By on April 27, 2012

Vice-President Joe Biden has been talking about the auto bailout frequently as the campaign for his re-election heats up in the coming months. A speech to NYU had him tout the record of the Obama administration, while also criticizing Gov. Mitt Romney’s famous “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” op-ed.

“If you’re looking for a bumper sticker to sum up how President Obama has handled what we inherited, it’s pretty simple: Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive,” Biden said Thursday at New York University. “Gov. Romney is counting on our collective amnesia. But Americans know that we cannot afford to go back to the future.”

Is this a new bumper sticker slogan, or what? In the interest of not bringing on accusations that TTAC is an anti-GM, anti-democrat, anti-Volt yellow rag, we’ll leave it to the B&B to make what they will of the article.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

109 Comments on “Biden: “Osama bin Laden Is Dead And General Motors Is Alive”"...”


  • avatar
    harshciygar

    Reason #1 and #2 I’ll be voting for four more years come November.

    • 0 avatar
      replica

      Yeah, doing a troop surge into Afghanistan, then getting it WRONG again and finding him in Pakistan, that’s leadership.

      I also quite enjoyed him cutting the NASA budget and getting me laid off at JSC. Oh, and that he’s about to get me laid off again since I work for a medical equipment company and the medical equipment tax is going to cause staffing reductions.

      Super cool president. I just can’t escape his poor decisions.

      • 0 avatar
        CarGuyChris

        Afghanistan – He did/is doing what he said he’d do; Get us our of Iraq, refocus on Afghanistan and Bin Laden. Begin withdrawal from Afghanistan. I can understand you have an axe to grind, and this is the only way someone can actually spin killing Bin Laden as some sort of leadership mistake.

      • 0 avatar
        mike978

        Republicans want to cut public spending (like NASA) so he is criticized when spending is cut and he is criticized for not cutting enough.
        The surge in Afghanistan was better than just leaving our troops strained as happened in the previous few years. It may not leave Afghanistan as a functioning state but then leaving (or having) minimal troops in back in 2008 through to now would not have made the situation any better.

      • 0 avatar
        replica

        Cut NASA spending, replace with cash for clunkers? That went well, created sustainable jobs, entirely new industries based on spaceflight contractors and raised the entire world’s standard of living.

        Given Obama’s “We’ll end this war” mentality, the proper thing to do is withdraw immediately. Every day we spent finding Bin Laden was another day we valued a soldier’s life less than a terrorists. Also, the income of Afghanistan is less than the cost to maintain their own security forces. It’s a complete waste of time.

      • 0 avatar
        Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

        Clearly you did not do enough outreaching to the Muslims.. Didn’t you get the memo from Bolden?

      • 0 avatar
        replica

        The collective face palming when Bolden mentioned that was deafening.

    • 0 avatar
      TW4

      Obamacare

      If you have an inkling of self-preservation, you’ll make sure it is thrown upon the ash heap if history. It renders the middle class completely impotent, hence the plethora of exceptions, and it forces the young healthy to pay for Medicare once with FICA tax, and then again with the personal mandate or public option.

      Any American citizen under 50, who votes for four more years and more FICA bailouts, might as well take up Russian roulette as a hobby.

    • 0 avatar

      I’m an Obama supporter, but:

      #1 How could America let the administration get away with killing Bin Ladin and not producing a body?

      #2 How could Americans allow Obama’s administration to use predator drones to blow up American citizens on foreign soil without trial?

      #3 How could the LEFTISTS not have a single war protest since Obama got in? And why is it the Right wingers aren’t using anti-war protests to get him out?

      I’m not blind. Obama is the “Black Bush” Dave Chappelle warned us about.

  • avatar
    icemilkcoffee

    It’s crass, but you can’t argue with it.

    • 0 avatar
      VanillaDude

      FULL QUOTE:
      “Osama Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive. I was speaking to my son Beau just the other night as we were soaking naked in a hot tub in Colombia with a couple new girlfriends he met. You know if I had a son with one of those Colombian gals, he would not look like Beau. He could have some of the same facial features, but that Colombian son of mine would be dark and swarthy, kinda like those Colombian gals. Kind of like that Louisiana governor, the Indian guy with the Southern accent. If I had a daughter with a Colombian girl, she would look like the Governor of South Carolina. She is also an indian with a Southern accent. Now, isn’t that kind of funny? Why would anyone expect Southern white people to vote into office Indians? And not just any indians, not the Cherokee kind, but the slurpy kind that run convenience stores and own hotels in small town America. And another thing that cracks me up every time. When those two Indian governors talk, they don’t talk like Indians! They talk like they’re George Wallace! Freaks. Me. Out! And get this, they are Republicans! Dark, swarthy republicans! That just shows you how idiotic the masses are. That is why we need to follow our intellectual superiors like Obama and me!”

      “General Motors is alive! Did you see that Volt? I drove one around Scranton, where I’m from, and you know, Scranton has like the world’s worst roads. Absolutely hellish.”

      “So I’m driving this damn fine automobile. It reminds me of my favorite ride, my 1973 Pinto. Geez, I kept that car for years.”

      “So anyhoo, I’m stark naked and I decided to call the White House. Just to see if they need me to do something. Funny thing about reception down in Colombia though. Everytime I finally got a hold of the President, our conversation somehow got cut off.”

      “Osama Bin Laden is dead. Dead. Dead. Dead. He is as dead as a coal miner with mesothelioma who was a four pack a day smoker, drank eight ounces of cheap whiskey, and ate glass pancakes for breakfast every morning. Dead! And you know why? Because of our great president, Barack Osama.”

      “He’s dead because he carries a really big stick. It is a stick the size of a small baseball bat. But instead of being smooth like a baseball bat, it has spikes on it! And not just any spikes! Poisonous spikes, dripping with poison! Osama Bing Crosby is dead because he was killed by our president Osama bin Barack, who has one hell of a huge, massive baseball bat covered in poisonous spikes stick!”

      “Did I mention I was naked?”

  • avatar
    jkross22

    It’s election season alright. Selective amnesia will be afflicting all candidates, Joe Biden probably more than most.

    The government has recouped just over $22 billion of an almost $50 billion loan to GM. GM posted a profit last year of $7.6 billion.

    Guess how much of that $7.6 billion was used to buy some of the 500 million shares of GM stock the government owns. You only get one guess.

