On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:38:58 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:12:16 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"D.Duck" wrote in message
om...


My hope is that the GM/Ford/Chrysler problems are resolved (if
resolvable) in bankruptcy, not throwing more tax payer dollars at
them.


Duck, I couldn't agree with you more. Chapter 11 isn't permanent. It
allows for "reorganization" which is exactly what the auto industry
needs to do right now. Revise business plans, products and
re-negotiate the union contracts under the watchful eye of a bankruptcy
judge.

Handing them a pile of taxpayer money, calling it a government
"investment" just to keep them in business under their current
organizational structures won't do a damn thing.

I agree.

Tough call. I don't like these bailouts, but can we afford not to? In
this country, 1 in 10 jobs are connected to the auto industry. If the
auto companies fail, we're talking depression, not recession. All of
this, could get real scary, real quick.

wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:38:58 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:12:16 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

My hope is that the GM/Ford/Chrysler problems are resolved (if
resolvable) in bankruptcy, not throwing more tax payer dollars at
them.


Duck, I couldn't agree with you more. Chapter 11 isn't permanent. It
allows for "reorganization" which is exactly what the auto industry
needs to do right now. Revise business plans, products and
re-negotiate the union contracts under the watchful eye of a bankruptcy
judge.

Handing them a pile of taxpayer money, calling it a government
"investment" just to keep them in business under their current
organizational structures won't do a damn thing.
I agree.

Tough call. I don't like these bailouts, but can we afford not to? In
this country, 1 in 10 jobs are connected to the auto industry. If the
auto companies fail, we're talking depression, not recession. All of
this, could get real scary, real quick.

Busting the unions should be a requisite part of any bailout plan.
Otherwise they will be back again in a few years looking for another
handout. It's time we earn from our mistakes and stop repeating them.

Jim wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:38:58 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:12:16 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

My hope is that the GM/Ford/Chrysler problems are resolved (if
resolvable) in bankruptcy, not throwing more tax payer dollars at
them.


Duck, I couldn't agree with you more. Chapter 11 isn't permanent. It
allows for "reorganization" which is exactly what the auto industry
needs to do right now. Revise business plans, products and
re-negotiate the union contracts under the watchful eye of a bankruptcy
judge.

Handing them a pile of taxpayer money, calling it a government
"investment" just to keep them in business under their current
organizational structures won't do a damn thing.
I agree.

Tough call. I don't like these bailouts, but can we afford not to? In
this country, 1 in 10 jobs are connected to the auto industry. If the
auto companies fail, we're talking depression, not recession. All of
this, could get real scary, real quick.

Busting the unions should be a requisite part of any bailout plan.
Otherwise they will be back again in a few years looking for another
handout. It's time we earn from our mistakes and stop repeating them.


This from a guy whose career highlight was cleaning the heads aboard a
navy ship?

Boater wrote:
Jim wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:38:58 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:12:16 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

My hope is that the GM/Ford/Chrysler problems are resolved (if
resolvable) in bankruptcy, not throwing more tax payer dollars at
them.


Duck, I couldn't agree with you more. Chapter 11 isn't
permanent. It
allows for "reorganization" which is exactly what the auto industry
needs to do right now. Revise business plans, products and
re-negotiate the union contracts under the watchful eye of a
bankruptcy
judge.

Handing them a pile of taxpayer money, calling it a government
"investment" just to keep them in business under their current
organizational structures won't do a damn thing.
I agree.

Tough call. I don't like these bailouts, but can we afford not to?
In this country, 1 in 10 jobs are connected to the auto industry. If
the auto companies fail, we're talking depression, not recession.
All of this, could get real scary, real quick.

Busting the unions should be a requisite part of any bailout plan.
Otherwise they will be back again in a few years looking for another
handout. It's time we earn from our mistakes and stop repeating them.


This from a guy whose career highlight was cleaning the heads aboard a
navy ship?

We used to send numb-nuts like you all over the ship looking for
replacements for burned out headlights.

Jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
Jim wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:38:58 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:12:16 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

My hope is that the GM/Ford/Chrysler problems are resolved (if
resolvable) in bankruptcy, not throwing more tax payer dollars at
them.


Duck, I couldn't agree with you more. Chapter 11 isn't
permanent. It
allows for "reorganization" which is exactly what the auto industry
needs to do right now. Revise business plans, products and
re-negotiate the union contracts under the watchful eye of a
bankruptcy
judge.

Handing them a pile of taxpayer money, calling it a government
"investment" just to keep them in business under their current
organizational structures won't do a damn thing.
I agree.

