!
By Pedrom666 on 6/10/2009 1:04:52 AM , Rating: 2
Talk about blind!

You could not be more wrong. Name a single instance in human history where a mass volume of people have lived under socialism/Marxism and have flourished the way we have. Is has not happened. Ask people in Europe or Canada about their health care and the tax that they pay and they will tell you --- WE DO NOT WANT TO GO DOWN THE PATH TO SOCIALISM!!

You simply cannot pay for everyone from cradle to grave without taxing and crushing the life out of the tax payer. The entitlement programs in the US will bankrupt us without a doubt. We can either print more money (= inflation) or we can continue to sell our debt to China (the US was almost downgraded to a AA bond vs. a AAA = BIG PROBLEM). Either way, the debt has to be repaid and promising more and more payouts to people may win the vote but it will not pay the debt.

Do you wonder why the Chinese and the Europeans are laughing at us as we try and spend our way out of debt?? Little Timmy Geithner got laughed out of Beijing last month!

Government stimulus (stealing from the income earning citizens of the US) is not the way to fix an economic downturn. Cutting taxes and encouraging businesses to grow is. It was proven under Reagan and it could be done now but the current administration is too bent on pushing its own agenda upon the American people.


RE: News Flash!
By walk2k on 6/9/2009 2:45:16 PM , Rating: 1
News flash - in order to "boycott" something you have to actually have plans to buy it in the first place.

Guess what, Americans have already been "boycotting" GM for about a year now...


RE: News Flash!
By Spuke on 6/9/2009 3:15:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Guess what, Americans have already been "boycotting" GM for about a year now...


Top 20 Car Sales for May 09
Ford F - Series PU 33,381 -22.3 143,717 -39.1
Chevrolet Silverado PU 31,463 -15.0 125,183 -36.5
Toyota Camry / Solara 31,325 -38.9 123,848 -37.5
Toyota Corolla / Matrix 23,576 -55.4 101,708 -33.2
Honda Accord 22,597 -48.3 107,088 -35.6
Honda Civic 20,723 -61.1 97,505 -40.9
Ford Fusion 19,786 9.4 66,585 -9.0
Chevrolet Impala 18,709 -21.4 63,756 -47.9
Nissan Altima 18,408 -46.5 80,078 -40.0
Ford Escape 16,391 -7.2 61,017 -20.7
Dodge Ram PU 15,516 -21.3 80,038 -29.0
Ford Focus 15,034 -53.9 56,781 -46.2
Honda CR-V 14,550 -27.1 65,197 -26.8
Chevrolet Malibu 14,098 -9.8 64,363 -12.7
Chevrolet Cobalt 12,764 -52.2 44,829 -52.0
Toyota RAV4 12,730 0.0 52,187 0.0
Honda Odyssey 12,127 -6.5 41,884 -30.2
Hyundai Sonata 11,059 -18.8 48,531 -1.1
Volkswagen Jetta 10,597 27.6 36,230 -3.2
GMC Sierra PU 10,272 -23.1 41,053 -42.0

5 vehicles on that list belong to GM. Boycotting...2009 style!!


RE: News Flash!
By Muskrat Matt on 6/9/2009 6:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
And the Silverado can't be doing as well now.


RE: News Flash!
By walk2k on 6/9/2009 6:28:19 PM , Rating: 2
Lol right, that's why GM is going bankrupt, their cars are selling SO well.


RE: News Flash!
By Tacoloft on 6/9/2009 7:56:27 PM , Rating: 3
I only wish GM went bankrupt...too late for that now. You are now a purchaser of a failing company that the federal government owns. You have no legal ties other than to PAY TAXES with soon to be massively inflated money on a car company that employs unions that don't work for a living. All of this as Americans are told by the Washington owned media to continue with Hope and Change until the next election when Obama and those that voted for him will STILL claim it is all of Bush's fault.
Ugh - ignorance really is bliss in a socialist movement. step in line, don't complain, hold your hand out for the scraps


RE: News Flash!
By Spuke on 6/10/2009 1:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I only wish GM went bankrupt...too late for that now.
GM is currently in bankruptcy. Turn on the TV sometime.


RE: News Flash!
By Tacoloft on 6/11/2009 1:33:38 AM , Rating: 2
Let me clarify - I only wish GM went bankrupt BEFORE taking $19.4 billion of American taxpayer dollars! This is an outrage! It was only after they fleeced working american citizens of their money THEN they decide to file chapter 11?! WTF is wrong with people who back up a company and a government that takes their money without asking? They just do it with no legal grounds on the part of the private citizens to stand on. It is WRONG on so many levels.


RE: News Flash!
By Spuke on 6/10/2009 1:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lol right, that's why GM is going bankrupt, their cars are selling SO well.
Huh? That's the top 20 best selling US cars for May 2009. GM's problem isn't selling a car. The problem is GM has too much overhead.


Government Motors
By Davelo on 6/9/2009 1:33:03 PM , Rating: 3
The US government owning 62% of GM does set a bad precedent. I hope once the economy turns around and GM begins to turn a profit that it can be sold back to the private sector. Let's hope this is only a temporary measure.

But this does point out the flaw in the system. Too many companies are allowed to become too big. So big that they cannot be held accountable and allowed to fail. AT&T was broken up but look at it now. It's back to where it was. The anti-trust laws on the books don't seem to be worth a damn any more. All of the smaller companies end up be swallowed up by the big ones and then they become inefficient and cry for a handout.

But ignore the blow-hard Rush. Since his career is floundering he's getting especially loud to compensate.




RE: Government Motors
By Jonh68 on 6/9/2009 1:40:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But ignore the blow-hard Rush. Since his career is floundering he's getting especially loud to compensate.


Usually the ones that are floundering don't get articles published about them on tech websites.


RE: Government Motors
By Tacoloft on 6/9/2009 1:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
heh heh - well said!


RE: Government Motors
By Fanon on 6/9/2009 1:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But ignore the blow-hard Rush. Since his career is floundering he's getting especially loud to compensate.


I don't think you know the meaning of the term "floundering".


RE: Government Motors
By Davelo on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Government Motors
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 2:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
Why does this have to be an insult contest? Are we all pre-teens?

So... do you know the meaning of floundering or are you just avoiding the statement?


RE: Government Motors
By Davelo on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Government Motors
By Fanon on 6/9/2009 6:53:16 PM , Rating: 1
Why should I insult you when your ignorance and/or stupidity did a better job of it?


RE: Government Motors
By MrBungle123 on 6/9/2009 2:28:27 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
But ignore the blow-hard Rush. Since his career is floundering he's getting especially loud to compensate.


Total Daily Viewers:

FNC: 1,319,000
CNN: 844,000
MSNBC: 585,000
CNBC: 361,000
HLN: 365,000

Total: 3,474,000

In 2006 Rush had 13.5 Million listeners... I'm not sure how you can call 4x larger than all of cable news combined "floundering" but okay.


RE: Government Motors
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Government Motors
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 3:05:46 PM , Rating: 3
If you can find a liberal AM radio station that didn't go out of business, then please let us know....


RE: Government Motors
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/10/2009 7:51:01 AM , Rating: 1
NPR.


RE: Government Motors
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 8:44:34 AM , Rating: 2
NPR is a government sponsored entity, not a real business. Do you not know what the acronym stands for? National Public Radio.


RE: Government Motors
By Fanon on 6/9/2009 6:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
What's wrong with the comparison? TV's audience are viewers. Radio's audience are listeners. It's very much an apple to apple comparison, especially since it's the numbers in the audience that's being compared.