    • 0 avatar
      CarGuyChris

      Another way to see this: the bailouts revived the auto industry which is one again in an uptick. Not letting GM fail also meant not letting the countless suppliers that depended on them fail and thereby saving millions of jobs and helping the economy recover faster. But if you have an axe to grind, by all means continue….

    • 0 avatar
      Conslaw

      The money that GM didn’t pay back was largely from the initial installment that GM received during the Bush administration. The emergency money did not have the strings attached that the later money did. To the extent the government doesn’t recover from direct repayment the entire GM subsidy, I must point out that GM had $38 billion in revenue in just the 4th quarter of 2011. That money coming in the door was largely spent on employee wages and payments to suppliers. Those employees circulated the money in their communities as did the suppliers. Even though GM didn’t pay taxes, the employees did. GM money is the lifeblood of many communities, communities that are self-sufficient now would have been basket cases had GM gone down the tubes.

      As to the other person who said that GM should have gone through bankruptcy – GM DID GO THROUGH BANKRUPTCY. GM was reorganized under Chapter 11 just like countless other companies. The difference is that the US and Canadian governments provided the financing for the reorganization. The private capital markets were broken thanks to greed and stupidity on Wall Street. There was no other place to get the money.

      President Obama may have eaten dog, but he knows you can’t live on dogma. Those who pray on the altar of the free market are worshiping a false idol.

      • 0 avatar
        replica

        I’d assume if GM went under, another manufacturer would have picked up their customers, thus, their suppliers and employees. Free market is super neato like that, when it’s actually allowed to work.

      • 0 avatar
        DC Bruce

        So, let me get this straight: Biden is claiming credit for “saving GM” and slamming Romney for advocating letting GM go bankrupt (and implying that Obama did not let that happen).

        And you’re saying: (1) What saved GM was the money it was handed by the Bush administration and didn’t have to pay back and (2) GM did go bankrupt in the Obama administration.

        So this is an argument for re-electing Obama and Biden?

        Just checking.

      • 0 avatar
        Good ole dayz

        Cut the spin. GM went through a pre-packaged bankruptcy that was actually a politicized package to insulate, no reward, the UAW … at the expense of the “secured” bondholders.

        It was real banana republic stuff.

        Which perhaps is fitting, since the current administration is working intentionally and diligently to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” to third-world status, and thus “redistribute the wealth” globally and so bring “global social justice” and “global economic justice.”

      • 0 avatar
        CarGuyChris

        Well-stated. What detractors don’t seem to understand is..

        1- The “Free market” only picks up the slack when there is a business model for doing so. During an economic downturn, other auto makers weren’t about to jump in and buy up manufacturing plants that would be sitting idle, especially since allowing GM to go down would take the aftermarket and other auto-related industries down with them, exacerbating the issue. There is no shortage of examples of abandoned manufacturing plants — because the free market doesn’t magically buy assets “just because.”

        2- For those claiming this was some political scheme, the numbers don’t add up. The bailouts were highly unpopular. The number of people against this bail out far outnumbers the UAW. The math doesn’t add up.

        3- Allowing the UAW more control over GM is a step in the right direction. We WANT companies where the ownership is represented by workers, because no one has a more vested interest in seeing a company doing well long term than its employees. The Gordon Gecko ownership approach created corporate cultures simply in it for the short term profit. Private equity companies and their investors are generally looking to boost quick revenues and be off on their merry way, even if wrecks the company in a few years. They have no interest in where that company will be in 20 years; by then they’ll have ‘flipped’ several other companies for short term gains.

      • 0 avatar
        TW4

        @ CarGuyChris

        1. If car manufacturers go bankrupt, they don’t necessarily liquidate all of their assets and go out of business. Chapter 11 allows them to renegotiate with stakeholders and lenders. If GM or any of the car manufacturers had liquidated, other manufacturers would have stepped up to purchase assets and hire workers b/c manufacturers cannot afford a stock out when 10% of the car market is up for grabs. The Big 3 are unique as well b/c they sell huge quantities of pickup trucks. If GM had gone under, truck sales at Chrysler and Ford could have spiked by 50%. If GM and Chrysler disappeared, Ford would need to manufacture over 1.2M F-series trucks each year. Impossible without purchasing factories and hiring workers.

        2. Politicians always protect their donors. They need campaign donations, and they need political alliances to control federal and state representatives and senators. Even when they do something populist, the bureaucracies still find a way to make it unpopular. Politicians don’t seem to trouble themselves with populism anymore. They deliver pork to political allies.

        3. How many decades has the UAW had to create an options package or to start buying up stock to secure their “seat at the table”? Is it 5 decades? I’ve lost count. Furthermore, the employees don’t own the company, the union does. The union is free to pump the company for every short-term cash dividend they can rip out of it. If anything, shareholders who distribute a lion’s share of their earnings as cash dividends are worse than shareholders who pump and dump stocks. Investors who rely on contagion don’t want the company’s cash position to be compromised. A union who has current obligations to legacy employees, has no compunction about siphoning cash out of retained earnings. Yeah, you want employees to own stock, not unions. The UAW shouldn’t exist anymore, and they certainly shouldn’t be controlling stock that belongs directly to the employees.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “GM went through a pre-packaged bankruptcy that was actually a politicized package to insulate, no reward, the UAW … at the expense of the “secured” bondholders.”

        Er, GM’s secureds were paid off in full.

        And I can see that you don’t know much about bankruptcy, but being a “secured creditor” only provides a priority in the queue. Being a secured does not guarantee full repayment. In cases when there aren’t sufficient assets to pay them off, secureds don’t get paid in full.

        In most cases, corporate bonds are unsecured. GM bondholders were not secured creditors. (The Chrysler bondholders were, but they were an exception to the rule.)

        Sorry, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

    • 0 avatar
      jimmyy

      “GM went through a pre-packaged bankruptcy that was actually a politicized package to insulate, no reward, the UAW … at the expense of the “secured” bondholders.”

      TRUE. It was a reward for union votes. And, because of this little scam, I will never ever purchase another Detroit product again. Ever. And, I teach my young kids the same.

  • avatar
    Ex Radio Operator

    Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. It worked out real good for the Jim Jones followers.

  • avatar
    NormSV650

    Obummer.