Tough call. I don't like these bailouts, but can we afford not to?
In this country, 1 in 10 jobs are connected to the auto industry.
If the auto companies fail, we're talking depression, not
recession. All of this, could get real scary, real quick.

Busting the unions should be a requisite part of any bailout plan.
Otherwise they will be back again in a few years looking for another
handout. It's time we earn from our mistakes and stop repeating them.


This from a guy whose career highlight was cleaning the heads aboard a
navy ship?

We used to send numb-nuts like you all over the ship looking for
replacements for burned out headlights.


No, you didn't. I wasn't dumb enough to get drafted, or, in lieu of
that, join up, so I could kill Asians who were not threatening my country.

"Boater" wrote in message
...


No, you didn't. I wasn't dumb enough to get drafted, or, in lieu of that,
join up, so I could kill Asians who were not threatening my country.


Here we go again. I hate re-runs.

Eisboch

Boater wrote:
Jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
Jim wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:38:58 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:12:16 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

My hope is that the GM/Ford/Chrysler problems are resolved (if
resolvable) in bankruptcy, not throwing more tax payer dollars at
them.


Duck, I couldn't agree with you more. Chapter 11 isn't
permanent. It
allows for "reorganization" which is exactly what the auto industry
needs to do right now. Revise business plans, products and
re-negotiate the union contracts under the watchful eye of a
bankruptcy
judge.

Handing them a pile of taxpayer money, calling it a government
"investment" just to keep them in business under their current
organizational structures won't do a damn thing.
I agree.

Tough call. I don't like these bailouts, but can we afford not to?
In this country, 1 in 10 jobs are connected to the auto industry.
If the auto companies fail, we're talking depression, not
recession. All of this, could get real scary, real quick.

Busting the unions should be a requisite part of any bailout plan.
Otherwise they will be back again in a few years looking for another
handout. It's time we earn from our mistakes and stop repeating them.


This from a guy whose career highlight was cleaning the heads aboard
a navy ship?

We used to send numb-nuts like you all over the ship looking for
replacements for burned out headlights.


No, you didn't. I wasn't dumb enough to get drafted, or, in lieu of
that, join up, so I could kill Asians who were not threatening my country.

I don't think there is person reading this news group that isn't aware
of your cowardice. Why do you keep bringing it up?

Jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
Jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
Jim wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:38:58 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:12:16 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

My hope is that the GM/Ford/Chrysler problems are resolved (if
resolvable) in bankruptcy, not throwing more tax payer dollars at
them.


Duck, I couldn't agree with you more. Chapter 11 isn't
permanent. It
allows for "reorganization" which is exactly what the auto industry
needs to do right now. Revise business plans, products and
re-negotiate the union contracts under the watchful eye of a
bankruptcy
judge.

Handing them a pile of taxpayer money, calling it a government
"investment" just to keep them in business under their current
organizational structures won't do a damn thing.
I agree.

Tough call. I don't like these bailouts, but can we afford not
to? In this country, 1 in 10 jobs are connected to the auto
industry. If the auto companies fail, we're talking depression,
not recession. All of this, could get real scary, real quick.

Busting the unions should be a requisite part of any bailout plan.
Otherwise they will be back again in a few years looking for
another handout. It's time we earn from our mistakes and stop
repeating them.


This from a guy whose career highlight was cleaning the heads aboard
a navy ship?

We used to send numb-nuts like you all over the ship looking for
replacements for burned out headlights.


No, you didn't. I wasn't dumb enough to get drafted, or, in lieu of
that, join up, so I could kill Asians who were not threatening my
country.

I don't think there is person reading this news group that isn't aware
of your cowardice. Why do you keep bringing it up?


Tell me, Jim...what sort of "bravery" is required to go off to a country
not threatening ours, and bomb, shoot up and otherwise destroy it?

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:31:21 -0500, Boater
wrote:

No, you didn't. I wasn't dumb enough to get drafted

Damn - you are such an ass sometimes.

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:31:21 -0500, Boater
wrote:

No, you didn't. I wasn't dumb enough to get drafted

Damn - you are such an ass sometimes.


Nothing personal, Tom. I'm just unimpressed by our entire involvement in
Vietnam, other than the horror of 55,000 American lives wasted, tens of
thousands of U.S. troops seriously injured, and millions of Asians
killed and maimed. Those losses I find tragic and impressive. The war
was a...what's that term you old soldiers like...cluster****, the
dumbest war we got involved in in the last 100 years, until our recent
one against Iraq. Blame for it goes all the way back to the SEATO treaty.

I didn't have to resist the draft, but I have friends who did. *They*
were right.