Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Romney's Ohio Ad on Fiat-Chrysler Creating Jobs... in China!
5 views
Skip to first unread message
KalElFan
Nov 3, 2012, 5:10:55 AM11/3/12
to
It's amusing and ironic how the loons are up in arms over this
ad, which is very effective in conveying several facts that the
Obama side would understandably rather not be out there in
an ad in Ohio at this particular point in history. :-)
Fact is, Obama did let Chrysler go bankrupt, or put the
company into bankruptcy, every bit as much as Romney
advocated. It was simply a different type of bankruptcy
that gave the unions a minority share and screwed the
bondholders. Fact is, Chrysler is now majority owned by
Fiat, an Italian company, and they apparently are building
Chrysler plants in China. I thank the Loon Hysteria over
the ad for helping get that message out, because I wasn't
aware of it though I might have guessed. It's the way
business works. Fiat will never have Chrysler abandon
the U.S. and maybe not even Ohio, but we have a global
economy.
The hypocrisy is that Obama and his proxies and ads and
so on constantly harp on Romney creating jobs in China or
sending jobs to China. Good for the ad for pointing out to
Ohio voters that Chrysler is foreign-owned and its foreign
owners are building Chrysler plants in China, and for also
pointing out Chrysler did go bankrupt under Obama. The
ad pales in comparison to many of the lying ads on the
Obama side.
ad, which is very effective in conveying several facts that the
Obama side would understandably rather not be out there in
an ad in Ohio at this particular point in history. :-)
Fact is, Obama did let Chrysler go bankrupt, or put the
company into bankruptcy, every bit as much as Romney
advocated. It was simply a different type of bankruptcy
that gave the unions a minority share and screwed the
bondholders. Fact is, Chrysler is now majority owned by
Fiat, an Italian company, and they apparently are building
Chrysler plants in China. I thank the Loon Hysteria over
the ad for helping get that message out, because I wasn't
aware of it though I might have guessed. It's the way
business works. Fiat will never have Chrysler abandon
the U.S. and maybe not even Ohio, but we have a global
economy.
The hypocrisy is that Obama and his proxies and ads and
so on constantly harp on Romney creating jobs in China or
sending jobs to China. Good for the ad for pointing out to
Ohio voters that Chrysler is foreign-owned and its foreign
owners are building Chrysler plants in China, and for also
pointing out Chrysler did go bankrupt under Obama. The
ad pales in comparison to many of the lying ads on the
Obama side.
trotsky
Nov 3, 2012, 8:16:13 AM11/3/12
to
On 11/3/12 4:10 AM, KalElFan wrote:
> It's amusing and ironic how the loons are up in arms over this
> ad, which is very effective in conveying several facts that the
> Obama side would understandably rather not be out there in
> an ad in Ohio at this particular point in history. :-)
>
> Fact is, Obama did let Chrysler go bankrupt, or put the
> company into bankruptcy, every bit as much as Romney
> advocated.
Then why did Romney say he would have acted differently: was he confused
> It's amusing and ironic how the loons are up in arms over this
> ad, which is very effective in conveying several facts that the
> Obama side would understandably rather not be out there in
> an ad in Ohio at this particular point in history. :-)
>
> Fact is, Obama did let Chrysler go bankrupt, or put the
> company into bankruptcy, every bit as much as Romney
> advocated.
or lying?
KalElFan
Nov 3, 2012, 8:48:58 AM11/3/12
to
"trotsky" wrote in message
news:iPedna3rZ72QlgjN...@mchsi.com...
> Then why did Romney say he would have acted differently...
Because he would have acted differently in the way that the
bankruptcy was handled. It would have been done in the
normal way, not favoring the labor union and screwing the
bondholders, and not involving direct government investment
just whatever government guarantees were necessary. It
would have been more private-sector oriented and less the
government bailout. Chrysler might even have ended up
American-owned, we don't know how it may have played
out.
> was he confused or lying?
No, the lying part was all the democrats, when they suggested
Romney wanted Detroit to go bankrupt and yada yada. Even
Letterman got this and was critizing Obama for it in a recent
interview, though he conveniently got it when Obama was
about to appear on Leno so that may have had something to
do with it too. :-)
news:iPedna3rZ72QlgjN...@mchsi.com...
Because he would have acted differently in the way that the
bankruptcy was handled. It would have been done in the
normal way, not favoring the labor union and screwing the
bondholders, and not involving direct government investment
just whatever government guarantees were necessary. It
would have been more private-sector oriented and less the
government bailout. Chrysler might even have ended up
American-owned, we don't know how it may have played
out.