  • avatar
    alluster

    Osama was kept alive for ten years to be used as a boogeyman and wage a couple of trillion dollar wars, enriching the military industrial complex not to mention job security for a large republican voting block that could never find employment in the private sector. GM is kept alive to keep the UAW employed and enrich them so they can pay some of it back as campaign contributions and keep voting democratic.

    • 0 avatar
      replica

      Same can be said about immigration reform. If the Democrats “grant” citizenship to illegal immigrants, they’ll have generations of loyal voters in typically Republican states.

    • 0 avatar
      CarGuyChris

      So then shouldn’t we be thanking Obama for doing away with the scapegoat that’s been used for the war machine?

      Decisions like GM go both ways. Yes, you could say he gains further support from the UAW. But it also alienates those who are against unions and taxation. In fact, the UAW is far outnumbered by people who were against bailout to begin with. So it’s fine if you want to spin this as a stunt to gain votes. But don’t forget it also loses votes. In other words that argument can cut both ways.

  • avatar
    drivelikejehu

    Well they certainly can’t talk about the economy in general, unemployment, Afghanistan, etc. So they’re left with an obvious decision every President in history would have made, albeit with less self-congratulation afterwards, and also pouring tens of billions of dollars into GM without actually addressing the root problems. Brilliant record.

    • 0 avatar
      mike978

      Not sure if every President would have made that decision. It could easily have gone wrong (Carter 1980). Special forces deserve credit, but even the best laid plans can go awry when the rubber hits the road. If it had gone wrong he would have paid a political price. I am glad Bin Laden was captured and eliminated. Shame it didn`t happen many years earlier.

      • 0 avatar
        drivelikejehu

        Yes, every President would have. Carter is a great example- cautious and by no means a hawk, yet he authorized an operation a million times more dangerous, and with a much less proven special forces ability.

        Bin Laden was isolated in a house… what was going to go wrong? The team could have taken casualties but American troops are dying all the time in Afghanistan as it is. It was a complete no-brainer and it really shows Obama’s unfounded arrogance that he praises himself over it. It’s legitimately scary that he thinks of himself as an equal of Lincoln, FDR, etc… even arrogance doesn’t extend that far. Delusion is more accurate.

    • 0 avatar
      CarGuyChris

      “Well they certainly can’t talk about the economy in general, unemployment, Afghanistan, etc. ”

      Indeed. The numbers are a real indictment on this presidency.

      http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/obama-stimulus-jobs-added.jpg

      http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/obama-iraq-afghanistan-troop-levels-1003×1024.jpg

  • avatar
    tjh8402

    I don’t care if its a success now (although it’s not), GM should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy (just as the banks should have been allowed to fail). If that killed the company than it killed the company. It’s all about survival of the fittest. Of the bailed out automakers, the one we gave away to the Italians is in a much better position than Government Motors (no big surprise there). Oh, and Bin Laden is dead not just because of Obama, but because of the efforts of and intelligence gathering techniques developed under President Bush, and most of all because the Navy SEALS kick ass. Never mind that his mismanagement of the war in Afghanistan could leave us back where we started with a breeding ground for future bin Ladens.

    Still, if we want to use Biden’s slogan, we can always say “bin Laden is dead, General Motors is alive…but the rest of the country is falling apart.”

    I may be gay, atheist, and not a Romney fan, but Dear Leader Comrade Obama, especially when working with his fellow Dems, has cause this country enough damage already to be given the chance to do more.

    • 0 avatar
      replica

      I don’t understand why Obama is proud of the GM bailouts when they were started by Bush. Sort of like how proud the current Obama fans are over him “ending” the war in Iraq. Bush had the status of forces agreement in Iraq set to expire December 2011, years before Obama was in office.

      • 0 avatar
        tjh8402

        and yet everything that’s wrong is Bush’s fault…

      • 0 avatar
        CarGuyChris

        Obama is proud of having done the right thing, just as Bush did the right thing in the original bailout. They are no mutually exclusive. I’d say part of his pride over the issue comes from the fact that it was politically unpopular and now the naysayers (like Romney) now have egg on their face.

        Yes, Obama’s withdrawal followed the same path as Bush’s timeline. But contrast this to McCain’s intention to stay there, or the militancy of the other Republican presidential candidates (minus Ron Paul).

        http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/democrat-vs-republican/difference-between-republican-and-democrat-parties

  • avatar
    tced2

    There are lots of companies that go bankrupt and do not get liquidated – continue in business – get reorganized – and emerge as a new running entity. No administration intervention needed.

    • 0 avatar
      Lampredotto

      I don’t disagree with you about those other companies. But I’m not sure how many of those companies were saddled with the crushing wage/pension/healthcare legacy costs that GM was faced with. I have a hard time seeing how a GM bankruptcy without government intervention would have resulted in anything other than eventual collapse and liquidation, taking out dozens of suppliers in the process. I could be wrong but it always seemed like letting GM go bankrupt on its own would have been a very dangerous gamble, with the risk of devastating consequences.

      • 0 avatar
        Good ole dayz

        Guess what, GM is still saddled with the pension costs (one of the ways the faux Chapter 11 reorganization was tilted to favor the UAW). And I believe that with the UAW Veba there’s still a GM bakstop guarantee, so it’s still saddled with the health care costs too. And the UAW walked away with major ownership interests in the “new” GM and “new” Chrysler, for no money down. The only thing the taxpayers “bought” for the tens of billions that’ll never be paid back is time for the UAW to once again drive the host companies into decline and eventually death.

  • avatar
    George B

    I have problems with both actions. First, our Narcissist-in-Chief raced to get on camera and announce to the world that Osama bin Laden had been killed. It would have been better to keep quiet and use intelligence from the raid to capture as many other al-Qaeda bad guys as possible before the press conference.

    Regarding General Motors, they badly needed to go through a thorough Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. Instead GM got a massive cash infusion and part of the reorganization they needed. In my opinion, the administration preserved the UAWs position to skim money off the top of benefits at the expense of the future viability of General Motors.

    • 0 avatar
      tjh8402

      +1. GM’s future success has been hamstrung by the Administration’s political desires to keep the UAW happy. Funny how they play favorites even among the labor movement. Where are they to help bail out American Airlines Flight Attendants and Pilots?

