hi all i wanna ask somthing about GM !?
hey all why is GM are very diffrent sincE 1996? ? and whats with the saudi caprice 2000-2006? i think gm was very good but now there is some changes that is suck !! ( in saudi arabia they have a BUICK and PONTIAC but when 1996 come GM stopd export the buick and pontiac to saudi arabia ...... i LOVE GM and i am still loving it but why they did this stupid thing ?) and why GM stopd making all the good BIG !! RWD cars ? ( like roadmaster and fleetwood and caprice and bonneville) ( about the holden caprice they sell it in saudi as a chevy and it is RWD and big ..... WHY THEY CANT BRING IT TO THE US ? ) why every thing old is better then the new ? ( and do saudi arabia have a chance to bring back the buick and pontiac ? ( if they do have a chance we can make more money for the US and saudi to $$$$#$$$%$$$$$) lol) ( and oh yeah .................i am from saudi arabia ) ( and i feel sick for those companys that they are copying the stupid japnees cars like the CAMRY & accord & sonata & altima
Other - Cars & Transportation - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
You are one voice in the market...wrte GM a letter and complain. The more they get, the more thay are influenced.
2 :
uh, look at chevy, they suck all around, the only good thing they had was the 350.. and that wasnt even that great... of course they are making stupid mistakes, they tok away the camero.. wtf?!?!?! why would they do that? to make the new one that is coming out better?!?! or to get more fools to buy a stupid vette?? cuz with a little bit of money a camero will go alot faster than the old looking outdated peice of overpriced junk called gthe corvette.... i dont thinik they should come out with another camero anyway. gonna be dissapointed when it gets beat by the dodge charger haha... chevy does have the pontiac gto though, 6.0 liter rwd gas guzzler... you can have that ugly looking redesigned grand am.. puke!!
3 :
I appreciat what you say as well. I'll attempt to reply as best I can as I see the situation. GM is a maker of cars and trucks. Their factories have unions that represent the workers. For years the salaried and hourly workers were paid top wages in the industry. Over time imports gained an advantage over the domestics as they were far more flexable in manufacturing than the unionized plants and compensated less for similar work across the board. Unions wanted more for their employees as their fair share of profits of their labor, and salaried wrokers also had to get more to remain competitive so they claimed. Some of the wages for the top mangerment teams became obscenely high and bloated; the wages the hourly workers were getting high for what the did but on a much lesser scale. Work rules made it impossible to make quick adjustments or shutter plants until demand picked up for the product they built, partly because the workers umemployment would be supplemented by the factories if laid off. Management made (and continues to make) numerous bad decisions, failed to listen to employees telling them of problems with the product they were building and failed to listen to the motoring public's wants. Over time this all took its toll as the surpluses that were built up over time were used up to keep the company solvent rather than invest in new product and better quality. I feel I have fairly assigned blame for the issues plaguing GM and other domestic makers as well. There is plenty fault to go around but the bottom line is management makes decisions, not the union nor employees. A major management shake up is needed and policy changes by both management and unions are the only hope of the domestic auto industry. Unions need to proivide training and quality workers for the makers to have build their product, management needs to stop patting itself on the back and rein their balloons an perks of management, and stop cutting hourly workers then giving themselves bonuses for those cuts then demanding more of the workers than they are willing to give themselves. GM, Ford and Chrysler use to make fun good looking cars to drive. Ford and Chryslker are returning to those good looking, fun cars again but high fuel costs threaten them anew, they lack fuel efficient cars like the inmports have. GM is starting to make similar moves as the other domestic makers have but late in the game. We can only hope it is not too late. As we as a country loose our manufacturing base I fear that we also loose our ability to repsond quickly and strongly to a national crisis like we did in WW2.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Why are Bush supporters in denial over Bush's enemies "Leaking" evidence against him?
Why are Bush supporters in denial over Bush's enemies "Leaking" evidence against him?