RE: Government Motors
By Jaybus on 6/9/2009 3:42:47 PM , Rating: 1
He's not floundering. The current US government is actively attacking his genre, conservative talk radio / television. With the "Fairness" Doctrine effectively dead, the Administration is hitting hard from unexpected directions. Not surprising, given the President's history with the Developing Communities Project and Calumet Community Religious Conference in Chicago, both built on the Saul Alinsky model of community agitation, wherein paid organizers learned how to "rub raw the sores of discontent," in Alinsky's words.

One unexpected direction is using the FCC's localism rules to "encourage" broadcasters to air more locally produced community shows in place of syndicated [mostly conservative] talk shows. Broadcasters can have their FCC licenses suspended or renewals delayed for not airing enough local content.

Rush simply understands that he's on the defensive, being under attack from the current Administration, and apparently subscribes to the Sun Tzu philosophy that the best defense is a good offense.


RE: Government Motors
By MrFord on 6/9/2009 4:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
Conrail was a good example of successful US government bailout/buyout and restructuration.
And for a good example of private companies let to themselves, look at the steel industry. Yes, now the 2-3 players left in the game are profitable or close too. But how many entire towns did that destroy? Did someone actually calculated how much it dost and still cost the US taxpayers to help those communities and those workers? They are not like a production plan, you can't just shut them down.

It's always easier to say 'Let them go under' and close our eyes on the associated costs that will have to be assumed by everybody, even if it doesn't show in the headlines as a defined amount. Yes most badly shaped businesses (and the include most major banks and investment funds) would deserve to die for their mismanagement, but imagine what the economy would look like now. Free markets advocates always cheers up for hard core capitalism, as long as there's someone left to buy goods to keep their stock prices high. Look how everybody was scared a couple months ago that the Dow was down in the 6/7000.

GM should've restructured years ago, even Ford was late at it. The crisis just showed what was inevitable. But without government support, nobody in the private sector will be willing to invest aside. You can bet the government will eventually sell out their shares, and ideally make a profit on them, but you gotta give GM a chance to get back on their feet. See Conrail again. They are still the #2 car producer in the world, something that people tend to forget rather quickly. People are still buying GM products by the ten of thousands, just at a less frenetic and overly inflated rate than before. And that applies to every car manufacturer too.

But if some people want to make sure that this becomes a total failure, and that everybody lost every cent invested in GM, it's the perfect time to get out.


RE: Government Motors
By captainpierce on 6/10/2009 7:35:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Too many companies are allowed to become too big. So big that they cannot be held accountable and allowed to fail.


George Will pointed out in his column that GM's market capitalization is about the size of California Pizza Kitchen. Are they too big to fail too?


Include ALL information
By Jonh68 on 6/9/2009 1:37:35 PM , Rating: 3
I think this article fails to mention GM was/is a sponsor Limbaugh. It also fails to mention Limbaugh was against a bailout when Bush recommended it. It doesn't matter if half the owners are Republicans now. The problem is the government getting in the business of making cars. If you are going to turn this tech site into a political one, at least get some of the basics correct.




RE: Include ALL information
By Fanon on 6/9/2009 1:47:37 PM , Rating: 4
It's a Mick "article". When it comes to politics or Rush Limbaugh, Mick doesn't do his own research and instead echoes some other blog/article.


RE: Include ALL information
By Jonh68 on 6/9/2009 1:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
I have noticed that about him. It is sad most journalist these days are just as lazy. They are more like sheep than free thinkers.


RE: Include ALL information
By borismkv on 6/9/2009 1:58:49 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the issues he's had with blatant plagiarism in the past. I get the feeling he's related to someone with a controlling stake in Dailytech. I would have fired him a looong time ago.


RE: Include ALL information
By Mojo the Monkey on 6/9/2009 1:55:13 PM , Rating: 3
Who cares? Its a radio personality, whose job it is to rile people up with controversy.


RE: Include ALL information
By Spuke on 6/9/2009 3:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who cares? Its a radio personality, whose job it is to rile people up with controversy.
Ding! Ding! Ding!


RE: Include ALL information
By captainpierce on 6/9/2009 2:23:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The problem is the government getting in the business of making cars.


And how did this happen? GM went hat in hand to Washington asking for help. No one likes the fact that they're government owned but Limbaugh should point this out. He should be criticizing these companies for not believing in the capitalist system. They loved it when they had huge market share but now that they can't compete in a free market they want bailouts from the government. Sorry GM...you asked for this.


RE: Include ALL information
By Spuke on 6/9/2009 3:21:08 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
He should be criticizing these companies for not believing in the capitalist system.
I think calling for a boycott qualifies as criticism. But I could be wrong.


RE: Include ALL information
By captainpierce on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Include ALL information
By Spuke on 6/9/2009 4:31:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
mentioned that they shouldn't have been begging for a handout in the first place.
Actually he does but you would have to listen to his show to hear that.


RE: Include ALL information
By captainpierce on 6/9/2009 9:56:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Actually he does but you would have to listen to his show to hear that.


I have listened to Rush. Not every day mind you so I might have missed him saying those things. I just couldn't seem to recall him being necessarily opposed to GM getting government loans. I know Hugh Hewitt was not opposed to the first GM bailout under Bush. If Rush did say those things then bravo!! He's absolutely right.


Great idea. *sarcasm*
By dqniel on 6/9/2009 1:16:47 PM , Rating: 4
There are other ways to teach the government a lesson- ways that don't cost hundreds of thousands of people their jobs and ALL the tax payers billions.

Whether or not setting the bailout in motion was ethical or a mistake is now irrelevant. We're all invested whether we like it or not, and the ramifications of failure will hurt us a lot more than positives presented by a win in the "moral posturing" category.




RE: Great idea. *sarcasm*
By SublimeSimplicity on 6/9/2009 1:51:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whether or not setting the bailout in motion was ethical or a mistake is now irrelevant.


Actually its not irrelevant its the focal point of the debate. If the government take over of GM is spun into a success story, it will give credence to the bailout mindset and we will see it perpetuated.

Personally I think calling for a boycott is unnecessary. I have faith in my government, with their intentions being the best, to destroy anything they touch. By artificially causing it to fail with a boycott however, you give them an excuse for the failure they would have accomplished all by themselves.


RE: Great idea. *sarcasm*
By dqniel on 6/9/2009 2:04:15 PM , Rating: 1
You must have missed the "now" part of my sentence. The bailout happened. It's done. The fact that it's already happened, regardless of whether it was appropriate, ties us all to it. I don't feel like repeating the argument I made before, but here's the summary:

It already happened. It's not worth the inherent ramifications in order to teach a lesson. I don't have faith that the average American would even have the understanding of this predicament to understand the lesson anyway.


RE: Great idea. *sarcasm*
By SublimeSimplicity on 6/9/2009 2:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
So when your kid does something wrong you just say, "It already happened. It's done. The fact that it's already happened, regardless of whether it was appropriate, doesn't matter"?

Its the results that validate the action.


RE: Great idea. *sarcasm*
By superunknown98 on 6/9/2009 2:44:31 PM , Rating: 2
No but when your kid breaks a DVD or something of yours, you punnish only your kid, not the entire nehiborhoods.


RE: Great idea. *sarcasm*
By clovell on 6/9/2009 3:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
Which is exactly what would've happened had the government STFO of the entire matter.


RE: Great idea. *sarcasm*
By amdsupport on 6/9/2009 4:44:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually its not irrelevant its the focal point of the debate. If the government take over of GM is spun into a success story, it will give credence to the bailout mindset and we will see it perpetuated.


You're a bit late for that idea...Go lookup some history on Conrail, Amtrak, and Chrysler.