      • 0 avatar
        WildcatMatt

        Unlike during the GM bankruptcy, companies have expressed interest in purchasing American Airlines and are in a position to follow through.

        (disclosure: I’m friends with a laid-off AA flight attendant.)

    • 0 avatar
      tjh8402

      +1. GM’s future success has been hamstrung by the Administration’s political desires to keep the UAW happy. Funny how they play favorites even among the labor movement. Where are they to help bail out American Airlines Flight Attendants and Pilots? Oh that’s right, they aren’t as big a part of the Democratic base (most pilots I’ve met have tended to be Republicans).

    • 0 avatar
      gottacook

      With respect to “Narcissist-in-Chief”: Anyone who runs for and wins the nomination of a major party and then a presidential election, by definition, thinks very highly of himself or herself. (I don’t necessarily count GW Bush because I don’t believe he attained office fairly and because in part he was running as his father’s son.) In general, if you vote for any presidential candidate, you’re voting for a narcissist. Can’t be helped under our system. (Sometimes this intense self-regard comes out and is repulsive, as in one of Hillary Clinton’s speeches I heard early in the 2008 primaries: “I am SO ready to lead!!”) You want to institute a president-for-a-week national lottery instead, fine.

      Also, why don’t you think the intelligence gathered during the raid was protected and used?

    • 0 avatar
      Chicago Dude

      “I have problems with both actions. First, our Narcissist-in-Chief raced to get on camera and announce to the world that Osama bin Laden had been killed. It would have been better to keep quiet and use intelligence from the raid to capture as many other al-Qaeda bad guys as possible before the press conference.”

      Selective memory.

      The White House called the late-night press conference because their hand was forced. Pentagon insiders leaked it to the press.

      Furthermore, press conference or no, bin Laden’s associates were not going to be in the dark about the raid. The internet was already filled with reports from people in the area about helicopters that arrived silently and could only be heard when they were hovering directly overhead, large explosions and machine gun fire at a residential compound, etc. Once daylight came and people found large pieces of a helicopter that was made of a material nobody had ever seen before and in shapes nobody had ever seen before, the secrecy was over. Whatever happened inside that night was the work of the USA.

      The press conference happened after all that.

      • 0 avatar
        Advance_92

        Now now, maybe he was referring to the Bush administration when they found Saddam. Remember the whole ‘we got him!’ announcement with all the applause?

  • avatar
    highdesertcat

    Regardless of one’s political leanings or whether one agrees with the bail outs, hand outs and nationalization of GM and Chrysler, which many oppose, Obama has his re-election sewed up and will handily win re-election. He knows it. His fans know it.

    The GOP has no candidate that will present a threat to Obama’s re-election, and many would-be voters will just stay home instead of going to vote.

    There simply are not enough Republicans, and Independents like myself, or Evangelical Christians who will rally behind Romney to give him a majority in November. Obama has this re-election thing in the bag.

    This will be a lopsided landslide victory for Obama because those of us who can, are living our lives around Obama’s economic policies already and view Romney in terms of what he did to Mass when he was governor there. One is as bad as the other.

    Even the over-65 crowd of which I am a member turns up their noses at Romney because he is, after all, the father of Obama-care which will take away $50Billion a year from Medicare. Most taxpayers in Mass are very unhappy with the results of Romney-care and view Obama-care as being no worse.

    So, Obama supporters, rejoice. Obama’s re-election will be walk in the park. The voters who matter will stay home this year. And most of us who no longer have an earned income or are retired don’t care who will be president. One is as bad as the other. Even Jimmy Carter said so.

    • 0 avatar
      Darkhorse

      I normally share your pessimistic view, but I now think Obama is vulnerable. As Bill Clinton said “It’s the economy stupid.” And I think the economy WILL get him booted.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        We can only hope, but don’t forget that Obama’s economic policies have helped a large number of people who never had to work a day in their lives, or create jobs or meet a payroll.

        And how about the 99ers? You gotta love getting a check every two weeks and not having to go to work or accept a job if it is offered.

        Those people along with the African-Americans, Amnesty-centered Hispanics, union-members, Democrats, Liberals and Green Weenies will again vote for Obama just to keep ‘their man’ in the White House. And they will win!

        For them Obama’s policies have worked. Trickle-up poverty affects only the people whose wealth has been taken and spread around. The others just rake it in every month.

        The rest of us who have not benefitted from Obama’s largesse cannot get a majority together to boot Obama. The only reason the economy is not rebounding is because of all the insecurity about what the election in November will bring us.

        It isn’t a matter of pessimism. It is a matter of how best to live our daily lives around Obama’s economic policies, a dysfunctional Senate and a Tea-Party run House. You’ve got THREE major forces all pulling America in different directions.

        No wonder the people who create jobs in America are sitting it out on the sidelines. No one is going to expand if their profits are going to be reduced because of higher operating costs and mandates like Obama-care.

        FWIW, several business owners in my area have closed their businesses as soon as they turned 62 and have gone on early Social Security Retirement (among them my favorite bakery and breakfast hangout). They’re laughing all the way to the bank. Instead of paying in, they’re now taking out. Who can blame them?

        But those same people have a lot of money stashed away under their mattress and out of sight. The ones who’ve got to work and who can’t shelter their money are paying dearly for this hopey-changey thing.

        My wife and I have had to pay in all of our working lives and will never recoup what we have paid in. So we have no sympathy for the people forced to feed Obama’s kitty. But we will gladly accept whatever the Eagle drops into our bank account every month.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      “The voters who matter will stay home this year.”

      No, the corporate dollars will always continue to vote. Their votes matter more because they have more votes than citizens do. If each vote is $1, they vote hundreds of thousands of times in a year.

      Want to know why our system is messed up? There it is.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        No dispute about the corporate dollars, but those dollars do not fill out the ballots. People do. And in our system of elections, we still have to show up to vote and be counted.

        In the case of Clinton, for instance, less than half of the electorate showed up to vote because of lack of interest. But Clinton was elected by a majority of the people who actually showed up to vote even though that was less than 50% of the people who could vote if they had showed up to vote.

        And all politics is local. This election is no different. I would be surprised if more than half of the eligible voters show up to vote for this election although I also believe that the Obama fan club will be out in force to ‘keep their man in the White House’.

