I'll reply to you for fear of what I'd say to the above poster
Posted By: New Englander on 2009-04-09
In Reply to: Wrath of God....(sm) - Just the big bad
I do hope this topic ends. I thought it was over until someone brought it up (which I imagine is to keep getting people in arguments). I'll tell you one thing. Between this and the last time this subject was posted I have never seen so many ignorant posts. A couple of them are so blatantly iggys it's astounding we have come this far in our technology and tolerance, yet there are others with no tolerance and they want it their way or the highway. Their way meaning their screwed up mentality. Unfortunately their puritan viewpoints are so outdated. I'm just shocked there are still people like this around.
They all profess to "know" the bible or know just what exactly God wants. They'll talk about god and in the same sentence they spew their hatred and bigotry for another group that don't "think" like they do.
However, I would not call the bible or their beliefs a fairytale. A fairytale is something good. A fairytale is something I would tell me children. What they are spewing and how they believe people should live is not good. It's more of what we here call delusional. They have this "god" that according to them loves all and yet at the same time would want them to be shouting out their hatred and bigotry of others? Kind of doesn't match.
They'll say S&G was destroyed by god because of homosexuality. Yeah, right. Just like the twin towers and destruction of New Orleans was caused by the gays. When I was growing up and the religion was forced on me, we learned in our church and sunday school that S&G was destroyed because the people were proud and arrogant (sounds like some of the posters on this board). They were self-indulgent. They assumed no responsibility for the poor people and they had no social conscience. They were haughty with an attitude of superiority and arrogance (again sounds like some of the posters on this board). They committed abominations before God. These abominations included things like having sex with the wife while she was having her period, men having sex with other people than their wives, orgies between men and women. No where in their "book" does it say anything that S&G was destroyed because of the homosexuals. they can take any passage they want and twist it to fit their sick little minds and lifestyle. One passage in the bible can be obscurred into many different meanings depending on what you want it to mean.
Then they proclaim to "know" why marriage was invented. "To produce the next generation". Oh my gawd! They surely cannot be that seriously stoopid. So does that make people who marry because they love each other but they don't want to bring life into this screwed up world sinners? My understanding from research and studying is that marriage was "created" to unite two people together whom love each other and want to devote themselves to each other for the rest of their lives. Not to "produce the next generation".
The worse was calling us Queers. That ranks right up there with fa**ot, lesb*, nigg**, homo, kike, whop, cracker, and every other disgusting and vile word. Oh yeah, I'm sure their god is right there saying "right on Patty, or right on Louise, yeah, call them some other hateful and nasty names. Here, say this to them because there is nothing more I want than to hurt other people"
All I say is I'm glad I don't belong to their delusional club thinking that god is giving them a free pass to be nasty to others.
So, I posted to you instead of blasting the above poster ALouise. Or even Patty. She's just as bad and I don't even respond to her or read her posts anymore.
Just easier to ignore the iggys - asscream is certainly an appropriate term when referring to their delusional puritan and backwoods mentality.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I'll reply to you for fear of what I'd say to the above poster
I do hope this topic ends. I thought it was over until someone brought it up (which I imagine is to keep getting people in arguments). I'll tell you one thing. Between this and the last time this subject was posted I have never seen so many ignorant posts. A couple of them are so blatantly iggys it's astounding we have come this far in our technology and tolerance, yet there are others with no tolerance and they want it their way or the highway. Their way meaning their screwed up mentality. Unfortunately their puritan viewpoints are so outdated. I'm just shocked there are still people like this around.
They all profess to "know" the bible or know just what exactly God wants. They'll talk about god and in the same sentence they spew their hatred and bigotry for another group that don't "think" like they do.
However, I would not call the bible or their beliefs a fairytale. A fairytale is something good. A fairytale is something I would tell me children. What they are spewing and how they believe people should live is not good. It's more of what we here call delusional. They have this "god" that according to them loves all and yet at the same time would want them to be shouting out their hatred and bigotry of others? Kind of doesn't match.