If anything the GM fiasco is following a precedent.
Conrail's story seems to be the playbook for the current situation.


RE: Great idea. *sarcasm*
By Spuke on 6/9/2009 5:12:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Conrail's story seems to be the playbook for the current situation.
Didn't know about Conrail. Interesting info. Thanks.


RE: Great idea. *sarcasm*
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 7:55:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're a bit late for that idea...Go lookup some history on Conrail, Amtrak, and Chrysler.

If anything the GM fiasco is following a precedent
How about the history of the British government bailouts and ownership of their car companies in the 1970s.

See any of those companies around today?


RE: Great idea. *sarcasm*
By amdsupport on 6/10/2009 11:46:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about the history of the British government bailouts and ownership of their car companies in the 1970s. See any of those companies around today?


I have seen a few stories of how they handled their own car companies. Actually, a few of those car companies do still exist today (mostly in name...some in spirit also).

The OP stated that the GM problem now would create a future precedent to follow for future U.S. nationalization scenarios. What I was trying to point out was that the U.S. has already nationalized companies in the past and the precedent was already set.

By you posting you have just proved my point even further by pointing out moves from governments to nationalize large failed companies have already created a precedent(albeit, the one you cite is a British precedent).


RE: Great idea. *sarcasm*
By clovell on 6/9/2009 3:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
There are? What lesson has the government learned? Because they sure as hell haven't listened to their constiuencies. Whether it was a mistake or not is COMPLETELY relevant. Continuing to perpetuate a mistake is committing a further mistake.

Emerson said it best -'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds'.


Hybrids are not the solution
By Jonh68 on 6/9/2009 1:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mr. Limbaugh has voiced his passionate dislike for hybrids in the past, likely another strike against GM in his book.


Hybrids are a stop gap measure that don't address the current need to get off foreign oil. We need to drill for more oil and develop alternative fuels like hydrogen cars, which Obama is against as he has cut funding for hydrogen research. Hybrids don't solve the problem but pro long it.




RE: Hybrids are not the solution
By mufdvr3669 on 6/9/2009 2:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
Hybrids can lead to advances that help us get off foreign oil. Better technologies such as better batteries can lead to all battery cars such as the Tesla or Karma but on a more mainstream car. Hybrids use less gas than regular cars which leads to us using less foreign oil. Which is good in my book.


RE: Hybrids are not the solution
By Jonh68 on 6/9/2009 2:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
It still doesn't SOLVE the problem. If we use batteries, we still have to have a power source that generates electricity to charge those batteries. Since Nuclear Energy seems to be off the table, we still have "dirty" energy like coal. Wind, Solar, water are not enough to run cars.

Our resources would be better allocated in improving gas engines and finding new ways of powering cars like the use of hydrogen. Hybrids and electric are stop gap solutions at best.

We are going to need oil for the next 20-30 years. Make gas cars better and research new fuels.


RE: Hybrids are not the solution
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/9/2009 3:18:17 PM , Rating: 2
But Hydrogen requires those other fuels in order to generate it, exactly the same way as powering up batteries does. Hydrogen is just an energy carrier like a battery. There are no hydrogen deposits that we can tap. We have to convert other sources of energy into hydrogen, which means we lose some energy in the process, the exact same as with battereis. So using hydrogen as an energy carrier only costs more energy. It doesn't save any at all. A battery is a more effecient carrier of fuel than hydrogen.

Hybrids can reduce dependence on foreign oil to some degree. A non-plug in hybrid generates its extra energy from gasoline. So if I get 50 mpg in a hybrid, I am not asking the electric grid to create any of that power from another source, I am getting it all from my gasoline. BUT I am using less of it. If we all got 50 mpg, we could reduce our energy consumption for automobiles by a factor of 2, at least.


RE: Hybrids are not the solution
By itzmec on 6/9/2009 3:51:25 PM , Rating: 2
how about hyrogen/hybrids? one of each, just in case


RE: Hybrids are not the solution
By Doormat on 6/9/2009 4:22:05 PM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen is a means of storing energy, not a source of energy. Even if you went with hydrogen, where are you going to get it from? Electrolysis of water? That's ridiculously inefficient.

I'm slowly becoming convinced hydrogen supporters either lack a basic science education or are really just throwing out red herrings that don't go anywhere to preserve the status quo.

At least with battery-electric cars, the use of electricity is more efficient from a source-to-wheel analysis.


RE: Hybrids are not the solution
By RandallMoore on 6/9/2009 5:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe YOU are the one who needs to do some research. There has been so many breakthroughs on the hydrogen front that it's hard to tally them up.

You only mention one of the vast amount of sources for harvesting pure hydrogen. So you mean to tell me if, at the flip of a switch, we all dove head first into hydrogen as a means for transportation power that we would not be better off?

Think about it...
H fuel cells are WAY more efficient than internal combustion (by a LONG shot)

Hydrogen cars would last WAY longer also, since basically the only moving parts would be the drivetrain.

The fuel source is the most available and abundant resource on the planet (also renewable)

The emissions from the car is WATER VAPOR! that would even shut the global warming nuts up.

The only reason we have not switched over yet is because there are so many ties to oil. It's all a political and greed thing, not a practical issue; Because the benefits of hydrogen fuel cells crush internal combustion into the ground.


RE: Hybrids are not the solution
By SamuelW on 6/10/2009 5:19:48 AM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen power is inherently bogus. Any means of creating hydrogen will take more power than the hydrogen itself will generate. Efficiency is irrelevant, any sort of "breakthroughs" are irrelevant.

The simple fact is that breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen takes more energy than burning that hydrogen will create and always will. End of story.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/10/2009 7:54:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yah, I think there is some law of thermody-something in play here...


By RandallMoore on 6/10/2009 1:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
The hydrogen is not "burnt". Which is evident enough that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to hydrogen as a source of transportation power.

quote:
The simple fact is that breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen takes more energy than burning that hydrogen will create and always will.


So the process of drilling, refining, and distributing oil and gasoline is much more efficient? LoL


No Good.
By Smilin on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: No Good.
By Jonh68 on 6/9/2009 2:03:16 PM , Rating: 2
If the blue collar union workers would make concessions comparable to non-union car workers who work for foreign car companies that build in the United States, maybe GM wouldn't need a bailout.

How come domestically made foreign car companies don't have these kind of troubles while domestic car companies build plants overseas?


RE: No Good.
By Gio6518 on 6/9/2009 5:01:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
union workers would make concessions


maybe but the CEO and upper management should of also taken pay cuts to keep the company afloat considering it was with their poor judgement calls that put the company in the crapper in the first place !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


RE: No Good.
By Smilin on 6/9/2009 5:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
If you disagree with me then explain how having a boycott of GM would help America.


RE: No Good.
By borismkv on 6/9/2009 2:08:27 PM , Rating: 4
You know, I stopped trusting the government to do what it says it will when I was like 12.


RE: No Good.
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 2:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
You're ignorant if you think Limbaugh's wealth or weight have anything to do with this.

This isn't a poor vs. rich debate and nobody is out to get the poor folk.

I don't think we'll have our fingers out of GM as fast as anything. Why would the government do all of that and then privatize? Makes no sense.


RE: No Good.
By Smilin on 6/10/2009 10:21:00 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think Rush makes a very good spokesperson for his own beliefs.

He's clearly not a good spokesperson for any sort of diet product.

He clearly can't speak without hypocrisy about drugs.

He is talking about a boycott that would cost tens of thousands of working class people their jobs to boost his ratings on a show that earns him tens of millions.

As far as getting our fingers out of GM all I can say is wait and see. All our government really wants from GM is this: get your shvt together so we don't have to fork over a bunch of unemployment, and give us our money back as fast as possible.