        Romney doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance of winning the presidency. There simply aren’t a majority of people of ANY political persuasion that will vote for him, or even care enough to vote against Obama by voting for Romney. One is as bad as the other. That’s what my relatives in Mass tell me.

        The big losers will be the American people who foot the bill for Obama’s expenditures, Medicaid and welfare programs. Americans got exactly what they deserved when they elected Obama, and they will get to enjoy four more years of massive deficit spending and social hand outs.

        As an Independent, I’m staying home on voting day because I won’t vote for Obama and I won’t vote for Romney. Without a credible Ross Perot this time around there simply is no one to vote for.

    • 0 avatar
      TW4

      Obamacare will not take any money away from senior citizens. The original plan was to reform Medicare, but that’s not what passed. Money is getting shifted around from program to program, but in the end, it will be young people paying FICA taxes and personal mandates to make up the increasingly large deficits in the healthcare industry and healthcare entitlements.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        You obviously are not yet on Medicare and have not seen the reduction in tests and services that are currently approved for payment by Medicare. Ask any doctor’s office what a nightmare it has already become since Obama-care was passed. Ask your Hospital, too.

        More people are finding out after the fact that their trip to the ER or their recurring blood test, their eye test, or whatever test, has been disapproved for payment by Medicare.

        In many cases there is no recourse and the seniors have to come up with the money to pay for the services rendered since no Advanced Beneficiary Notice was required to be completed at the time the test or procedure was done. There was no advance indication it would be disapproved.

        One way Medicare has reduced expenditures is to limit many codes to annual services only. Doctors have to use different codes or reword diagnoses in order to fool Medicare into approving payment, even if it is for the same recurring medical problems like endoscopies for stomach cancer follow ups, as an example.

        Now that is a fact. I don’t know where you get your info but I live in the real world where this happens to real people I know. These are the same people who paid all their working lives into this system that now routinely shortchanges them.

        Were it not for my Retired Military benefits and access to military medical services and labs, and my wife’s Blue Cross/Blue Shield coverage, we would be footing an ever increasing larger part of our Medicare bills, to include meds.

        Something you may want to look forward to especially if you are paying for our Medicare services now while receiving fewer ones in return when you become eligible yourself. Maybe you prefer the free Obama-care, except it won’t be free if you fail the means test.

        That’s coming, you know. Just like it did with the VA for Service-connected disabilities and the co-payment for meds. Been there, done that!

      • 0 avatar
        TW4

        You’re right. I’m not on Medicare, unfortunately. I have shoddy healthcare for me and my fam, but apparently I’m rich enough to buy healthcare for someone else.

        The government seems to think that social justice and freedom entails making young middle class workers foot the bill for entitlements that have never balanced tax receipts with projected benefits. They just raise taxes every time reform is needed, and then cut benefits a generation later in the dark of night. The people who pay the taxes get to die without benefits.

        Our parents borrowed money from us to build an economy so they could raise us. They told us to take out debt to go to college. Now that they are about to retire, and they have successfully outsourced millions of jobs, and doubled the cost of housing with loose credit, they come to us with empty pockets, begging for more money. This is the biggest heist in the history of human civilization. TBH, I don’t care what happens to seniors, unless they are destitute, salt-of-the-earth types like my 90 year old grandmother. Since my grandfather was in surgery for the last 2 years of his life, to “improve his quality of life” at great expense to the taxpayers, I think seniors and taxpayers would be better off if they avoided people who adhere to the Hippocratic Oath.

        There are three doctors in my immediate and extended family. I don’t need someone to teach me the Medicare game. I need for baby-boomers to pay their own way for once in their lives. I’m sorry Medicare sucks, but the US made a deal with the devil for fantasy healthcare coverage. I can’t bail you out. If you served in the military, you deserve your benefits, and I hope they materialize. You aren’t the problem, anyway. The problem, according to the CBO, are the 33% of seniors who work with their financial advisers and pension actuaries to game social security and medicare. Second tier scam artists work full-time or part-time jobs, yet they get paid retirement benefits tax free–a double whammy b/c Medicare makes them more competitive compared to young employees (no healthcare cost to employer), while they scam their coworkers for SS payments. The government encourages chicanery with weak RMD schedules, lax income rules, and terrible cost controls. Reform has been on the table for 15 years. Nothing has been done b/c someone always has a reason to delay. Surplus, dot com bust, 9-11, Great Recession, or private healthcare crisis. Needy senior citizens always block reform, which merely allows the scam artists to continue ripping of entitlements for the destitute elderly and swindling their taxpaying progeny.

        Means testing is exactly what we need, otherwise I’m not going to make it to retirement. FICA is Federal Insurance Contributions Act, not Federal Annuity Contributions Act. No one pays in. They buy coverage. If the coverage sucks, don’t buy from the government. Lesson learned. 50 years after the fact.

  • avatar
    tankinbeans

    Since I don’t put political stickers on my car, I will say that it’s tacky.

    I just want the elections to be over so that we can stop playing, to paraphrase Carlin, “bigger dick domestic politics.” I want whoever is going to win, to win, and whoever is going to lose, to go away. Then maybe people can go back to living without feeling the need to get political every 10 seconds.

  • avatar
    gottacook

    Regardless of people’s opinions of how the Obama administration has handled what it inherited from the previous president (whose name the Republican candidates never seem to mention), I think the focus here should be on Romney’s op-ed “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” It can be read at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1. As for who initiated the bailout, Bush started it in December 2008 but Obama greatly increased the amount once he took office; the Bush amount might not have been sufficient. In any case, Romney wrote this not knowing who, if anyone, would take that action.

    • 0 avatar
      hriehl1

      Why not let them go bankrupt? No one bailed out airlines, steel companies and others when they hit the rocks. The government set a very dangerous precedent. Not only did they bail out a private entity using public money, they ignored rule-of-law in doing it (just ask the bondholders who somehow ended up behind the UAW when the spoils were divvied).

      Your post implies a belief that the end (saving GM) justifies the means (an outside-the-law backruptcy process). Wow… when we are governed by whim instead of law we’re on a very slippery slope indeed.

      Talk to me when governmental whim “saves” your biggest competitor, whom you’ve whipped in the marketplace. Why does no one talk about Ford, Toyota, Nissan and others as victims of the GM bail-out? They were.

      • 0 avatar
        Volts On Fire

        “Why not let them go bankrupt?”