Do they think some "MAGIC POWER" will protect him? Here's a short list of possible "Leakers" and maybe - all of them. Putin - Bush tried to grab even his oil Israel- Bush got Hamas democratically elected - nice goin' sh##head! Venezuala- Hugo's been quietly collecting evidence aginst Bush all along - count on it. Iraq - Plenty of bad blood over there against "Ol Bushie, and they got the evidence of his oil thieft too. Saudi Arabia- Even though the Bin Laden family is the driving force behind Bush's decisions they are FURIOUS at Bush for what appears to be a Sunni victory in iraq and the merging of Iraq with Iran. Saudi's are TERRIFIED of that! (The Bin Laudin's are Shiites!) Britan- Plenty of people with access to information are just waiting for when Bush can no longer cover up for himself or his friends. and the biggest group of all- Bush insiders, for whatever reason - guilty conscience, change of attitude, revenge for who knows what, or just to make money by selling the story.
Politics - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
If evidence = propaganda, then your rant makes some sense, otherwise not so much.
2 :
Because Bush supporters have sheep dip for brains. They're so gullible they could be bought with a five dollar tax cut.
3 :
I just hope the word gets out before it's too late. No president has done more to destroy the Constitution than George W. Bush.
4 :
Thinking (or lack of would be more accurate) like this is what proves your lack of intelligences! Most Liberals suffer from this!
5 :
You must be smoking some bad stuff!!
6 :
I am not against that fact. The Dems have been doing it for years.
Do they think some "MAGIC POWER" will protect him? Here's a short list of possible "Leakers" and maybe - all of them. Putin - Bush tried to grab even his oil Israel- Bush got Hamas democratically elected - nice goin' sh##head! Venezuala- Hugo's been quietly collecting evidence aginst Bush all along - count on it. Iraq - Plenty of bad blood over there against "Ol Bushie, and they got the evidence of his oil thieft too. Saudi Arabia- Even though the Bin Laden family is the driving force behind Bush's decisions they are FURIOUS at Bush for what appears to be a Sunni victory in iraq and the merging of Iraq with Iran. Saudi's are TERRIFIED of that! (The Bin Laudin's are Shiites!) Britan- Plenty of people with access to information are just waiting for when Bush can no longer cover up for himself or his friends. and the biggest group of all- Bush insiders, for whatever reason - guilty conscience, change of attitude, revenge for who knows what, or just to make money by selling the story.
Politics - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
If evidence = propaganda, then your rant makes some sense, otherwise not so much.
2 :
Because Bush supporters have sheep dip for brains. They're so gullible they could be bought with a five dollar tax cut.
3 :
I just hope the word gets out before it's too late. No president has done more to destroy the Constitution than George W. Bush.
4 :
Thinking (or lack of would be more accurate) like this is what proves your lack of intelligences! Most Liberals suffer from this!
5 :
You must be smoking some bad stuff!!
6 :
I am not against that fact. The Dems have been doing it for years.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Why does McCain Have At Least 118 Lobbyists Running His Campaign & Raising Money For Him?
Why does McCain Have At Least 118 Lobbyists Running His Campaign & Raising Money For Him?
To date, John McCain has 118 lobbyists either working or raising money for him. So far, he's fired only three of them: Eric Robert Burgeson Douglas B. Davenport Thomas Loeffler This is hardly even a slap on the wrist. The remaining 115 lobbyists make millions working for special interests in Washington. They represent all kinds of industries like health insurance companies, Big Pharma, defense contractors, and Telecom. They represent foreign regimes like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Burma. And they hold positions at the highest levels of the McCain campaign. John McCain says he represents the American people, but the men and women Senator McCain has chosen to run his campaign have worked for years for special interests. Here is the full list of the lobbyists working or raising money for John McCain: http://mccainsource.com/corruption?id=0006
Elections - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
mccain is full of $hit he has no policies, no strategies other then putting our troops in iraq to die
2 :
Why count? Obama has lobbyists too... so more than... less than...who cares. Obama is no boy scout either. We need Hillary. Hillary has not claimed to be a girl scout and then had the public learn she's a mortal, like the rest of US. Hillary is down to earth and will work hard for peace and to be a great President.
3 :
because he doesn't have all the Socialist Hollywood movie stars and black racist sports stars donating money to his campaign like someone I know.
4 :
You are the best pal. I was just about to pose the same question. Keep up the good work.
5 :
Because he is a career politician. These are the people he knows and trusts. What is so appalling is that people have been talking about it, but he didn't hear them, or didn't want to hear.