By UNCjigga on 6/9/2009 3:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously. Obama's the president now. If you can't accept it, let everyone know in about 4 years. But for now, using any tactic just to see him fail is not only stupid, but detrimental to the economy, the country and your own financial well-being.

The GM bailouts already happened. Get over it. Now that you effectively own part of GM, wouldn't it be your benefit to do everything in your power to see them succeed?




By Tacoloft on 6/9/2009 8:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
(crickets)


By Nfarce on 6/9/2009 9:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
And a downrating, naturally.


By Smilin on 6/10/2009 12:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, like you liberals (including those in Washington on the left side of the isle) gave Bush the same honor, didn't ya?


Actually they did. In fact the whole world was standing behind bush on 9/12. It took great effort to squander that good will but he managed to do it somehow. Just because you've forgotten doesn't mean I have.


By Nfarce on 6/10/2009 4:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually they did. In fact the whole world was standing behind bush on 9/12. It took great effort to squander that good will but he managed to do it somehow.


That was sympathy. The Democrats were so full of hate and vitriol over Bush "stealing" the election that they stalwarted, thwarted, and delayed Bush cabinet appointment hearings well into the Spring after he went into office.

Post 9/11, things went right back to the Bush economy this, Bush wiretapping that, and the ironic thing is that so many things liberals/Democrats hated about Bush and the Republicans running congress at the time, guess who's doing them NOW? Finally, willful and wanton wreckless comments about our war in Iraq said it all about how "fair" the left treated Bush.

If anything, I think it is folks on the left forgetting how much hatred and vitriol they spewed on Bush - and CONTINUE to do so. No, I haven't forgotten a thing.


By Smilin on 6/12/2009 11:09:59 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yes, don't get me wrong. I definately HATE BUSH.

My point is that I didn't when he took office. I think that all other things being equal we should support our leaders.

I had not followed the Bush political career closely before he became president so all the hatred I have for him is based on his actions as our president and not any prejudice.


By tjr508 on 6/9/2009 11:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The GM bailouts already happened. Get over it. Now that you effectively own part of GM, wouldn't it be your benefit to do everything in your power to see them succeed?


So sunk costs are more important than actual value when making investment decisions? Thanks for the advice!


Let's be honest...
By IcePickFreak on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Let's be honest...
By Jonh68 on 6/9/2009 2:22:17 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, they are working so Obama will have the money to bailout GM.


RE: Let's be honest...
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 2:26:27 PM , Rating: 4
I know that's what I'm doing. I'm busting my arse supporting someone's welfare kids and saving for the next nationalization/bailout package.

Ohh, and you're welcome :)


RE: Let's be honest...
By mdogs444 on 6/9/2009 3:04:15 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I am a Rush listener...who just today was mindlessly driving along in my hum-drum gas guzzling Tahoe....making several trips because I could care less about how much gas I use.


RE: Let's be honest...
By Spuke on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
Huh?
By therealnickdanger on 6/9/2009 1:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
I don't need my dislike of Obama to dissuade me from buying a GM at the moment... I like the Tahoe and the Camaro, but they really don't offer anything I want.




RE: Huh?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/9/2009 1:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I'd love to get my hands on a Camaro V6 6-speed. Damn thing gets around 28 MPG on the highway IIRC.

As much as I think that GM and its management screwed the pooch, I don't want to see them go under completely.


RE: Huh?
By Flunk on 6/9/2009 3:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
True, they have a few interesting cars. If I wanted a mid-size family sedan the Malibu looks pretty decent or either of the cars you mentioned, but I want a compact and GM doesn't really make any that interest me. Maybe the Vibe but that's designed and partially built by Toyota anyway.

GM really needs to work on having a decent line-up of cars (and not the stupidly huge number of models they sell now) that can really compete with their competitors. Especially outside of the US where we (I'm Canadian) have little reason to buy American Cars unless they're truly competitive.


RE: Huh?
By hashish2020 on 6/11/2009 2:51:10 AM , Rating: 2
Well, if you are Canadian, you'd have a huge reason to buy "American"---ever heard of the massive auto plants in Canada owned by the Big 3? Not to mention the fact that the Canadian government AND CAW are large shareholder in GM and Chrysler.

And the hilarity of you ripping on the Pontiac Vibe as Japan designed is so vast it is morbid. The Vibe AND Matrix were both designed by AMERICAN GM ENGINEERS off of the corolla platform---and hey---they were built IN CANADA


The only question in my mind....
By GaryJohnson on 6/9/2009 1:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
Is Ford paying Mr Limbaugh off in cash or vicodin?




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/9/2009 1:29:52 PM , Rating: 2
As humorous as your statement sounds at first, wouldn't the failure of GM equal a *&^%storm of problems for Ford in the area of parts suppliers?


By Fanon on 6/9/2009 1:50:45 PM , Rating: 2
Considering GM is a Rush sponsor, probably neither.


Just goes to show...
By ajfink on 6/9/2009 1:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
...that people shouldn't listen to "personalities" like Limbaugh.

In GM's defense:

Chevy, particularly, has scored a number of better vehicles in the past several years since the rude awakening of dramatically declining sales, public opinion, and bottom line in the past two decades-ish. The last part is greatly due to rising fuel costs, greater environmental awareness and sensitivity to that awareness that cost GM sales in their bread-and-butter truck division and the related SUV market. For example, the redesigned Malibu is a much more compelling vehicle than its predecessor, as is (as another poster mentioned) the new Camaro, though it serves one of GM's more traditional markets.

GM has also made the most rapid progress of any company in going from practically no hybrid vehicles to the near-debut of the most advanced on the road. I think, though, that such speedy development can be shown as a testimony to their desperation - but also a very positive sign that they're willing to adapt and change. This is good, considering they clung stubbornly for far too long to their old product lines and business model.

Yeah, GM is in the crapper now - but their current lineup of vehicles isn't so bad, and they'll probably be releasing some rather compelling options in the next few years. Where THAT takes the company in light of intense competition from other automakers and their very good vehicles is left to be seen.

But what it really comes down to is how stupid Rush Limbaugh is. How that man still has a radio show is beyond me. I've dropped in to listen a few times over the past few days, and he's nothing but arrogant, bitter, and foolish. He wants GM to fail to spite the president? Seriously? He doesn't care what that would cost the American (and in turn, global) economy? Or how that would affect hundreds of thousands of individual jobs? Geez. No one likes the situation, but he is openly advocating making it WORSE.




RE: Just goes to show...
By Tacoloft on 6/9/2009 2:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
...and we SHOULD listen to personalities such as Obama? "Rockstar status" according to NBC


RE: Just goes to show...
By Motley on 6/9/2009 2:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen a number of good changes that GM has made in the past couple of years. And while Rush may not agree with what has been done, I find that is reasoning for boycotting is childish. Even if he didn't agree with the original decision, once it was made, I think he should have put that aside and gotten behind it.

Sorry Rush, but boycotting GM isn't good for the American people at this time. You may not care since you are making millions, but the rest of us do.


Profitable?
By DrKlahn on 6/9/2009 5:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
despite the fact that current models such as the Ford Fusion Hybrid, Honda Insight, and Toyota Prius are quite profitable.


In the linked article you list the profit margin at ~$3000. That profit will evaporate with the first battery change which the manufacturer covers under warranty. Which estimates have exceeding the "profit" mentioned.

I don't agree with Mr. Limbaugh and this action against GM, but Hybrids are a poor band aid to the IC engine. They take a long time to return their initial cost penalty via fuel savings vs. a comparable conventional automobile. A well engineered diesel returns similar mileage with far less complexity and cost.