They'll say S&G was destroyed by god because of homosexuality. Yeah, right. Just like the twin towers and destruction of New Orleans was caused by the gays. When I was growing up and the religion was forced on me, we learned in our church and sunday school that S&G was destroyed because the people were proud and arrogant (sounds like some of the posters on this board). They were self-indulgent. They assumed no responsibility for the poor people and they had no social conscience. They were haughty with an attitude of superiority and arrogance (again sounds like some of the posters on this board). They committed abominations before God. These abominations included things like having sex with the wife while she was having her period, men having sex with other people than their wives, orgies between men and women. No where in their "book" does it say anything that S&G was destroyed because of the homosexuals. they can take any passage they want and twist it to fit their sick little minds and lifestyle. One passage in the bible can be obscurred into many different meanings depending on what you want it to mean.
Then they proclaim to "know" why marriage was invented. "To produce the next generation". Oh my gawd! They surely cannot be that seriously stoopid. So does that make people who marry because they love each other but they don't want to bring life into this screwed up world sinners? My understanding from research and studying is that marriage was "created" to unite two people together whom love each other and want to devote themselves to each other for the rest of their lives. Not to "produce the next generation".
The worse was calling us Queers. That ranks right up there with fa**ot, lesb*, nigg**, homo, kike, whop, cracker, and every other disgusting and vile word. Oh yeah, I'm sure their god is right there saying "right on Patty, or right on Louise, yeah, call them some other hateful and nasty names. Here, say this to them because there is nothing more I want than to hurt other people"
All I say is I'm glad I don't belong to their delusional club thinking that god is giving them a free pass to be nasty to others.
So, I posted to you instead of blasting the above poster ALouise. Or even Patty. She's just as bad and I don't even respond to her or read her posts anymore.
Just easier to ignore the iggys.
Fear Mongerer? Obama? McCain and Cheney were fear mongerer
and they STILL ARE !
A *fear tactic* . . .What is to fear in a
bother you!
I'll double that 'amen', and I'll raise you one!
amen
Oh. Well, they'll have to kill me before they'll censor
We'll see who'll be laughing tomorrow.
Bet it's me!
Fear
Fear is a rational response when based on facts. It has enabled humans to survive throughout history, giving us the sense to run from something that is dangerous and encouraging us to use our wits to make good decisions to ensure our future survival. It was your fellow committed dems below who said their reasoning for not liking Palin is because "she creeped them out" and they don't like her voice. Is that the type of voters we want?
Nothing to fear
abide by the law. Why does that scare you?
I fear you are right.
They will be back under this administration. That, however, doesn't mean they are any good. it just means they will be there. Then we shall see whether they help or harm.
More fear??
 I absolutely agree with you. It seems that the harder Obama works to clean up the mess left by Bush the more ridiculous over-the-top the accusations get from the Repubs and Conservatives. Really, it is okay to not agree with Obama but come on-if you need to b***h, at least make it real. Trying to increase unemployment to wipe out capitalizism?? Puleez!!
Politics of fear?
Intrigued by what is scaring you and why. A few questions. Politics of fear. Which party embodies and promotes this concept? Why? Whose agenda does it serve? Who benefits? More importantly, who doesn't? Visions of terrorists licking their chops with itchy trigger fingers? Where is this coming from? Media? Party rhetoric? Bush/Cheney/McCain? If you think they will attack "no matter who the president will be" then the politics of fear and its manipulation is working well on you and we are all doomed to repeat that anguish. So you fight fear with more fear and leave that weapon in the hands of a hot head? Does that scare you more or make you feel more safe? Do you want to base your vote on a surrender to fear?
Now, how about that other conference table vision? You fear the Obama cult? What is it that they are following? Hope? Vision? A different approach? What does the alternative have to offer? An alliance of diplomacy?