6 :
John McCain has NEVER been very good about raising money. It's never been his "style" to walk up to a potential Contributor, shake his hand, tell a joke, and ask for a generous Campaign Contribution... SO, he tends to let OTHERS do the $$$ "squeezing" FOR Him- so that HE can keep his hands "Clean" from THAT Side of Politics... The PROBLEM with THAT is, it leaves him exposed to being "Blindsided" by "Special Interests" He knows NOTHING about- until it's too late... :(
7 :
He released another one today. Email this list to all Network and Cable News outlets so they can blast him and ask why he is slow to eliminate conflict of interest from his campaign.
To date, John McCain has 118 lobbyists either working or raising money for him. So far, he's fired only three of them: Eric Robert Burgeson Douglas B. Davenport Thomas Loeffler This is hardly even a slap on the wrist. The remaining 115 lobbyists make millions working for special interests in Washington. They represent all kinds of industries like health insurance companies, Big Pharma, defense contractors, and Telecom. They represent foreign regimes like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Burma. And they hold positions at the highest levels of the McCain campaign. John McCain says he represents the American people, but the men and women Senator McCain has chosen to run his campaign have worked for years for special interests. Here is the full list of the lobbyists working or raising money for John McCain: http://mccainsource.com/corruption?id=0006
Elections - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
mccain is full of $hit he has no policies, no strategies other then putting our troops in iraq to die
2 :
Why count? Obama has lobbyists too... so more than... less than...who cares. Obama is no boy scout either. We need Hillary. Hillary has not claimed to be a girl scout and then had the public learn she's a mortal, like the rest of US. Hillary is down to earth and will work hard for peace and to be a great President.
3 :
because he doesn't have all the Socialist Hollywood movie stars and black racist sports stars donating money to his campaign like someone I know.
4 :
You are the best pal. I was just about to pose the same question. Keep up the good work.
5 :
Because he is a career politician. These are the people he knows and trusts. What is so appalling is that people have been talking about it, but he didn't hear them, or didn't want to hear.
6 :
John McCain has NEVER been very good about raising money. It's never been his "style" to walk up to a potential Contributor, shake his hand, tell a joke, and ask for a generous Campaign Contribution... SO, he tends to let OTHERS do the $$$ "squeezing" FOR Him- so that HE can keep his hands "Clean" from THAT Side of Politics... The PROBLEM with THAT is, it leaves him exposed to being "Blindsided" by "Special Interests" He knows NOTHING about- until it's too late... :(
7 :
He released another one today. Email this list to all Network and Cable News outlets so they can blast him and ask why he is slow to eliminate conflict of interest from his campaign.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
For the Ground Zero Mosque Would a Compulsory Insurance Bond Make Sense?
For the Ground Zero Mosque Would a Compulsory Insurance Bond Make Sense?
Would it be Fair to Make the Mosque Promoters Post an Insurance Bond? This would be an insurance forfeiture bond in case the mosque was a source of massive damage to New York City or the people there from Explosion or from Toxic or Radioactive materials of any kind. The insurance bond would be paid for out of the charitable donations that support the Mosque's creation and development. In that part of town, within very close blast range of 25 Federal agencies, two stock exchanges, and two major telecom hubs (one of which handles inter-regional bank check clearances), a bond that included consequential damages, pain and sufferring, loss of life, and loss of commercial use would run at least $500 Billion. So, it could cost $50 Million a year to maintain unless the full sum were put up in cash upfront. This would not be a problem for the muslim world. They get $50 million in oil money from us every week. It would be very helpful to victims of this project if there are any. Keep in mind that no recovery of any kind was ever made from any muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia, for the massive destruction that occurred on 9/11. It being so difficult to recover money from overseas sources after the fact of harm being done, perhaps a bond posted upfront from those overseas sources who will be funding this mosque would be appropriate. Why should American taxpayers have to pick up the tab -- again? We may or may not be able to stop our politicians from doing astonishingly improvident things, but insurance could buffer USA from some small part of the potential consequences of poor decision making by highly confused persons. What do you think? That's my question. Would it be fair to have a bond be posted? In Re:Equal Protection Issue: The Equal Protection Clause does NOT require that all organizations or building plans be treated equally. It requires only that similarly situated ones be treated equally. So all other religious community centers from religions that claim almost all of the world's terrorists over the past 30 years would have to post a bond. Any of these that were located in extremely high rent areas that are vital to the national security, would have to post a $500 Billion bond. See that's treating everybody equally. Oh oh -- you say there are no other religions that claim almost every terrorist on Earth for the past 30 years? The Buddhists can't say that, nor can the Unitarians, or the B'ahai's or the Shintos. Well this would not be the first time that an insurance premium was tailored to the risk.
