Posted on 09/07/2014 6:52:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
Truth001 wrote: No John GWB destabilized the region by marching into Iraq in the first place all in the name of Oil. Obama was only trying to clean up the mess President Bush and VP Cheney left behind. Remember "mission accomplished" 10 years later, 4000+ soldiers dead and 1.5 trillion dollars later. Obama has been trying to avoid another Iraq disaster like every since he has been in office. - The Foreign Policy of the Three Stooges
Dear Comrade Pravda,
How do you explain the destabilization of Libya, then? Or Afghanistan? Or Pakistan? Or Egypt? Or Ukraine? Were those all George Bush’s fault?
And stop blaming oil, corporate America and Dick Cheney for the war. Afghanistan has no oil and we still have troops there.
The truth is that as the rest of the world gets more modern with even Chinese communists embracing capitalism, the Islamic world has struggled to keep up. That’s understandable in a culture where salaaming on a prayer rug could either make you holy or headless.
In the larger scheme, destabilization has been going on in Islam for long before either Bush became president. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld recognized it before you did.
Duh. You’re a liberal.
Somehow people forget that Saddam Hussein failed to comply for over a ten-year period with U.N. sanctions and U.S. cease fire requirements. Iraq, at the same time, was trying to harm American interests, including attempting to assassinate a former president in George H.W. Bush. We already maintained a substantial military presence in Iraq because of the failure of either Hussein or the international community to do something about the clear threat Saddam posed to the rest of the world.
It was impossible for Bush to destabilize Iraq because it had not been stable since…well… before Saddam took over. Military adventures stretching over three decades combined with, as Al Sharpton would say, “whobris” by Saddam made sure that Iraq was the destabilizing force in the Middle East long before Reagan made the fatal mistake of naming Bush the Elder as number two on the ticket.
By a show of hands ask Iraqis if they want Saddam back. Few would. By a show of hands ask Iraqis if they’d prefer to have U.S. troops back. A vast majority would prefer Americans were doing the peacekeeping in Iraq versus ISIS. If, as Obama says, Iraq didn’t want any U.S. troops, then why are we sending them back to Iraq now? By my unofficial count we are getting close to the halfway mark of 2,000 troops that were proposed as a stabilization force that Obama now claims Iraqis didn’t want.
Well, apparently they want them now. Just because Iraqi leaders spoke out against keeping U.S. troops after Obama made it clear he wasn’t going to leave troops there, doesn’t mean that was: 1) the thing they wanted or 2) the thing that was in America’s best interest. The truth is that Obama was so childish when he negotiated that Status of Forces Agreement that he made it impossible for any Iraqi government to keep a stabilization force.
I do remember Obama saying that Al Qaeda was defeated because bin Laden was dead.
And that he saved Detroit. Or that is you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor. Or that under his administration no one making under $250,000 would see a tax increase. Or that raising the debt ceiling was wrong, along with budget deficits, the designated hitter rule and birth certificates.
Okay, I see his point on the last.
LogicDesigner wrote: Those $80,000 figures have long since been debunked, mdibrezzo. You will only see them continue to be used by bloggers like John Ransom who are intent on deceiving their readers. Don't be a victim of Ransom's deception by continuing to use that $80,000 figure. - Whatever Happened to the Chevy Volt?
Dear Comrade L(S)D,
Actually no one knows what the realized loss on the Chevy Volt will be because Government Motors won’t tell us. It’s probably higher than $80,000 per car.
Here’s why: The company spent the $80,000 per car in capital costs with intention of selling 60,000 Volts every year. It took them six years to sell about 65,000 them in total. Yet still they have invested more capital in the Volt. But this year they have finally conceded that the Volt won’t be a mass-market success.
That according to Chevy’s chief market officer, Tim Mahoney, who made the confession to industry insiders. Green Markets Reports says that they’ll probably sell about 2,000 per month. That might be a generous figure. Imagine if the tax credit is pulled, which is likely eventually.
This is a car around which Government Motors once planned their whole survival.
“The Volt’s technology and its recent accolade from Consumer Reports make the Volt a marketing tool for Chevy,” said Alan Batey, vice president for Chevrolet U.S. sales, according to Bloomberg “This vehicle is about more than how many we sell,” Batey said. “This vehicle is a magnet around everything we are trying to do to showcase our brand.”