While doing your research, it might help you to go to the following link and read it in it's entirety, including all the links embedded under At a Glance. Would be very interested if you are still having those visions and feeling as frightened after your research.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#diplomacy
My fear is that if we bail them out
what have they learned. They obviously won't have any consequences to their actions. We will be the ones to suffer for their greed and crimes. However, what is to become of us if we don't bail them out? I really don't know the answer to this. I am just thoroughly ticked off that our government has allowed things to get like this. Now they are sitting around crying and whining, pointing fingers, wanting special interests included in the bill, etc. I'm just so disgusted.
The fear of Obama --
Why do some people think that 1 person can change everything? I've read comments on various sites, injecting fear that Obama is the one they speak of in Revelations, that he is a muslim trying to infiltrate this country from the inside out.
I hope that if anything can be learned by this recent economic situation, it is that 1 person, even the "top dog", can't bring about a change unless everyone else is on board. Pres Bush himself couldn't even get this bill passed. If he's top dog and he can't make that kind of change, why the fear that Obama could?
Excuse me, but we should fear someone who has a
nm
fear machine
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/10/01/ldt.tucker.economy.cnn
Here is where that comes from......fear factor
Brad Sherman is right....sorry bunch of cowardly people we put in there who brown-nose out of nothing more than fear that they feed on with each other. Nothing written in cement.....just the fear factor!
http://revolutionarypolitics.com/
Fear mongering. Do you ever have anything...sm
positive to say? You are the one who is marching in lock step with the republican party. There are good, average and bad in each party. No one is all bad or all good. Get it?
Obama knows the fear everyone has
He knows everyone is so worried about the economy that many will ignore his associations, his true feelings and where they lie. Unfortunately, many are doing just that.
I fear for his life.
I truly do worry about Barrack Obama for the simple fact that there are nut jobs out there who would rather he be killed than take the presidency. We've already had one plot to take his life. I hate to say that I believe there will be more. I will not be voting for Barrack Obama and I do believe he is a liar and will drag this country down into the dumps, but I do not wish him any harm.
If, God forbid, something horrible should happen to Barrack Obama....I believe it will tear our country apart. It will segregate us and racism will become even worse than it is now. We could potentially have our own civil war started with all of this.
The only thing we have to fear is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go
I really think that this is a ridiculous fear. sm
Should it happen, feel free to say, "I told you so." But I really think that you are all being just about as ridiculous as those saying the Obama is the antichrist. Neither is very likely in my opinion.
Smear = Fear
xx
Another lie. Another SMEAR=FEAR.
Please stop spreading lies.
Sorry, didn't mean to cause fear...(sm)
It sounds to me like the contractors may be able to get out before this is implemented......Hopefully they all will.
For those of you who so fear socialism
(and I don't want to see socialism), what do you think the Bush administration has done? Buying interests in banks, etc.
I also know quite a few wealthy folks and some who are just well-to-do. All grieve their losses in the stock market and they are all RABID REPUBLICANS who supported John McCain. They HATE Obama. They "get it." They hate him because they believe he is going to raise their taxes so he can lower taxes on the working class. All of them have been part of the working class. The wealthiest one is a widow who married her money. They aren't afraid of "Robin Hood," they're afraid of having to give back some of the windfall Bush gave them with his tax cuts.
Your fear of fact is
FOS
Fear SHOULD be acknowledged
It's a major players in this economic woes. MILLIONS of Americans don't need any politician or reporter to monger them into fear. They are there already, all by themselves. Losing their jobs, houses and savings, not being able to afford health care, medicines and food, uncertainty of what the future will bring. Pretty scary stuff. Acknowledging what Americans already know, defining the problem and signaling an awareness of how widespread the fear is before presenting a solution seems more than apprpriate to me. Some of us find it reassuring to know that our leaders are acutely aware of what we are going through. beats the heck out of repeated and blatent denial such as what we witnessed in the recent past when recession was whispered only in terms of the R-word.
FEAR will happen -
x
should be - do NOT live in fear.
typing too fast and with too much emotion!