> was he confused or lying?
Romney wanted Detroit to go bankrupt and yada yada. Even
Letterman got this and was critizing Obama for it in a recent
interview, though he conveniently got it when Obama was
about to appear on Leno so that may have had something to
do with it too. :-)
Message has been deleted
Tom
Nov 3, 2012, 10:24:51 AM11/3/12
to
On Nov 3, 9:17 am, Yak <y...@inbox.com> wrote:
> The sad part is that the average voter has no general understanding
> about what you just wrote. Yet, they could tell you what happened on
> this week with the kardashians and honey boo boo. But, that's your
> obama voter for ya.
Research has shown, year after year, that the vast majority of low
information voters vote Republican.
Your post confirms that research.
Tom
> about what you just wrote. Yet, they could tell you what happened on
> this week with the kardashians and honey boo boo. But, that's your
> obama voter for ya.
Research has shown, year after year, that the vast majority of low
information voters vote Republican.
Your post confirms that research.
Tom
Message has been deleted
Tom
Nov 3, 2012, 10:33:30 AM11/3/12
to
On Nov 3, 9:26 am, Yak <y...@inbox.com> wrote:
> What research?
Google is your friend. If you're unaware of common knowledge such as
data on low information voters, you have proven my point.
>Oh, and I'm right. You know I am.
No, you're not and no, I don't.
Tom
Google is your friend. If you're unaware of common knowledge such as
data on low information voters, you have proven my point.
>Oh, and I'm right. You know I am.
No, you're not and no, I don't.
Tom
FirstPost
Nov 3, 2012, 11:18:21 AM11/3/12
to
You have proven nothing.
Now run along and leave real debate to adults.
Dano
Nov 3, 2012, 11:28:17 AM11/3/12
to
"Yak" wrote in message
news:f9a67a07-93ec-4674...@h15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Sadly...you are still another without a single clue. We live in an age of a
WORLD economy. You complain about American companies building plants in
other countries...hiring workers IN those countries. Yet you see no good in
foreign corporations doing the same thing HERE...where it will be good for
American workers. It only makes good economic sense to build
plants...manufacture products...where they will be purchased.
Transportation costs are less. Jobs for the locals mean good consumers will
be able to purchase those goods too. Call it the circle of economic life if
you will. What is wrong with that? While we're at it...WTF is wrong with
YOU?
YOU can't even see the abject hypocrisy of Romney who himself has
personally, as well as corporately as a business leader, invested in China
himself even complaining about this. He's just playing you.
news:f9a67a07-93ec-4674...@h15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
The sad part is that the average voter has no general understanding
about what you just wrote. Yet, they could tell you what happened on
this week with the kardashians and honey boo boo. But, that's your
obama voter for ya.
=====================================
about what you just wrote. Yet, they could tell you what happened on
this week with the kardashians and honey boo boo. But, that's your
obama voter for ya.
Sadly...you are still another without a single clue. We live in an age of a
WORLD economy. You complain about American companies building plants in
other countries...hiring workers IN those countries. Yet you see no good in
foreign corporations doing the same thing HERE...where it will be good for
American workers. It only makes good economic sense to build
plants...manufacture products...where they will be purchased.
Transportation costs are less. Jobs for the locals mean good consumers will
be able to purchase those goods too. Call it the circle of economic life if
you will. What is wrong with that? While we're at it...WTF is wrong with
YOU?
YOU can't even see the abject hypocrisy of Romney who himself has
personally, as well as corporately as a business leader, invested in China
himself even complaining about this. He's just playing you.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Dano
Nov 3, 2012, 1:53:17 PM11/3/12
to
"Yak" wrote in message
news:1beb9e70-0aec-4bb2...@g8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
Well Dano big fella, find one post, just one, where I complain about
American companies building plants in other countries hiring workers
in those countries. For the record, I'm all for what you just
described for the reasons you just described which begs the
question...WTF is wrong with you?
======================================
I'm not the one who started throwing insults instead of making a valid
point. What's wrong with me is that I have trouble ignoring ignorant boobs
like you.
news:1beb9e70-0aec-4bb2...@g8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
American companies building plants in other countries hiring workers
in those countries. For the record, I'm all for what you just
described for the reasons you just described which begs the
question...WTF is wrong with you?
======================================
I'm not the one who started throwing insults instead of making a valid
point. What's wrong with me is that I have trouble ignoring ignorant boobs
like you.
trotsky
Nov 3, 2012, 2:06:35 PM11/3/12
to
Message has been deleted
Dano
Nov 3, 2012, 2:37:20 PM11/3/12
to
"Yak" wrote in message
news:e031f71e-8ea0-4fcd...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
What insult did I throw? My point is not only valid and true. Go
ahead...ask the average person about the auto situation, how it came
about and how it was handled and I bet you they will look at you like
a brook trout out of water. Better yet, ask them a simple question.