        Why not, indeed?

        “Your post implies a belief that the end (saving GM) justifies the means (an outside-the-law backruptcy process). Wow… when we are governed by whim instead of law we’re on a very slippery slope indeed.”

        Amen. That line of thinking could also be used to justify the total obliteration of the Middle East – including Israel – in order to promote global peace.

      • 0 avatar
        TW4

        “No one bailed out airlines”

        Yes, we did. After 9-11, when airlines essentially went bankrupt b/c they didn’t implement proper safety standards, the US public bailed them out, and the TSA was created to handle airline security.

        Our junk has been getting fondled every since.

    • 0 avatar
      TW4

      You can’t make a comment about the bailout or bankruptcy, unless you know what was going on.

      Bankruptcy is not synonymous with the disappearance of the company. People who argued for bankruptcy believed that GM and Chrysler should go through bankruptcy reorganization before/if they received any money. Others wanted DC to bail out the manufacturers before bankruptcy and use the attached strings to reorganize the company without the court system.

      Romney said we need to follow the law. I actually didn’t agree regarding the bailout, but attempting to sully his reputation for trying to follow the law is a bit ridiculous.

  • avatar
    mike978

    To be fair what Biden said was technically true. The voters will have a choice in November between two different ways for the future. That is as it should be – democracy at work.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      It’s only a Democracy if the voters (meaning individuals, not corporations) are heard. If they are supplanted by corporations, moneyed individuals and special interests, the citizen has been replaced. This is our system today.

      The act of voting in and of itself is window dressing democracy.

      Your vote is as real as a GM Bankruptcy.

      • 0 avatar
        Volts On Fire

        Our votes are worthless because the idiot masses drown out the educated minority. The current system may give corporations too much power, but it also gives an unearned voice to the lesser among us who, given the opportunity, will always elect a puppet like Obama to pay their mortgage, save their (union) jobs and give them free healthcare.

        Not all Americans should be allowed to vote. Simple as that.

        Here’s a simple elimination process to determine whether someone is worthy of being allowed to vote:

        1) You must have paid federal income taxes in the preceding calendar year;
        2) You must pass an 8th Grade Current Events knowledge test;
        3) You must pay $50

        Meet any two criteria, and you can vote. Nice and simple, and there is absolutely no preference for one race, creed or color over another (though it goes without saying that IDs would also be checked.) I have to think this would cull the idiot and entitlement hordes from the voting booth.

      • 0 avatar
        Dan

        +1 to that, Volts.

        It’s thoroughly depressing seeing the direction of the federal government, far and away the largest and most powerful organization in human history, in large part decided by who can better agitate the uninvested underclass to show up and vote.

        Among people with skin in the game, Obama would be a historical footnote in the 2008 primary.

      • 0 avatar
        PintoFan

        It’s good to see a conservative being honest about how much he values democracy for once.

      • 0 avatar
        Volts On Fire

        When democracy disappears, blame those who abused the privilege.

  • avatar
    stephenc

    What the heck is this doing here? If Derek is interested in politics Im sure there are plenty of political sites that could use his cut and paste skills.

  • avatar
    TW4

    The voting populace knows so little about business or politics that they are easy to divide and conquer.

    The arguments were: We should follow bankruptcy law then bail or we should bail and not follow bankruptcy law. Both sides had good reason. Bailout crowd said the courts would be a circus and would take years to accomplish the task. Bankruptcy advocates said that we have to follow the law of the land or investors (mainly bondholders) will be spooked away from a capital-intensive industry. Unfortunately, the political rhetoric has evolved into: We should have eliminated the auto manufacturers or we should have saved the auto manufacturers.

    What Biden says is true, and if those were the only political issues, Obama would be a shoo-in, and I’d be happy to vote for him. Unfortunately, the 111th Congress decided to let healthcare lobbyists rewrite the healthcare rules. Obama decided to sign it, though he knew it was a travesty.

    The American middle class is already an inefficient labor force b/c we are taxed into oblivion, and the benefits of those taxes are focused narrowly on the over 65 crowd, regardless of whether seniors have a need (or 65 is a legit retirement age). Naturally, Obama couldn’t help but pile another enormous tax on the middle class, basically to bail out Medicare. The tax is so destructive, that the legislature spends its time granting exceptions. Have we not lost enough jobs already?

    Obamacare was naked opportunism at its worst. A terrible bill, supported by wanton ideology, written by lobbyists, rammed through the Congress, signed begrudgingly by a president who pitched a completely different plan, endorsed under the pretense that massive deficit spending would heal our economy before the 2012 elections, thus Obamacare wouldn’t kill jobs.

    The 111th Congress were quite possibly the dumbest politicians to ever go through Washington DC. All they had to do was prevent another terrorist attack and keep the economy afloat. Instead, they let their losers mentality creep in. Reid and Pelosi, accustomed to decades of getting their asses kicked, decided to seize the day before losing power again (they assumed) by desperately ramming through their legacy policy. They lost 60+ seats as a result of their political chicanery and lack of leadership. Instead of realizing that he’d been sold out by a group of senile hippies, who cared more about their bucket list than the future of our nation, Obama decided to protect a bill that had little to do with his original plan. He knew Republicans wouldn’t let him do his plan so he protected the incompetent hippies.

    Obama should be a shoo-in; instead, Obamacare is looming on the horizon, another crisis to make the middle-class wish they were never born. He is another president who chose to sacrifice the working young for the old, despite his rhetoric. I hope it costs him his job. Paul Ryan on the other hand, has proposed a litany of SS and MED controls as part of FICA reform. So know I’ve got to vote R. What is wrong with this country?

  • avatar
    NormSV650

    The Government Motors was pretty much done until now. Plugs Biden love inserting his foot in his mouth, like Obama’s “big stick” and all.

    Poor GM just can’t get out of the proverbial hole when no one wants to work for them:

    http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/27/gm-ceo-akerson-makes-less-than-his-peers/

  • avatar

    1 outta 2 ain’t bad.

  • avatar
    PaulVincent

    Since the Obama administration has now declared war on terror to be over, when will the TSA quit molesting passengers and let us board without extreme anti-terrorist measures in place? After all, the war on terror is over, right?

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      The war on Terror is over.

      And Terror won.