He's nothing more than a fear mongerer....
nm
To them it is a bad idea because they fear
they might come after THEM.
Therefore they want them out of the country.
They are the responsible ones, they ordered it and the ones who followed the rules were imprisoned.
No wonder Cheney is so desperately trying to defend his misdeeds.
Reply
Any so-called knowledge can later prove to be wrong. There are very few absolutes in this world. I do know that the 1990s saw a dessimation in our human intelligence gathering. We need to get back to being good at that. If a threat is there, I'm not willing to wait until people die to do something about it. If you are, then I hope it's not one of my loved ones in the next airplane or subway or building. As for Al-Qaeda, there has been much damage done to that organization. Of course the news doesn't play that up very much, but it's happening. We're still looking for Bin Laden, we're still chasing Al-Qaeda, and we're planting a seed in the middle east that will hopefully someday (and it may take longer than your of my lifetime to accomplish) make a change in the middle east that will hopefully keep the horror of terrorism at least under control. We fought the Japanese, we fought the Nazis... I think we can handle Iraq and Al-Qaeda. As for N. Korea, you can't do anything there because they already HAVE the nukes. At least we can cross Iraq off the list for sure in the nuke department.
Thanks for the reply. (nm)
nm
Reply....
You missed my point also, because you are still harping on abortion "against God's will." No matter how many times I say it, you will not hear it, because it does not further your agenda to hear it.
I am not against abortion because it is against God's will. I am against abortion because it is murder, and it is murder of the most innocent life that exists. That is a deeply moral issue, and it does not stem from what or what is not God's will. You said you and God parted company a long time ago, but I am willing to bet your morality did not part and go with God...you kept it, right? Of course you did. Because we all have basic morality, whether or not you choose to believe in God. Belief in God validates and enhances that morality, but even those of you who do not believe in God have morals...right? Of COURSE you do. There are people who are NOT religious who oppose abortion on a strictly moral level. As that article said that I posted, if I lost my faith today, I would still morally oppose abortion. Yet it is more comfortable for you to claim that I am against abortion "in the name of God." I am against abortion because it is morally wrong. PERIOD.
Being pro choice does mean being pro abortion. If you vote for the right to choose, you are putting the okay stamp on it. You can spin it however you like, but the truth remains. It is your choice to do so, yes, but at least have the guts say so.
I have already said that I work toward supporting women who decide to make a choice for life. If they decide to go ahead with the abortion, they do not get condemnation from me, but they certainly know were I stand, and they also respect what I am doing and understand why I am doing it. Much unlike you ladies.
Again....try to let this sink into your closed mind. I am trying to give the CHILD a choice. The CHILD has no voice. You are taking that away from them. They have no recourse, no place to run, no place to hide. All they can do is endure being sliced and diced to have their brain sucked out. You want the MOTHER to have the choice, the voice, the power. I am merely saying that the CHILD deserves SOMETHING here, doesn't it? Doesn't something in your moral structure scream out to you that the CHILD deserves SOME consideration in all this?? That is where I and others like me come in. Because we believe the child DOES deserve consideration, DOES deserve to have a voice.
You say "I have intolerance for those who cannot take another's opinion or perception without tearing it down." Is that not EXACTLY what all your posts do to my opinions and perceptions? Including completely ignoring what I am actually saying and trying to put words in my mouth to suit your anti-God agenda.
You can't see the forest for the trees.
my reply
was meant in a humorous, light tone. Sorry you are so unhappy with current events.
reply
As far as who can accomplish all these goals -- a journey begins with a single step. Barack is willing to start the journey. McCain stubbornly refuses to change course. If he does not live up to his hopes - another election in 4 years.
Experience -- time and time again current events have proven Barack's thoughtfulness and judgment have proven true. Even the current administration is following the course for a time-table that Barack proposed so long ago.
I do not see Barack as a savior -- I see a fine man with a vision for our country that matches my own.
Reply...
THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both of these claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where McCain called Alaska the largest state in America, he could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.
MORE FACTS: She is responsible for negotiating any drilling of those resources. "Primary power" may be taxation, but she also has to oversee environmental issues, etc. She cracked the monopoly and forced oil companies to bid again, and she made a necessary portion of the bid that they address environmental issues. That was left out of the FACTS. While the population of the state may not be in proportion to the size of the state, her latest approval rating is 86%. That is unheard of. None of the other candidates enjoy that as senators from their respective states. That was also left out of the FACTS.
THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.
MORE FACTS: When the National Guard is called up within a state, the governor does have the primary responsibility of mobilization and oversight. Since she is 50 miles from Russia, having control of the National Guard in that state is certainly central to our national security. And the operative word is AFTER the unit is deployed. Making the decision to call them up and send them to war IS her decision, and DOES affect national security.
THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January of 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.
MORE FACTS: This is true. But if Democrats truly believe in hope and change, they have had since January to actually do it. Have seen zip, zilch, nada. Got news for you...Bush is not a true conservative, especially fiscally obviously. McCain is.
THE FACTS: It's true that Obama voted "present" dozens of times, among the thousands of votes he cast in an eight-year span in Springfield. Illinois lawmakers commonly vote that way on a variety of issues for technical, legal or strategic reasons. Obama, for instance, voted "present" on some abortion measures to encourage wavering legislators to do the same instead of voting "yes." Their "present" votes had the same effect as "no" votes and helped defeat the bills. Voting this way also can be a way to duck a difficult issue, although that's difficult to prove.
MORE FACTS: Nice spin. He still voted "present." If he can't make a decision on those bills, he is going to be able to make the big ones to run the country? You can't vote present in the oval office. However, he did show up to vote NO to the Infants Born Alive act...twice.
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes over $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
MORE FACTS: Look at this and digest it. First paragraph...Obama's plan will raise income for middle income taxpayers by 5% by 2012...he does not define "middle class." McCain's plan is going to CUT taxes across all levels and still raise the "middle income" by 3%. I think I will take the tax cut and the 3%. No brainer.
Obama wants to provide 80 billion in tax breaks to people who already pay almost 0 taxes. Where, pray tell, is that $80 billion going to come from?? Taxing the "rich" which will trickle down to loss of jobs and depression of the economy. Won't work. Never works. Case in point..small businesses that make more than $250,000 would see taxes rise. That is about every small family business in this country, who employ a lot of people. Just throw them all under the bus in order to cut taxes for people who pay the least taxes of all of us ANYWAY.
NO THANKS.
Reply
You know what truly amazes me? EVERYONE srcutinizes Obama for EVERY LITTLE THING from the b/c issue to his education, whether he is muslim, is he a terrorist, does he believe in this or that,etc but while GWB did pretty much whatever he wanted especially outside of the law whether it be national/international and the level of scrutiny bestowed upon him when he was first elected to office up until now has been been pretty much nonexistent.. or people saying 'i don't trust him', ' he frightens me' 'he is scary'. Should have been afraid of Bush and truly fear what you MAY NEVER know regarding the true state of this country of the last eight years..truly amazing
reply
Throw that hood in the wash, its getting dingy. 12 year olds, we know what you are saying there.
I made no "moral judgment" on SP's premarital pregnancy - merely pointing out the historical precedent she set.
I did reply, it is below....but I will reply again here...
I cannot find anything where Republicans voted for this issue before they voted against it. If you can, present it. I looked. In the case when McCain co-sponsored the bill that I have posted information about, where he predicted this exact thing happening, it never made it out of the committee. All the Republicans on the comittee voted for it, all of the Democrats on the comittee voted against it.
This is what the bill would have done:
1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.
Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.
Sounds like the bailout bill doesn't it? Would have been nice if they had not blocked the legislation that would have fixed the problem and not stuck us with it?