Did GM go through bankruptcy. Bet they don't know. Go one further.
Ask them who their two us senators are. Wanna bet they don't know?
But, ask them what happened on American Idol or who got voted off
Survivor and I bet they can tell you in agonizing detail every even of
the show. I'm right...you know I am.
=======================================
If you think that sort of stupidity and apathy is limited to Obama
voters...well you're dumber than Honey Boo Boo's mom.
news:e031f71e-8ea0-4fcd...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
ahead...ask the average person about the auto situation, how it came
about and how it was handled and I bet you they will look at you like
a brook trout out of water. Better yet, ask them a simple question.
Did GM go through bankruptcy. Bet they don't know. Go one further.
Ask them who their two us senators are. Wanna bet they don't know?
But, ask them what happened on American Idol or who got voted off
Survivor and I bet they can tell you in agonizing detail every even of
the show. I'm right...you know I am.
=======================================
If you think that sort of stupidity and apathy is limited to Obama
voters...well you're dumber than Honey Boo Boo's mom.
Message has been deleted
Dano
Nov 3, 2012, 2:58:24 PM11/3/12
to
"Yak" wrote in message
news:0c551b83-9b88-432a...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Okay, they're limited to obama and kerry voters. But, you didn't
refute my larger point.
=======================================
No Yak breath...you just made mine. You're just too dense to either realize
or admit it. Say hi to your inbred daughter for me.
news:0c551b83-9b88-432a...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
refute my larger point.
=======================================
No Yak breath...you just made mine. You're just too dense to either realize
or admit it. Say hi to your inbred daughter for me.
Message has been deleted
Mason Barge
Nov 3, 2012, 5:14:15 PM11/3/12
to
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 08:48:58 -0400, "KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com>
wrote:
>"trotsky" wrote in message
>news:iPedna3rZ72QlgjN...@mchsi.com...
>
>> On 11/3/12 4:10 AM, KalElFan wrote:
>>
>>> It's amusing and ironic how the loons are up in arms over this
>>> ad, which is very effective in conveying several facts that the
>>> Obama side would understandably rather not be out there in
>>> an ad in Ohio at this particular point in history. :-)
>>>
>>> Fact is, Obama did let Chrysler go bankrupt, or put the
>>> company into bankruptcy, every bit as much as Romney
>>> advocated.
>>
>> Then why did Romney say he would have acted differently...
>
>Because he would have acted differently in the way that the
>bankruptcy was handled. It would have been done in the
>normal way, not favoring the labor union and screwing the
>bondholders,
I really don't see how any of that is possible. Unsecured creditors have
very little power in the proceedings. The UAW's unfunded pension claims,
however, have to be dealt with. You think anyone is giving the union
anything for any reason other than their power at the creditors' meetings?
All you have to do for bondholders is give them more than the liquidation
value of the company and they're ahead. Bondholders didn't get screwed
because Obama decided they would. They got screwed because they were
holding unsecured debt in a company that went belly up.
wrote:
>"trotsky" wrote in message
>news:iPedna3rZ72QlgjN...@mchsi.com...
>
>> On 11/3/12 4:10 AM, KalElFan wrote:
>>
>>> It's amusing and ironic how the loons are up in arms over this
>>> ad, which is very effective in conveying several facts that the
>>> Obama side would understandably rather not be out there in
>>> an ad in Ohio at this particular point in history. :-)
>>>
>>> Fact is, Obama did let Chrysler go bankrupt, or put the
>>> company into bankruptcy, every bit as much as Romney
>>> advocated.
>>
>> Then why did Romney say he would have acted differently...
>
>Because he would have acted differently in the way that the
>bankruptcy was handled. It would have been done in the
>normal way, not favoring the labor union and screwing the
>bondholders,
very little power in the proceedings. The UAW's unfunded pension claims,
however, have to be dealt with. You think anyone is giving the union
anything for any reason other than their power at the creditors' meetings?
All you have to do for bondholders is give them more than the liquidation
value of the company and they're ahead. Bondholders didn't get screwed
because Obama decided they would. They got screwed because they were
holding unsecured debt in a company that went belly up.
KalElFan
Nov 3, 2012, 7:20:25 PM11/3/12
to
"Mason Barge" wrote in message
news:292b98pmvlgttaagt...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 08:48:58 -0400, "KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "trotsky" wrote in message
>> news:iPedna3rZ72QlgjN...@mchsi.com...