When something attracts only flies, it’s not a magnet LSD. I'd call it something else. And so would you.
GM will never, ever get the money they spent on the Chevy Volt back. Ever.
Only they can say what their losses are.
LogicDesigner wrote:
Damn thats a good letter/article/screed..
Anything less would be mealy mouthed, more would be even better..
Thus making sure all his legacy was undone but the memory, which dims and fades with each passing day and the passing of each who remembers.
Reagan lead the final battle against the external communists, but didn't recognize their allies, the homegrown progressives in the GOPe to whom he gave the keys.
The progressives took him seriously and got busy making sure that would never happen again.
We took him for granted and, instead of emulating him and carrying on, we pine away, waiting for "The Next Reagan" while rewarding those same GOPe progressives with tenure.
BOHICA, baby!
“LogicDesigner wrote: Once again, John Ransom lies about the Chevy Volt in order to score political points. He mentions a “Chevy Volt starting a garage fire” when in reality, this never happened. Garage fires happen all the time in this country, and there were two instances where a Volt happened to be parked in a garage when a fire started.- Whatever Happened to the Chevy Volt?
Dear Comrade L(S)D,
That’s why Chevy offered to buy back all the Volts. And recalled them. They always do that when cars don’t start fires in garages.”
John, you really need to realize that lying about things that can be so easily checked in the internet age is not going to get you very far. The buyback (and recall) was not offered as a result of the garage fires, but as a result of the two crash test fires that occurred over a week after the Volts were crashed. (If it takes you a week to get out of your car after an accident, you have bigger problems to worry about.)
Those two fires are the *only* times a Volt has caused a fire. As I said before (and as you cut out when you quoted my comment), the local fire marshals in both of the garage fires concluded that the fires did not originate with the Volts. Only bloggers like yourself are still confused about this point.
PS: A grand total of 24 people took part in the buyback program. The Volt has the highest customer satisfaction rating of any car that GM has *ever* made.
“LogicDesigner wrote: Those $80,000 figures have long since been debunked, mdibrezzo. You will only see them continue to be used by bloggers like John Ransom who are intent on deceiving their readers. Don't be a victim of Ransom's deception by continuing to use that $80,000 figure. - Whatever Happened to the Chevy Volt?
Dear Comrade L(S)D,
Actually no one knows what the realized loss on the Chevy Volt will be because Government Motors won’t tell us. It’s probably higher than $80,000 per car.
Here’s why: The company spent the $80,000 per car in capital costs with intention of selling 60,000 Volts every year. It took them six years to sell about 65,000 them in total. Yet still they have invested more capital in the Volt. But this year they have finally conceded that the Volt won’t be a mass-market success.”
Once again John, you got the numbers all wrong. I'll explain it again, but this time check around the office at Townhall and see if there is a finance editor around somewhere to help walk you through it.
“The statement that GM ‘loses’ over $40K per Volt is preposterous. What the ‘analyst’ in whom poor Ben Klayman placed his faith has done is to divide the total development cost and plant investment by the number of Volts produced thus far. That’s like saying that a real estate company that puts up a $10 million building and has rental income of one million the first year is ‘losing’ 9 million dollars, or several hundred thousand per renter.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/boblutz/2012/09/10/the-real-story-on-gms-volt-costs/
Put in another way, once the first Volt rolled off the assembly line, you could have crafted a headline, using the typical John Ransom deceptive math, entitled “GM loses one billion dollars per Volt!” Then after the second Volt rolled off the assembly line it would have been, “Well actually, GM loses half a billion dollars per Volt!”
The guy who came up with the deceptive $80,000 number simply waited until ten thousand or so rolled off the assembly line. You see, if he (or you) had said “a billion dollars!” everyone would have laughed you off. But with a more-believable $80,000 figure, enough people wouldn't check the math for the story to take off.
With every car that has rolled off the assembly line in the years since, that deceptive $80,000 figure has shrunk. So no, it is definitely not “probably higher than $80,000 per car.”
However, to this day people like you, John Ransom, use it to mislead people.
Troll!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.