RE: Profitable?
By ianken on 6/9/2009 8:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
"In the linked article you list the profit margin at ~$3000. That profit will evaporate with the first battery change which the manufacturer covers under warranty. Which estimates have exceeding the "profit" mentioned."

You could say the same thing for any catastrophic component failure. The argument is stupid.

And how often does that happen? We have one one Civic hybrid on it's original battery, 100K miles and no need to replace. 47mpg to-date.


RE: Profitable?
By DrKlahn on 6/10/2009 10:37:09 AM , Rating: 2
Battery replacement will happen 100% of the time within the first 5-7 years of ownership according the manufacturers. Normal vehicles on the other hand enjoy a higher profit margin and the percentage of catastrophic failures as you put it are far less.


Government Owned
By Botia on 6/9/2009 1:38:17 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not buying a vehicle from a government owned manufacturer. The current vehicles GM has are decent cars. Once the government takes over, however, that will change. When was the last time you've known the government to do something well?

As I recall, the last time the government forced the automobile manufacturers to make a fuel efficient car, they all came out costing around $100,000. Now if that's their plan again and they want to sell cars, can you guess where $70k to $80k of that cost is going to come from? It's nice being the government and not having to be profitable.

Speaking of profitable, can you guess what GM did make money from? Trucks and SUVs. Can you guess what GM will no longer be making?




RE: Government Owned
By Jimbo1234 on 6/9/2009 2:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As I recall, the last time the government forced the automobile manufacturers to make a fuel efficient car, they all came out costing around $100,000


And which cars were those?

quote:
It's nice being the government and not having to be profitable.


It's nice to be GM and not be profitable either.

quote:
Speaking of profitable, can you guess what GM did make money from? Trucks and SUVs. Can you guess what GM will no longer be making?


GM will still be making trucks and SUVs, don't fool yourself. Do you have any idea what you are even talking about? Not one thing you said has any merit.


RE: Government Owned
By superunknown98 on 6/9/2009 2:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
GM and Ford made money off of trucks because gas was relatively cheap. Small cars aren't as luxurious as trucks, not to mention they were really just a fashion statement for most people.

Trucks are not inherently good, the market conditions were right and thats what sold. Now the market conditions have changed. trucks are not the answer.


wat
By Chiisuchianu on 6/9/2009 4:48:28 PM , Rating: 3
While I'm no fan of Obama, this guy must be out of his mind. Boycott GM right when the Chevy Volt is about to launch? Yea right. I think maybe the conspiracy is that this guy is being paid off by oil companies.




RE: wat
By FreakyD on 6/9/2009 8:11:19 PM , Rating: 2
Can the Volt really help save GM when the government has to pay people $7500 to buy one? Maybe we shouldn't boycott GM, but why can't we boycott stupidity and inferior products? Why not boycott ideas that cost taxpayers money and do little in return?


Personal attacks....
By Bluestrider on 6/9/2009 2:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
I wish everyone would quit saying he is an idiot or other useless comments. If you can't comment on the substance than shut up!!!!
I also will not buy GM or Chrysler until it is not owned by the Government or the unions. The unions have run done a great job of running these two companies into the ground and making them less competative than their foreign rivals. And now the fox is in the hen house. The government running the company is bad enough, but the unions are only interested in keeping members and milking the companies for all they can, instead of making them viable in the future.
Good luck to GM and Chrysler the companies but without my help. Ford or the imports will be getting my business until the government, and hopefully the unions, get out of running these companies.




RE: Personal attacks....
By Moishe on 6/9/2009 2:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
Ohh you want people to debate the actual issue instead of ad hominem attacks and mud-slinging?

hahahAhAhAhAhAHAHAhAHAHAHAHA!!! Good luck with that. :)


By clovell on 6/9/2009 3:21:59 PM , Rating: 4
> The basis of Mr. Limbaugh's boycott apparently stems from the fact that the U.S. government will own 62 percent of a post-bankruptcy GM. Ironically, though, the trappings and suggestion for this were first set in place by Bush advisors, who pushed through the original bailout for the company, which it has effectively repaid with equity stake.

Which means what, Jason? Let me answer for you - diddly sh!t. Rush Limbaugh never supported Bush's fall from fiscal conservatism, so trying to demonstrate any hipocrisy by tying his views on economic policy to those of George W. Bush is completely off-base and misinformed.

> The boycott also fails to account for the fact that GM's ownership is now on the taxpayers' balance -- Republican and Democrat alike. It also fails to note that Canada also maintains a major stake in GM and that many other countries like Germany, are riding on its success and ability to move cleanly through bankruptcy.

It's called rewarding bad behavior, Jason. It's a socialistic move to be sure - nationalizing GM. Your own articles on the matter echo this very sentiment. A large portion of America was against it - yourself included, unless you've suddenly changed your mind.

Have we forgotten the Presidents who actually did something? TDR carried a big stick, back in a day where a company that was too big to fail was too big to exist. Now we've got Obama carrying a big stick - and a tube of lube. And the only thing we can do about it at this point is not support it financially. Wonder of effing wonders that Rush Limbaugh thought of such a radical concept as influencing economic policy through economics.

> However, Mr. Limbaugh may have more than one issue with GM. Mr. Limbaugh is an outspoken critic of hybrid vehicles and has accused them as "ruining" the industry, despite the fact that current models such as the Ford Fusion Hybrid, Honda Insight, and Toyota Prius are quite profitable. With GM pushing hardest for electric vehicles, with its Chevy Volt, it's likely this is another painful issue to Mr. Limbaugh.

This adds what to the article? Nothing. Jason - you want to bash Rush, feel free - he's an easy target. Don't call it news. Your articles get worse every day. You crank out 3-4 laced with just enough bias to piss people off and start a small flamefest and watch the hits roll in. I'm getting pretty fvcking tired of it.

We don't see any more 'Deals of the Day' or Roundups or Recent Releases anymore. We get AGW, GM, Apple vs. MS. This is lame, and DT is going to start losing readers because of it.




Rush agrees with me
By Chaser on 6/9/2009 3:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
The billions that -we will never see again- were a taxpayer bailout for GM UAW pension and healthcare benefits. Our grandchildren will now be paying off their pensions.

I will never buy another GM vehicle. Rather than joining a "boycott" use your dollars and SUPPORT other car companies like Ford that managed itself properly and didn't walk to Washington DC with their empty cups.




RE: Rush agrees with me
By FreakyD on 6/9/2009 7:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, I'm not always a fan of Rush, but why reward a failing company with your dollars? Why do all tax payers need to fund something like the Volt as well? I don't think a $30k+ vehicle needs incentives for those that can afford to buy it. If you want to buy from an "American" company, why not go with one that can stand on its own feet like Ford?

I'm even finding the cash for clunkers concept pretty disgusting as well. Why do we keep rewarding stupidity? Make a car nobody can afford, the government will hand out incentives to buy it. You buy a vehicle that costs too much to fill up, the government will give you money for a new one. No money for those that want to buy a small fuel efficient vehicle or that bought a car they can afford to fill up in the first place.


By Teancum on 6/9/2009 1:32:14 PM , Rating: 3
The GM debacle stems from the secured debt holders getting put behind the unsecured UAW. A total breach of bankruptcy law. Justice Ginsberg put a hold on the Chrysler sale to Fiat to hear arguments about this very point. As SEIU President Andy Stern said regarding the election of Barack Obama:

"We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we're proud of it."

Seems that their investment is paying off to the detriment of the bondholders. Bankruptcy laws (which are in the Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4) be damnned!