>>
>>> On 11/3/12 4:10 AM, KalElFan wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's amusing and ironic how the loons are up in arms over this
>>>> ad, which is very effective in conveying several facts that the
>>>> Obama side would understandably rather not be out there in
>>>> an ad in Ohio at this particular point in history. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Fact is, Obama did let Chrysler go bankrupt, or put the
>>>> company into bankruptcy, every bit as much as Romney
>>>> advocated.
>>>
>>> Then why did Romney say he would have acted differently...
>>
>> Because he would have acted differently in the way that the
>> bankruptcy was handled. It would have been done in the
>> normal way, not favoring the labor union and screwing the
>> bondholders,
>
> I really don't see how any of that is possible. Unsecured creditors
> have very little power in the proceedings...
No, these were secured creditors who'd bought the bonds based
on the contactual promise of having first priority, i.e., getting 100%
before anyone else did out of the assets, sale, etc. if the company
went under. They ended up getting only 29%, because the U.S.
government (specifically the Treasury Department) structured
the bankruptcy that way to get the union a sweeter deal.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-503363_162-4997900.html
"Chrysler Bankruptcy Exposes Dirty Politics"
> Bondholders didn't get screwed because Obama decided they
> would.
Yes they did. Again, Obama's Treasury department structured
the deal and brought it to the bankruptcy court, and they knew
exactly what they were doing, i.e. screwing secured bondholders.
> They got screwed because they were holding unsecured
> debt in a company that went belly up.
Nope, they were holding secured debt. You can read the article
above, including how the secured bondholders were basically
badgered, demonized, etc. for refusing to sacrifice like everyone
else. They were entitled to first position...
"But President Obama and his allies [didn't] want that to
happen. So they interfered on behalf of unions (the junior
creditors) and publicly upbraided the senior creditors who
were asserting their contractual rights and threatening to
head to bankruptcy court."
news:292b98pmvlgttaagt...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 08:48:58 -0400, "KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "trotsky" wrote in message
>> news:iPedna3rZ72QlgjN...@mchsi.com...
>>
>>> On 11/3/12 4:10 AM, KalElFan wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's amusing and ironic how the loons are up in arms over this
>>>> ad, which is very effective in conveying several facts that the
>>>> Obama side would understandably rather not be out there in
>>>> an ad in Ohio at this particular point in history. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Fact is, Obama did let Chrysler go bankrupt, or put the
>>>> company into bankruptcy, every bit as much as Romney
>>>> advocated.
>>>
>>> Then why did Romney say he would have acted differently...
>>
>> Because he would have acted differently in the way that the
>> bankruptcy was handled. It would have been done in the
>> normal way, not favoring the labor union and screwing the
>> bondholders,
>
> I really don't see how any of that is possible. Unsecured creditors
No, these were secured creditors who'd bought the bonds based
on the contactual promise of having first priority, i.e., getting 100%
before anyone else did out of the assets, sale, etc. if the company
went under. They ended up getting only 29%, because the U.S.
government (specifically the Treasury Department) structured
the bankruptcy that way to get the union a sweeter deal.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-503363_162-4997900.html
"Chrysler Bankruptcy Exposes Dirty Politics"
> Bondholders didn't get screwed because Obama decided they
> would.
the deal and brought it to the bankruptcy court, and they knew
exactly what they were doing, i.e. screwing secured bondholders.
> They got screwed because they were holding unsecured
> debt in a company that went belly up.
above, including how the secured bondholders were basically
badgered, demonized, etc. for refusing to sacrifice like everyone
else. They were entitled to first position...
"But President Obama and his allies [didn't] want that to
happen. So they interfered on behalf of unions (the junior
creditors) and publicly upbraided the senior creditors who
were asserting their contractual rights and threatening to
head to bankruptcy court."
Message has been deleted
duke
Nov 4, 2012, 9:02:11 AM11/4/12
to
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
A vote for obama is a vote for the end of
democracy in America as we know it. Let the
rolling thunder guide your decision at the
ballot box to put an end to Imperial Obama.
May God bless America.
********************************************
duke
Nov 4, 2012, 9:04:22 AM11/4/12
to
voters are the ones with their hands out asking for freebies. We call them
'rats.
Message has been deleted
Paul Duca
Nov 6, 2012, 2:37:16 AM11/6/12
to
On Nov 4, 9:04 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> voters are the ones with their hands out asking for freebies. Then why is it
> when I ask, I keep getting refused?
> when I ask, I keep getting refused?
0 new messages