I did not reply to it because I have not seen it -
I have not been on the news or TV today so am not aware of what you are talking about. Will, however, before I go to bed, find out what is going on so that I can discuss it later...
reply
poster says duh? Exactly. Overwrought rhetoric destroys the validity of any discussion.
In reply...
Let me just address a couple of points:
Science isn't a "numbers" game where if you line up 1000 scientists on your side and I line up 1500 on my side, I win. The history of science is rife with examples of the majority of scientists being wrong. It might even be argued that at the moment any scientific discovery is made, the person who makes the discovery is, DE facto, a minority of one. The majority of scientists once thought the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, and that human disease was caused by invisible gases or by imbalance of the "four elements", and scoffed at the notion of "germs". If we left science up to a vote and counted heads to determine what is true, we'd have never moved one inch beyond the stone age.
The real problem, though, is that it really doesn't take much information about the methods used by the "global warmists" (my term) for even a layman to recognize that they are far from conclusive, and in many cases their methods are highly questionable. And since there is an enormous cost to all of us (or, enormous flow of money to the "warmists") to do battle with this "problem" - if it is one - it only makes sense to get the science right rather than jumping off the deep end and starting a lot of things in process that might very well be entirely unnecessary. Before we get the villagers all up in arms with torches and pitchforks, let's bother to find out if there really is a dragon in the cave. So far, I'm afraid that the best we can say is that all we have is rumors and that no one has actually seen the dragon.
Let's not conflate global warming with alternative energy, though. Although there is some connection, they are really separate issues. If there is global warming, it seems now that some scientists think that worm flatulence causes more warming than hydrocarbons, so on that basis we should be attacking worms, not fossil fuels.
Certainly, we should be pursuing every realistic form of alternative energy, but for one simple reason which you have correctly stated: There is only so much fossil fuel of any kind in the ground. We're going to run out of it. This means that even if oil were clean and cheap as water, we must seek alternatives.
However, oil isn't as cheap as water, and we don't own most of it even if it were, so the second reason we must seek alternatives is that we cannot continue to send $billions to foreign countries, many of whom don't like us very much and who are using our own dollars to finance the operations of our enemies. It's simply madness to finance our own destruction.
And those of us who are conservative are living in fear that...
our courts will further erode our society to the point that everything goes. Heck, one third of the country already has to live with the notion that their 12-year-old can consent to an abortion without our knowledge (thanks to the 6th circuit court in California, legalize gay marriage without letting "we the people" decide how we want our society (yes, 78% of Americans are against it), and I could go on and on. Do you like the fact that another priviate citizen can now take your property just because HIS use of that property would generate more income for the government? Sounds like socialism is rapidly becoming fascism to me. You can thank the imminent domain decision to those wonderful progressives on the court. Yes, let's hope we get another Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the court so our country can continue it's slide down the toilet.
Fear, intimidation, threats.
Sounds like the Bush machine is working overtime. 
Not to fear. The Chinese are interested in...
...purchasing these American icons. More selling out of America, right under our noses.
Thank you, Congress. 
Chinese Automakers May Buy GM and Chrysler
By Bertel Schmitt
November 18, 2008 -
Chinese carmakers SAIC and Dongfeng have plans to acquire GM and Chrysler, China's 21st Century Business Herald reports today. [A National Enquirer the paper is not. It is one of China's leading business newspapers, with a daily readership over three million.] The paper cites a senior official of China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology–– the state regulator of China's auto industry–– who dropped the hint that "the auto manufacturing giants in China, such as Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) and Dongfeng Motor Corporation, have the capability and intention to buy some assets of the two crisis-plagued American automakers." These hints are very often followed with quick action in the Middle Kingdom. The hints were dropped just a few days after the same Chinese government gave its auto makers the go-ahead to invest abroad. And why would they do that?