Um....Source?
By ZachDontScare on 6/9/2009 2:52:17 PM , Rating: 3
Other than a left wing blog, does anyone have an actual, you know, source , that Rush is encouraging a boycott? The quote from the article linked to is from a caller to his show, not Rush himself. Its seems to me this DT article is just a kneejerk reaction to something someone else misinterpreted. Which is about all one can expect from left-wing bloggers, apparently.

There's nothing on Rush's website that indicates support for a boycott. Thats not really his style. He may personally not want to buy from GM, and I dont blame him as I wouldnt either, but he doesnt typically lead boycotts like this. Not that I care if he did - I just want some proof that this story is accurate.

So can the writer of this supposed 'news' article provide an actual sourced quote backing this report that Rush supports an actual boycott? Not just a quote saying he wont buy from GM... but one encouraging others not to.

It's been my experience that 9 times out of 10, articles like this have been largely fabricated by leftist haters to smear Rush and 'talk radio'. Very little of whats printed about Rush in the so-called mainstream media is accurate. Its far easier for the leftists to have their little two-minute hates every time they hear Rush's name than it is to try to find out if whats reported about him is true.




Federally subsidized business
By Noubourne on 6/9/2009 5:12:20 PM , Rating: 3
This whole government control over business really chaps my arse.

I will not rest until we go back to the old system of massive tax breaks with no regulation, so we can get back to donating billions of federal dollars to these companies the old-fashioned way: NO STRINGS ATTACHED!!

Capitalism at its best!!




Screw that pill popping fat ass....
By ianken on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
By Tacoloft on 6/9/2009 8:30:55 PM , Rating: 3
Your eloquence of the English language is astounding. Was that Hot wheels or Matchbox? And you are right about the mess...


Not quite...
By Bender 123 on 6/9/2009 2:25:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, Mr. Limbaugh may have more than one issue with GM. Mr. Limbaugh is an outspoken critic of hybrid vehicles and has accused them as "ruining" the industry, despite the fact that current models such as the Ford Fusion Hybrid, Honda Insight, and Toyota Prius are quite profitable. With GM pushing hardest for electric vehicles, with its Chevy Volt, it's likely this is another painful issue to Mr. Limbaugh.


Not a Republicrat, but I gotta call em when I see em'. Rush has complained about the gov. forcing manufacturers to build hybrids at the expense of trucks and other large vehicles, through CAFE standards. He doesnt want the government to dictate that Hybrids will be the only car available.




Rush Limbaugh != Republican
By the goat on 6/9/2009 2:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The basis of Mr. Limbaugh's boycott apparently stems from the fact that the U.S. government will own 62 percent of a post-bankruptcy GM. Ironically, though, the trappings and suggestion for this were first set in place by Bush advisors, who pushed through the original bailout for the company


You really showed your bias. If you did any research you would know that Rush was also against the bailouts that Bush pushed through late in his second term. You just assumed that Rush was against the current plan because Obama was for it. That is not correct.

Rush is not a Republican. Rush is a Conservative . Do you know the difference? Rush often disagrees with Republican politicians, especially G. W. Bush.




By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/9/2009 3:05:30 PM , Rating: 2
[sarcasm]
Yeeesh, is this all you do? Find an article that will up your posts?
[/sarcasm]

I thought this was DT, not muddy waters.




Grammar
By Chudilo on 6/9/2009 3:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
accused them as "ruining" the industry

the expression is "accuse of" not "accuse as".




By Iaiken on 6/9/2009 3:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
Now let me throw my bias regarding Rush out there right away so there is no mistake, I despise the man.

I find it interesting that he is able to engage in acts such as sex tourism and sedition, yet still maintain his position as a conservative media mogul. Ultimately it comes down to the fact that he strives to generate controversy around others regardless of party. He just as often challenges or ridicules members of the Republican party and in many cases he was able to get them to back down. Then there was 'Operation: Chaos" which went very well for him because it was a failure.

Rush's own words:
quote:
This is about chaos. This is why it's called Operation Chaos! It's not called Operation Save Hillary. It's not called Operation Nominate Obama. It's called Operation Chaos! The dream end... I mean, if people say what's your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That's the objective here.


Had he succeeded in his 'dream end' of protests, riots and fires, he very well could have found himself either censored or incarcerated. However, the real genius of it was that it wasn't really intended to succeed, but rather to generate interest in the notion that he can get people to commit voter fraud and to sell "Operation: Chaos" hats and t-shirts.

Most interesting of it all is the polls that have since suggested that over 64% of his listeners have a negative view of him and his show... and yet they listen anyway because they want to listen to him stir the pot.

So while I may despise him for his bigotted, sexist and absolutionist stances, I am facinated that someone as genuinely incongenial and driven by conflict could succeed this long... Only in America, they say...




It says it all..
By dragunover on 6/9/2009 3:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
"to prevent what he sees as a conspiracy by Democratic President Barack Obama"
To him it's the Democrats and Obama's fault.. right, blame the opposing party for everything that's happened in the past...
I've listened to his radio station for a while when I was on vacation, he spouts bullshit and can't come up with anything good, he starts stuttering because he gets nervous, he can't come up with any comebacks for any opposing views. This guy is a vandalist of the media.




By theBike45 on 6/9/2009 3:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
I don't care for much of what Limbaugh spouts off about - I consider him a complete incompetent as a conservative. but then, so was Bush and so was Bush No 1, as well as Reagan.
My gripe aboutGM is that it continued its screwing of the American consumer by refusing to stand up tho the UAW, when it had the chance. If stupid Bush No 2 had gone ahead and done waht Sen Corker and other republicans urged, rather than trying to play the "good guy," then perhaps GM could actually have changed the only structure that means anything for its future - the UAW hammerlock of the American auto industry. These price-fixing uneducated, unskilled $125K plus morons are actually complaining that they're not getting a cost of living wage increase!!!!
(neither are SS beneficiaries because, as everyone with a brain knows, this year we had deflation, not inflation). I note that no one is considering a cost of living reduction,
however. That would make too much sense. Since GM management chose to side with the pirates and not their customers when given the chance,I have written off GM as
not worthy of my support, despite the fact that I have owned GM cars for the past 40 years. Any car I buy from now on had better not have any connection with any union. I'm sick and tired of paying labor rates 5 times a fair market value. And if Obama continues his fantasyland idea that GM can make a profit selling "green" vehicles, then he obviously isn't aware that a Chinese company already had a Volt-type car on the streets in China that not only goes 50% further on its electrical charge, but costs half as much as the Volt. The Volt will get massacred, despite the Obama's $7500 tax subsidy for anyone stupid enough to buy the Volt. I might add that Obama is even dumber than his critics claim - those dreamed-of 1 million electric cars
Obama is promising will have zero effect on either gasoline demand or carbon emissions. It will cost up about $7.5 billion in tax subsidies to put them on the road, however. As for Limbaugh,
how about putting a true thinking conservative on the air.
Conservatism isn't being helped by loudmouths like him. He's almost as bad as non-Austrian-speaking Obama and his $320K per year shakedown artist wife.




I can't beleive...
By tubalcain on 6/9/2009 3:56:32 PM , Rating: 2
Why is Dailytech even giving more audience to this? Anyway, I don't know who's dumber: Limbaugh or his actual "supporters". The funny thing is that Bush started this "socialism". Where were all the teabaggers, right wing nutjobs and pundits then? I get it, because the Black guy did it and he's a Democrat-it's "Socialism" because "Liberal" just doesn't hurt anymore.

From reading some of these comments, I'm sorry but many here are just as childish and idiotic. It's still a free market capitalist business run society, what socialism? Maybe for the rich but not for working people, but that's how its always been. Also, US taxes are probably the lowest in the world, quit complaining. Reagan's was the most protectionist administration ever, even more than Bush Jr.