      It’s groping children, confiscating nail clippers, and making old men take off their belts at a courthouse, airport, and federal building near you. Every day for the rest of our lives.

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    If people really want to get mad about a bail out, get made at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Get made at Bank of America, Chase, and Wells Fargo. These are the companies run by overpaid banksters who suck at their jobs and have consistently lied to cover up their self-dealing practices. They subsidized crooked mortgage brokers and appraisers and created mortgage securities based on lies, then they sold those securities to our pension funds. This resulted in a housing bubble and the near-complete collapse of our financial system. Only the last minute bailouts kept us from repeating the crash of 1929.

    • 0 avatar
      hriehl1

      So your thesis is…
      Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Chase et al behaved very badly. So our only recourse was to give them public money so they could persist in their nasty ways?

      Hmm… when I behaved badly my folks punished me.

      Also, don’t dismiss that the Feds were complicit in the mortgage mess… somehow a tradition of buyers bringing 20% down for an 80% loan morphed into 0 down and 110% mortgages. Without Federal backing, those ridiculous loans would have never happened.

      • 0 avatar
        Conslaw

        Regarding throwing money to Freddie et al, the argument goes that unless they could cover their IOUs, the system would collapse. Lehman Brothers was the canary in the coal mine. The financial panic that accompanied Lehman Brothers’ failure would have been many times worse if Fannie or Freddie or any of the “too big to fail” banks would have gone functionally insolvent.

        I agree that the federal government was absolutely complicit in the mortgage mess. Government on all levels had been warned that these subprime loans and derivatives were essentially fake assets. There was insufficient regulation of the industry. Obama shares 1/100 of the senate blame for that. Obama’s biggest deficiency was keeping Larry Summers and Tim Geither in charge of fiscal policy. They were/are too close to the banking industry and have let the banks and Fannie/Freddie, the banks and the FHA off the hook too easily.

    • 0 avatar
      Chicago Dude

      Well you can’t blame Obama because TARP was a Bush-era program. Signed into law about a month before the election.

      A large number of banks were effectively forced to participate to make sure the weakest banks didn’t get “unwelcome” attention. Dozens of healthy regional banks that didn’t get involved in the housing bubble had to give stock warrants to the government in exchange for unneeded and unwanted capital. Not to mention FDIC insurance rates were jacked up by huge amounts. It is not the least bit surprising that TARP turned a profit.

  • avatar
    geofcol

    Respectfully, the only thing this moron ever said that made any sense was “Gee they sure have a lot of pretty women here in Ukraine”

  • avatar
    geofcol

    Respectfully, the only thing that moron ever said which made any sense was “Gee they sure have a lot of pretty women here in the Ukraine”

  • avatar
    ClutchCarGo

    I assumed that this speech would not be ignored by TTAC, but I’m still disappointed to see it here.

  • avatar
    vanpressburg

    Why would the president Obama deserve credit for killing Osama bin Laden?
    President Obama “deserves” the same credit as Lord Farquaad, who sent Srek to fight with dragon.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “Why would the president Obama deserve credit for killing Osama bin Laden?”

      Obama took the diplomatic risk of launching a military assault in Pakistan without Pakistani consent. Effectively, the killing of Bin Laden was an act of war, but Obama took the approach that it was better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

      In contrast, the Bush policy toward Pakistan was less aggressive. Bin Laden lasted as long as he did because Bush would not have been inclined to have breached Pakistan’s sovereignty as Obama did.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/world/americas/30iht-30tribal.14085430.html?_r=1

      Obama deserves the credit, even if folks on the right don’t want to give it to him.

  • avatar
    alluster

    Obama/Biden should take credit for another good deed, finishing off Toyota. It was their administration that started the SUA witch hunt that cost Toyota billions not to mention tarnished their safety and reliability reputation (the only reason these soulless boring turds ever sold). It was their administration that has continuously devalued the dollar to where one USD buys only 80 Yen, a level at which Toyota loses $5B a year and warns of aa evntual collapse. The tsunamiquake and Thai floods were probably the work of God since Toyota signed a pact with the devil and got away with murders. Biden can’t take any credit there.

    The title should read: Osama is dead, Toyota is dying and GM is alive and kicking.

  • avatar
    kid cassady

    “In the interest of not bringing on accusations that TTAC is an anti-GM, anti-democrat, anti-Volt yellow rag…”

    Is this even up for debate?

  • avatar
    mtymsi

    Romney originally stated and has restated recently that the bailout money for GM & Chryco should have come from the private sector rather than Washington. Only glaring error there is that there was no private investment capital available at the time thus both would have collapsed.

    Even considering the amount GM has yet to repay the cost to the government would have been far greater had both companies been allowed to fail.

    I have a very hard time believing anyone can think the economy would be better off today had both failed along with the numerous suppliers that also would have failed.

    Forget about dangerous precedents and government investing selectively in private business. Those were extraordinary circumstances that demanded the government bailouts. Any responsible president would have done exactly what Bush/Obama did.

  • avatar
    hriehl1

    “Forget about dangerous precedents and government investing selectively in private business.”

    Ummm… OK. Oh wait… you didn’t own GM bonds?? Then no big deal… right?? It was OK cuz it was for the greater good (just like in the Soviet Union).

    But can you tell me which bailout might be next? I need to know which securities may get illegal protection, or illegal liquidation.

  • avatar
    PintoFan

    It’s been fun to watch Republicans run as fast as they can from Bush’s legacy through this campaign cycle, or pretend that he never existed. This speech brings all that angst to the surface by reminding them that their party does occasionally have flashes of common sense from time to time, despite how much they might despise it. If you didn’t want Obama to be gliding towards an easy victory right now, then you shouldn’t have paved the road with your own hypocrisy and do-nothing obstructionism. George Bush and the Republican party of his era had a lot of flaws, but they were practically Cambridge faculty compared to the crop that replaced them.

    For all of those spitting venom on Obama’s “base” for its supposed inadequacies, get over yourselves. Santorum, Perry, Cain, and Bachmann were more than enough to torpedo any claim the Republicans might have once staked to intellectual superiority for all eternity. The middle-class taxpayers that used to be the core Republican constituency in swing states have defected permanently; the Tea Party means nothing to them.