Law & Ethics - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Of course it would not be fair. What a nonsensical suggestion. The AMERICAN group proposing the development has no connection to any terrorist group, nor any connection to 9/11. Nor does it make any sense whatsoever to connect Islamic nations to 9/11 for that matter. 9/11 was the work of TERRORISTS, not any state. It's also utterly preposterous to suggest that any of the objections to the project revolve around risk of some sort of 'blast' (to use your words). It's about racism/religious intolerance, and that is ALL.
2 :
Only if you require every other building and church to post the same sort of bond.
3 :
I would think that you would need to make an actual connection, not an emotional one, between the administrators and members of the Mosque and the terrorist attacks. Of course, they would point out the number of other Mosques in the area whose members are not being targeted and required to take out an expensive multi million dollar policy. Nobody is also making the Saudi embassy pay for such an insurance bond and the same emotional argument can be made about them too. The whole suggestion will never fly other then to inflame the radicals on YA.
4 :
In the amount of 134 Billion. Yes , the risk assessment on this project is astronomical
Would it be Fair to Make the Mosque Promoters Post an Insurance Bond? This would be an insurance forfeiture bond in case the mosque was a source of massive damage to New York City or the people there from Explosion or from Toxic or Radioactive materials of any kind. The insurance bond would be paid for out of the charitable donations that support the Mosque's creation and development. In that part of town, within very close blast range of 25 Federal agencies, two stock exchanges, and two major telecom hubs (one of which handles inter-regional bank check clearances), a bond that included consequential damages, pain and sufferring, loss of life, and loss of commercial use would run at least $500 Billion. So, it could cost $50 Million a year to maintain unless the full sum were put up in cash upfront. This would not be a problem for the muslim world. They get $50 million in oil money from us every week. It would be very helpful to victims of this project if there are any. Keep in mind that no recovery of any kind was ever made from any muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia, for the massive destruction that occurred on 9/11. It being so difficult to recover money from overseas sources after the fact of harm being done, perhaps a bond posted upfront from those overseas sources who will be funding this mosque would be appropriate. Why should American taxpayers have to pick up the tab -- again? We may or may not be able to stop our politicians from doing astonishingly improvident things, but insurance could buffer USA from some small part of the potential consequences of poor decision making by highly confused persons. What do you think? That's my question. Would it be fair to have a bond be posted? In Re:Equal Protection Issue: The Equal Protection Clause does NOT require that all organizations or building plans be treated equally. It requires only that similarly situated ones be treated equally. So all other religious community centers from religions that claim almost all of the world's terrorists over the past 30 years would have to post a bond. Any of these that were located in extremely high rent areas that are vital to the national security, would have to post a $500 Billion bond. See that's treating everybody equally. Oh oh -- you say there are no other religions that claim almost every terrorist on Earth for the past 30 years? The Buddhists can't say that, nor can the Unitarians, or the B'ahai's or the Shintos. Well this would not be the first time that an insurance premium was tailored to the risk.
Law & Ethics - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Of course it would not be fair. What a nonsensical suggestion. The AMERICAN group proposing the development has no connection to any terrorist group, nor any connection to 9/11. Nor does it make any sense whatsoever to connect Islamic nations to 9/11 for that matter. 9/11 was the work of TERRORISTS, not any state. It's also utterly preposterous to suggest that any of the objections to the project revolve around risk of some sort of 'blast' (to use your words). It's about racism/religious intolerance, and that is ALL.
2 :
Only if you require every other building and church to post the same sort of bond.
3 :
I would think that you would need to make an actual connection, not an emotional one, between the administrators and members of the Mosque and the terrorist attacks. Of course, they would point out the number of other Mosques in the area whose members are not being targeted and required to take out an expensive multi million dollar policy. Nobody is also making the Saudi embassy pay for such an insurance bond and the same emotional argument can be made about them too. The whole suggestion will never fly other then to inflame the radicals on YA.
4 :
In the amount of 134 Billion. Yes , the risk assessment on this project is astronomical
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)