By Doormat on 6/9/2009 4:37:45 PM , Rating: 2
I can understand why Rush would want to start a precedent against government bailouts - but I really don't see why he would want to punish the workers of GM for it. (because at the end of the day - the people who lose their job, health care and pension are the losers, senior management doesn't worry much)

If this were to succeed and GM were to fail again with no bailout then he would "win" but hundreds of thousands of people lose their job, more lose pensions they're receiving, and the economy gets hit again. Though I guess he'd then proceed to blame Obama for the resulting deterioration of the economy, so I guess thats a good reason to be for this boycott[1]. Its like when he said he wants Obama to fail - of course he does because he views it like a game that he is above and he wants his favored team to win. But its more than that - its not some NFL game when its over the teams walk off the field, peoples livelihoods are at stake.

[1] The problem isn't him or punditry, its the new found reflexive nature of politics. If Democrats came out tomorrow for puppies and kittens, Republicans would be against it for no other reason to be against the Dems. No one wants to admit the other side has a good point because its apparently equivalent to losing the argument.




Hate
By JayhaVVKU on 6/9/2009 8:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, as someone who rarely reads these comments, I'm struck by the generally hateful and rude discourse. Why is it too much to ask for a relatively intelligent debate on the merits, or lack thereof, of the topic at hand? All of you that spew this harmful rhetoric, no matter what your political feelings, are simply increasing the divide this country is falling in.

That being said, why people care about Rush, Coulter, Hannity, etc. will never make sense to me.




By Tacoloft on 6/9/2009 8:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
I am posting this entirely as it was an interesting read. Written by Stanislav Mishin
link: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459...

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.
True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.
Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.
First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.
Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.
The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.
These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?
These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.
Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.
So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.
Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.
So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.
The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.
The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.




correction
By Screwballl on 6/9/2009 11:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ironically, though, the trappings and suggestion for this were first set in place by Bush advisors, who pushed through the original bailout for the company, which it has effectively repaid with equity stake.


The liberal failboat rears it ugly head.... it was not the Bush advisors, but the 2 years of the Democrat led Congress that advised this. Not Bush or his advisors.




Half-Life Analogy
By bjtags on 6/9/2009 11:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
Barack Obama = Dr. Breen
United States = City 17
American citizens = Helpless citizens of City 17 forced to do what it take to live, because government has all control of our lives.............................................. .




Response to the Bloggers Bias
By Steve73 on 6/10/2009 12:05:13 AM , Rating: 2
The blogger who wrote this article clearly states his objective and biases in the first paragraph. This article can be summed up by the following idea: If you want to see GM fail you are a horrible being – just like Rush. Honestly, where else is the reader suppose to go with that intro.

“A bankrupt General Motors is moving well along the painful road to recovery, selling offHummer and Saturn. Most are hoping it recovers to preserve the jobs of the hundreds of thousands directly or indirectly employs. However, others are wishing it would fail and are doing their best to try to guarantee this outcome.”

In this paragraph, the blogger clearly states who the bad guys are Rush and the red-state bloggers, while the good guy is Pres. Obama

“Republican pundit and media personality Rush Limbaugh, along with fellow pundit Hugh Hewitt, has assembled a legion of red-state bloggers and are calling for a boycott of all GM vehicles according to Autoblog Green. They say that buying GM is tantamount to patronizing U.S. President Barack Obama .”

The next two paragraphs at least get to the crux of the argument from Rush and his listeners, however, the blogger takes a shot at the end of the second paragraph by stating that it was really Bush advisors who are partially responsible for the bailout. As if two wrongs make a right.

“Mr. Limbaugh held a special show to discuss the boycott. While many callers were not happy with it, one caller voiced his support, stating, "I just want to say, what you were just talking about there about not buying GM products because of Obama, it's exactly how I feel. I just... I have felt this way now for weeks. I have driven a Chevy Tahoe for several years. In fact, right now I've got about 150,000 miles on it. I won't even look at another one right now, and I just want to say thanks. At least somebody understands what's going on here."

The basis of Mr. Limbaugh's boycott apparently stems from the fact that the U.S. government will own 62 percent of a post-bankruptcy GM. Ironically, though, the trappings and suggestion for this were first set in place by Bush advisors, who pushed through the original bailout for the company, which it has effectively repaid with equity stake.”

Blogger makes further points that we are all in it together whether we like it or not. Boycotting GM would be tantamount to turning your back on humanity.

“The boycott also fails to account for the fact that GM's ownership is now on the taxpayers' balance -- Republican and Democrat alike. It also fails to note that Canada also maintains a major stake in GM and that many other countries like Germany, are riding on its success and ability to move cleanly through bankruptcy.”

This argument made me laugh, which suggest Rush hates hybrid cars, and therefore hates GM whom will be producing an electric car. Sure there is a market for hybrids; GM was pursuing the Chevy Volt long before it started having money issues. However, this argument touches on so many other complicated arguments behind the whole point of buying a hybrid. The argument about buying a Hybrid has very little to do with saving money, rather, it’s more about man’s contribution to global warming according to some, while others see it as another attempt by the government to take away their freedom and natural rights. Obviously, Rush see’s it as the later part. That’s why Rush hopes GM fails.

“However, Mr. Limbaugh may have more than one issue with GM. Mr. Limbaugh is anoutspoken critic of hybrid vehicles and has accused them as "ruining" the industry, despite the fact that current models such as the Ford Fusion Hybrid, Honda Insight, and Toyota Prius are quite profitable. With GM pushing hardest for electric vehicles, with itsChevy Volt, it's likely this is another painful issue to Mr. Limbaugh.”

The argument really is simple for Rush – Free market vs. government controlled market.

“For better or worse, though, he and his fellow commentators have declared war on GM. Only time will tell whether the boycott will actually have any sort of effect on sales, though.”




Rush Blahbaugh...
By INDVote on 6/10/2009 1:31:01 AM , Rating: 2
I've heard Rush's rants enough times to know he has a vested interest in America failing and in no good deed going unpunished. I hear his arguments, check the facts, and nearly everything he says falls apart under scrutiny. This guy has openly said he hopes the president fails and makes no bones about it. Oh but it's just that ol' conservative "tough guy" complex he and many others have but ironically could never muster enough of it up to fight for anyone wherever and whenever called upon. Leave it to Rush to take up a facile "call to arms" for a non-existent cause; it fits right in with his historic lack of stones to do anything other than gold plate his mic and talk. And all this while Clear Channel stupidly keeps dumping money on a man who is regularly losing them money now. Clear Channel isn't what it used to be financially, yet they still think Rush is going to save them.

All the cries over socialism are just that: whining. This country, even with the government having a stake in GM and AIG, is so far from socialism it's the stuff of literary folly; and people here talk like they know what the hell speak of when they say "socialism". A <a src="http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke...">graph</a> came out the other day in The Atlantic showing the American economy and the slice of it the government now has pieces of. The government share was less than .25%, and the other 99.75% was still the same capitalist system we've always had. Congratulations to Rush and all the Monday morning economists around dar interwebs: You have no idea what you're talking about, and that graph is but one example of why.

If anything Obama's economic policy is the exact opposite of socialism, what with several of the very people that created the financial mess while running places like AIG and Goldman Sachs, now being the very people Obama chose to run the economy. Which means that basically it's the good ol' boy system rolling as usual, shirking any responsibility for anything, skirting all rules, and soaking up all the taxpayer money. But this is aside from the gall some of you here have to criticize Obama over how "socialist" things are, when nobody was sounding the socialism bell when Bush and Republicans in Congress were doing it. But, because the president is now a D instead of an R, it's open season. It's OK when your guy does it, but not someone else's. It's socialism when someone else does it, but bootstraps individualism saving the American economy with a single flick of the pen when it's your man. Please.