A take-over of a large overseas auto maker would fit perfectly into China's plans. As reported before, China has realized that its export chances are slim without unfettered access to foreign technology. The brand cachet of Chinese cars abroad is, shall we say, challenged. The Chinese could easily export Made-in-China VWs, Toyotas, Buicks. If their joint venture partner would let them. The solution: Buy the joint venture partner. Especially, when he's in deep trouble.
At current market valuations (GM is worth less than Mattel) the Chinese government can afford to buy GM with petty cash. Even a hundred billion $ would barely dent China's more than $2t in currency reserves. For nobody in the world would buying GM and (while they are at it) Chrysler make more sense than for the Chinese. Overlap? What overlap? They would gain instant access to the world's markets with accepted brands, and proven technology.
21st Century Business Herald, obviously with input from higher-up, writes that Chinese industry must change and upgrade. China wants their factories to change from low-value-added manufacturing to technically innovative and financially-sound high-value-add industries. Says the paper: "It would be much easier now for strong Chinese automakers to go global by acquiring some assets of their U.S. counterparts in times of crisis."
Deloitte & Touche sees a trend: "Chinese automakers can start with buying out the OEM projects and Chinese ventures of some global carmakers such as GM and Chrysler."
The Chinese appear to have bigger plans than an accounting firm can imagine. 21st Century Business Herald acts and writes as if its already a done deal, and the beginning of more to come. "In the coming two years China is likely to see a few of its large Chinese automakers and other manufacturing enterprises set a precedent for achieving globalization by acquiring global companies, just like SAIC or Dongfeng's possible acquisition of troubled GM or Chrysler."
Just in case you missed it, the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) is China's largest auto manufacturer. In 1984, the company entered a joint venture with Volkswagen. A decade later, SAIC entered a joint venture with General Motors. In 2007, SAIC bought the Nanjing Automobile Corporation, which had acquired British MG Rover in 2005.
Dongfeng Motor Corporation is a public company, although 70 percent of their shares are reported to be in government hands. They also are one of China's Big Three. The company has numerous joint venture partners, such as Nissan, Peugeot-Citroen, Honda, and Kia. Dongfeng (which means "East Wind") was founded at the behest of Mao Zedong himself in 1968.
Obama supporters have nothing to fear
nm
Here's the fear card, people.
Lap it up.
That's not a fear card, that's the truth.
If Clinton had dealt with the terrorists a little sooner, 9/11 may not have even happened. I know this is a shoulda/coulda kind of statement, but everyone's always going on about Bush and the war - I may not agree with why he went into Iraq, but I know with him in the Oval Office, we're a lot safer in this country, as well as several other countries. The truth is that there are many people that hate us and our country not because of who our President is, it's because we choose to be free, have freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom from tyranny. Can you imagine someone just walking into the White House and declaring himself President? That happens in the kind of countries that hate us. There are problems in this country, yes, but at least be glad that you live in a country where you won't get sent to jail or killed because you have different beliefs than the government. And as far as being afraid of these people? We should be!!! They have nuclear weapons (or will soon) - you don't think they're crazy enough to use them? That's why I want someone leading my country who's not afraid to stand up and say NO! You can't mess with my country and her people!!! Now, whichever candidate you think will do that is the one that deserves your vote.
Could you please cite your sources? No fear here.
Don't you think you are being just a little presumptuous? There is nothing to fear from Saracuda. O will not be addressing her seriously because he is running against the tin man...you know, the silenced sidekick whose mouth has rusted shut that tags along behind her? How presidential do you think that he is looks when he behaves like that? Dems have BTDT 24 years ago. Geraldine Ferraro surged polls up to the sky for a week or 2, yet ended up being the same kind of sideshow JM has become when it was time to come back to earth and address campaign issues. Hype and hysteria is no substitute for substance.
fear is an emotional response
based on perceived danger. Trying to "reason" with fear or fight emotion with "facts" is fruitless. The dems have millions of new voters registered, we are not overly concerned about losing a few votes from those ruled by emotion rather than reason. That's what democracy is all about. Vote or not vote based on any whatever floats your boat.
|