    • 0 avatar
      Volts On Fire

      “Santorum, Perry, Cain, and Bachmann were more than enough to torpedo any claim the Republicans might have once staked to intellectual superiority for all eternity.”

      If you’ll stop with the comical, self-righteous harumphing for just a second, you may notice that none of them will be the nominee.

      • 0 avatar
        PintoFan

        That any of them were once considered serious candidates for the office of President of the United States (especially Santorum) is still enough to destroy whatever point you might be trying to make.

      • 0 avatar
        Volts On Fire

        Really now? Seems to me that Santorum appealed to a considerable number of ethical, moral and religious Americans who also don’t believe that government is responsible for holding their hands on this ever-so-tough journey through life. He just didn’t have enough of them to win the nomination.

        This election will come down to two philosophies: “what will you do for me?” versus “I’ll do it myself, and stay out of my way.” The first implies inherent weakness, neediness, and inability to function without the helpful hand of federal interference. The rest of us prefer to lead our own lives, and will fight vehemently against anyone who tries to do it for us.

        Even if your side wins in November, you’re on the losing side of evolution. At least I hope so, for the sake of our country.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      PintoFan has claimed that the Pinto was a great car, and the success of the Japanese is only because buyers were too dumb to realize the awesomeness of the domestic offerings compared to those crappy Accords, Civics, Camrys and Corollas, so his postings need to be taken with a rock-sized grain of salt.

      Granted, his posts are fun to read for their ability to entertain, but not so much for historical accuracy.

      It is fun to imagine someone typing up a post claiming that a Cobalt or Cavalier is better than a comparable Civic, and actually maintaining a straight face while doing it. Same with his readings of the political scene.

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    Diligent GM bondholders sold their bonds long before the auto meltdown. GM’s financial statements showed that the company was technically bankrupt long before the meltdown. (It was a topic of regular conversation in this forum.) The people holding onto the bonds were mostly speculators who bought well below the face value of the bonds and new the investment was risky. It’s not at all common for unsecured creditors to be completely wiped out in a chapter 11 bankruptcy. The pension funds got treated specially for three reasons (1) the continued cooperation of the UAW was needed for plan success; (2) the government can consider politics when deciding how to spend its (our) money; and (3) leaving the pension funds without assets would have just shifted the burden to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. The plan was submitted to the bankruptcy judge who approved the plan. Those who objected had their objections heard and had their chance appeal. There was nothing “illegal” about the bailout.

    • 0 avatar
      hriehl1

      Implied in your reply is that “speculator” bondholders are somehow less deserving of legal bondholder protection than widows and retirees. I didn’t know speculators were a special class.

      As to the reorganization plan “needing cooperation from the UAW”; I daresay that if the union were tossed out entirely and all those 75,000+/- jobs were opened to be filled from the general public (without union representation), they would have received, oh, I dunno, maybe 2,000,000 applications.

      Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Hyundai, VW and others get along just fine building cars iin the USA without the UAW’s “cooperation”.

      The bankruptcy was a total social-engineering bag job; you know it and I know it.

  • avatar
    TomHend

    Obama will lose in a landslide, who wants to bet?

    • 0 avatar

      Obama’s the Primo Carnera of modern day politics. Hasn’t been in a real political fight since Bobby Rush beat him in a congressional primary. After that, all his victories were engineered. He’s got incredibly thin skin and probably a glass jaw as well. He’s used to sycophantic water carrying from the press and thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room, smarter than his advisers. Romney is easy to underestimate, he’s a dork. He’s also at least as smart as Obama and unlike the president, he’s actually done stuff.

    • 0 avatar
      AKRonald

      Actually, the betters at
      http://www.politicalbettingodds.com/presidential-betting-odds.html
      are about 60% Democrat vs 40% Republican.

      Same goes for people buying Winner Take All futures at the University of Iowa’s Iowa Electronic Markets
      http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Pres12_quotes.html

  • avatar
    Mike Kelley

    Four more years of Obama, with sufficient support by Democrats in Congress, could do for America what their big-spending party has done in California,

    http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/tax-351217-budget-billion.html#

    and Illinois:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/illinois_is_broke_so_lets_spend_more.html

  • avatar
    Adub

    A normal bankruptcy reorganization would have at least given the bondholders the chance to change the structure and management of the company.

    As someone who knows what is going on inside GM, I can tell you nothing has changed. Yes, they got out from under their debt load, but that’s it. The same bad management and poor processes that doomed GM years ago are still going strong.

    History will repeat itself.

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    The bondholders did have the chance to contest the management and structure of the reorganized company. They just didn’t have any superior alternatives to offer because they weren’t bringing new money to the table. One of the tests in approving a chapter 11 plan is if the unsecured creditors are at least as well off as they would have been had the company liquidated. It was determined that they were.

  • avatar
    "scarey"

    Biden is a douche.

  • avatar
    Dragophire

    In the immortal words of a fictional presidential candidate…God Bless America and no one else.

  • avatar
    ckgs

    Disappointing to see this here.

  • avatar
    Abdul_Alhazred

    Jesus, guys, just admit it. The only reason you hate Obama is because he’s black.

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      Nah, it’s probably just one of the reasons…

      If an actual accomplishment of this administration being held up for all to see is somehow ‘excess celebration’ and ‘hubris’, well the collective memory seems to be dimmed for Bush’s back-seat landing on a carrier and subsequent speech in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner in 2003.

      For a war that ended last year.

      Edit:
      If I were standing in front of St. Peter, I’d rather be Joe Biden than Dick Cheney.

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        Whining about (alleged) racism…usually the last resort, when all other arguments have failed to gain traction.

        Please find some other way to bore me.

        One could just as easily argue that people who aren’t voting for Romney are doing so because he’s white.

        As I said, you need to find some other way to bore me.

        As for the St. Peter example – based on your logic, he must prefer career politicians who have a nasty but amusing habit of inserting foot into mouth. I guess competence isn’t a requirement for entry beyond the Pearly Gates.

        Only the hopelessly partisan, or blessedly stupid, believe that one of these things is “better” than the other. Generally, it’s not a good idea to fall into either category.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    Other than the fact that the words “GM is alive,” how is this relevant on a car website? Come on, TTAC…this is click trolling…Nobody here is going to change (there’s that word again) their views by somebody’s post…When the politics relate to what/how/where you drive, ok, it’s fair and relevant. But this???


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India