Obama saved GM for many reasons, and one of them is most certainly political: Ain't no way in hell he's going to be the president that lets two, possibly three, major US corporations affecting so much of the economy go under all at once. If he let them go belly up everyone would be crying that he destroyed the economy. Why not keep people working through a tough economy rather than sending several hundred thousand workers and all the businesses they support down the line into the toilet? Oh but we can't have any of that. What GM needed to do ages ago (dump several brands) is happening and GM will survive and eventually go back to being private, despite the self-agrandizing conspiracy theories some people like to believe in. Chrysler is going to be snapped up and reformulated, which is fine because they had the worst lineup a car company could plan itself into. And when things are back to normal and GM and Chrysler-Fiat are selling cars again, everyone will wonder what the fuss was about.




By INDVote on 6/10/2009 1:46:43 AM , Rating: 2
Please spare me the warnings of socialism. The US was far more "socialist" decades ago than it has been since. Ironically enough though, we weren't running trillions of deficits due to "trickle down economics" back then.

But even the US-based fools here talking about Soviet Russia like they experienced it. You honestly make me laugh. Soviet Russia failed not just because of communism, but because of power-soaked individuals like Stalin and a lack of respect for the rule of law more common to Western countries. Soviet Russia was essentially a mafia state built on a nice bedrock of classical Russian corruption steeped with Marxism. The two melded together formed the greatest sham of the 20th century, remnants of which we still see today though moreso as the old communist establishment reconstituted in pieces as a robber barony.

The protestations to socialism fall on deaf ears not because there are the great brainwashed under the Manchurian Obama, but because the charge of socialism has been made for 60 years in the US and it has never happened. For 60 years we listened to the Republican boys cry wolf, and socialism never materialized under any president of either party. Republicans see socialism in everything; to them the last half century has been the Salem Witch Trials all over again: They see so much but have so little to show for it.

We are more like the economy of the early 20th century right now than any socialist paradise. We have "titans of business" that screwed us over taking all the tax money and harboring it in as many off-shore accounts and invisible business associations through as many loop holes as they can concoct or lobby Congress for. Nobody who's honest with themselves can draw any major socialist distinction here. The people in charge of fixing the broken economy are many of the very same Reagan Democrats and Republicans that caused it. This is verifiable, certifiable fact.




WTF Mick???
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 7:48:19 AM , Rating: 2
Learn some facts. President Bush did NOT set GM up for the federal government owning a majority stake in the company.

I know how desperate you are to throw your political opinions out in every "news" story you write, but this is freaking ridiculous.




Fascinating
By bernardl on 6/10/2009 7:50:48 AM , Rating: 2
Capitalism the way it is defended by most of the posts supporting the initial proposal is nothing but a comfortable theorization of selfishness. How can one really live by such values?

Cheers,
Bernard




This is funny
By porkpie on 6/10/2009 8:27:08 AM , Rating: 2
The same liberals who have been buying Volvos and Mercedes all their lives, the ones who have laughed at anyone waving an American flag or saying we should "buy American". The same people who have called for boycotts of American companies a thousand times, for their own reasons.

Now they're calling others unamerican for wanting to boycott a socialist endeavor? Funny, ain't it?




By callmeroy on 6/10/2009 8:31:34 AM , Rating: 2
So let me follow the logic on this one --- because either (or a combo of both reasons) A) i disagree with Obama (or in Rush's case outright hate him) I boycott an American company solely because it's a way to "get back at Obama by not supporting his policy of bailing them out?" sentiment? or B) I boycott an American company because i refuse to buy products from a government own (socialist policy) 'saved' company?

I didn't read the article, but I heard about it on the radio. Please someone tell me the collective intelligence of the majority of US citizens (of which I am one) isn't this dumb to buy into this crap? Please tell me there exists a glimmer of hope.

Is it not hypocritical when times are good (or during radio promo commercials for your show) to say "i love america, i'm all about america...." and then because you disagree with the president you scheme , plan, plot and encourage -- essentially prolonging hardship on Americans? Is it just me or does that sound stupid to anyone else? How can you "love America" but yet your actions hurt Americans further?

Listen i'm not happy about our president or the bailouts or how the mortgage mess started or any of that....but lest someone discovered a time machine and I didn't get the memo --- I'm pretty sure we can't go back and change the past still.

So if GM fails completely -- they are forced to liquidate assets, any hope (stop laughing I know it was a slim bet!) of tax payer dollars ever being repaid is 100% done (versus just 90% done as it stands right now). My second point --- if you like the boycott idea because you want to send a message against the government getting into US businesses , isn't that counter productive? The fastest way for GM to get out of government control is sell vehicles, ie. make money. Boycott only makes it take longer for GM to get on its own two feet again.

Crazy stuff...crazy times...




How did GM get there?
By bernardl on 6/10/2009 5:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
GM mostly got there because of the legitimate hope of its employees to enjoy some social benefits, like retirement allowances.

We have a very clear example now of why this has to be handled at the level of the state, and not at the level of a private corporation. I am amazed that this point is not brought up by anyone.

The people who cannot understand this have a very limited understanding of what life is, what it means to grow old, and above all are very utterly selfish.

Great, you work in IT and make lots of money now... How about in 10 years from now? Will you have the ability to become a credible expert in a totally different field that will have become dominant by then? Will you be happy to be thrown away like old garbage although you contributed a lot to the country's wealth through the taxes you and your employer paid?

Whether you like it or not, you live in a community called a country that has value for you through the infrastructures, diplomacy, defense,... it provides to you. How blind do you have to be to ignore these obvious facts?

It is really scary to see to what extend people around here have to rely on apparently good ideas like autonomy and freedom to justify their selfishness and refusal to help others. Appaling and scary.

Cheers,
Bernard




LIE
By owyheewine on 6/10/2009 6:10:45 PM , Rating: 2
This post is basically a lie. Limbaugh did not call for a boycott. He did report that some listeners were boycotting. GM is a sponsor for his show, and even the biggest critics have to admit that he is a shrewd businessman. Why would he dump in his lunch kit? Get a brain some of you guys. Where do you live? Cuba?




Rush Limaugh is a great man
By hashish2020 on 6/11/2009 12:46:12 AM , Rating: 2
I know I want a thrice-divorced junkie who couldn't even score his own smack telling me about family values

Someone who supports free speech zones telling me he supports open political dialogue

Someone who alternately disowns government charity yet advocates the disbursement of government money to religious organizations

Someone who thinks he can tell the country how to design a new school system with school choice who failed a BALLROOM DANCING class in university

Someone who believes in reducing government spending, yet advocates rises in the defeense budget when it already totals more than $750 billion from all sources and agencies

I love Rush, and I love America.




Rush Limbaugh in 7 words
By Belard on 6/14/2009 8:21:27 PM , Rating: 2
By LoweredExpectations on 6/10/2009 2:05:30 AM , Rating: 1
There's a reason Limbaugh is known as a "shock jock". The only thing he cares about is his own notoriety and the hundreds of millions he rakes in each year with his socially irresponsible rant.

Lately, he's gone so over the top that he's become a parody of himself. The really depressing thing about him tho, is that there are still people who listen to the poisonous twit.

I'm sure Obama loves Limbaugh. His appearance before that Republican gathering was a huge pulic relations gift to the Democrats who are succeeding in painting the Republican party as a bunch of rich old white guys increasingly out of touch with the real America.




"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki