Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 95
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm View Post
    Basically, a corporation, known as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, is co-owner to yourself, your spouse, your parents, your children, your vehicles, your land, etcetera. Does that not bother you? Does it not bother you that this corporation is taking money from you and giving it to the rich, when we could have spent 1/5th of that money so that every home in America would be self-sufficient in terms of energy and food?!?

    It p!sses me the flip off.
    And I'm positive you realize that the current administration has been responsible for none of the paranoid ideations you evidence in your post. That system has been in place for many many years (how long have we had to register cars in the US?). It appears you are very dissatisfied with the US system of government historically.

    And I doubt that GM workers and workers in the steel industry and other industries that rely on them for business agree that the government, by supporting GM, is "taking money from you and giving it to the rich". If you want to redistribute US wealth so that families can become self-sufficient, you could easily start with the military budget. At least that's what libertarians would say.
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by RPFTW View Post
    The largest legitimate objection to the "loan" of taxpayer dollars to a company is that a legitimate business that makes smart decisions would never need it...

    Theories about control over GM are secondary to the fact that all we accomplished was a propping up of a failed company...

    Anyone that supports this needs to answer the following questions...

    Why don't we bail out every large business that makes ****ty decisions and investments?

    What would happen if we did that?

    To support the bailout of a business via taxpayer dollars is the epitome of free market logic fail.
    They should have been allowed to fail. Period. GM squashes innovation. Smaller, more responsive auto innovators would be able to get a foothold on the market. This would drive up efficiencies and reduce emmissions, dependancy on oil, and would in the long run actually increase jobs.

    BTJMHO.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  3.    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    They should have been allowed to fail. Period. GM squashes innovation. Smaller, more responsive auto innovators would be able to get a foothold on the market. This would drive up efficiencies and reduce emmissions, dependancy on oil, and would in the long run actually increase jobs.

    BTJMHO.
    While philosophically I agree with you, you are being too idealistic (I can't believe I'm saying this, either). Our country is not arranged for innovative small automakers to be able to succeed...unless you are aware of one that somehow I missed, that would be able to compete, or even gain a foothold. Instead we would be flooded by imports, we would have lost all those jobs with no recourse, the economy would be worse along with unemployment, and the psychological effect of those outcomes would not be a good thing. I suppose I hope that US automakers learned something from this and can allow innovation in the future. Certainly some of the newer GM offerings look pretty impressive and are being touted by even that paragon of Toyota fanb0y-ism, Consumer Reports.
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    While philosophically I agree with you, you are being too idealistic (I can't believe I'm saying this, either). Our country is not arranged for innovative small automakers to be able to succeed...unless you are aware of one that somehow I missed, that would be able to compete, or even gain a foothold. Instead we would be flooded by imports, we would have lost all those jobs with no recourse, the economy would be worse along with unemployment, and the psychological effect of those outcomes would not be a good thing. I suppose I hope that US automakers learned something from this and can allow innovation in the future. Certainly some of the newer GM offerings look pretty impressive and are being touted by even that paragon of Toyota fanb0y-ism, Consumer Reports.
    I certainly agree that foreign imports would fill part of the void, but I don't agree that they'd just fill the swamp. There are still tons of smaller intermediate manufacturers and suppiers that will be more than willing to supply any upstart US auto manufacturers, plus, there will certainly be plenty of skill labor looking for a job. I know you won't like this thought, but if we could break the unions for a bit - long enough to enable price competition with the imports, we may have a good shot of establishing 2 or 3 major players to replace GM, and in a relatively short period.... say a decade.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Certainly some of the newer GM offerings look pretty impressive and are being touted by even that paragon of Toyota fanb0y-ism, Consumer Reports.
    On that note, I can understand that CR may looked biased towards Toyota. I remember though that they were also fans of the Ford Explorer for over a decade (90s). Certainly some of their reviewers could be biased. But it's the stats and figures related to repair, maintenance, and customer satisfaction surveys that are the primary drivers for their endorsement. I've studied them pretty closely, and let's face it... GM's and Chryslers reliability records speak for themselves.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by Finally Pre View Post
    Solarus - So what you are saying is that Ford wanted to have a leaner company that went back to it's roots and made the best cars they could that the mass market wanted. GM on the other hand just got money as they needed it when the bottom line was bad while making unreliable cars that the mass market did not want but would still purchase.
    Ford got rewarded with a better reputation and GM got a handout since they did a bad job.
    Not sure how you got that from what I said. Ford borrowed against its assets, it had nothing to do with getting leaner it had everything to do with cheap interest rates and their desperate need for cash just like GM. GM simply took a different route, they sold off assets, most non-core, to raise the cash they needed. One strategy isn't worse than the other its just that Ford lucked out when the market tanked - they already had the cash on hand while GM couldn't sell any more of their assets or even borrow against them (no buyers or lenders).

    And to top it all off the economic situation was not a simple recession, it was as close to a complete melt down of the financial market as you can get without a depression. The huge drop of sales in the entire auto industry had more to do with the fear created from a financial mess outside of the norm, than a true lack of demand for product created out of typical recessionary pressures.

    And the notion that either GM or Ford didn't build cars that people wanted is bunk. The market wanted SUVs in the 90's they weren't forced on anyone. That doesn't mean either company isn't at fault for not being better at seeing that oil prices would go up dramatically. Bottom line is that both Ford and GM had problems with the real issue of "cars people want" - both should have been more diverse in their product portfolios since it takes time to turn a auto company's product portfolio on a dime when oil double in price over 12 months.

    GM "makes junk" is the biggest misnomer in the industry. Some of their stuff wasn't and still isn't up to par for sure, just like every other manufacturer. GM's reputation for poor quality simply isn't valid anymore, hasn't been for the last 7-8 years. Bottom line is that no-one makes a bad car anymore, not even Kia.

    Ford's "better reputation" is more perception than reality, essentially because in the 80's Ford recovered its quality reputation from the 70's before squandering it away in the 90's again. Because Ford had a good reputation in the late 80's after it introduced the Taurus most people remember that so despite their horrendous quality in the 90's Ford were perceived as having better quality in the '00s even though most studies found it to be roughly on par with its domestic counterparts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    GM's and Chryslers reliability records speak for themselves.
    Take a look at JD Edwards short-term and long-term dependability studies on cars and trucks for the last 10 years and I think you will find GM's products are not at all as bad as many perceive. What speaks for itself is that GM is the worst company on the planet for getting its quality message out to the public, lame commercials don't cut it.

    Just a note on Consumer Reports - they are to unbiased reviews what CNET is to responsible tech journalism.
    Last edited by solarus; 04/21/2010 at 11:44 AM.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    Take a look at JD Edwards short-term and long-term dependability studies on cars and trucks and I think you will find GM's products are not at all as bad as many perceive. What speaks for itself is that GM is the worst company on the planet for getting its quality message out to the public, lame commercials don't cut it.
    I'm all for pushing American made where it makes sense, so don't get me wrong; but I haven't based my evaluation on any third parties take on reliability, safety, satisfaction surveys, resale values, etc. That info is available as raw data... no spin necessary. For decades now the japanese imports have danced circles around american made car manufacturers in almost all criteria.

    From what I've seen, JD Edwards is more "expert reviews" based awards.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #28  
    JD Powers sorry

    A quote from their site on methodology.

    "Unlike the J.D. Power Initial Quality StudySM (IQS), which measures owner satisfaction after 90 days of ownership (and is a gauge of how well a vehicle has been put together during assembly), for VDS, original owners are asked whether they have experienced problems in any of nearly 200 different problem areas. The resulting information—straight from those who own and drive a particular model—is invaluable to consumers who use the study findings to help them make more-informed choices when considering both new and used vehicles. Consumers aren’t the only ones paying close attention to VDS results—manufacturers also take note, as the study helps them design and build better models in the future."

    Don't get me wrong - I'm not a pusher of the Domestics - I own a Mazda myself. I just think the Domestics, especially Ford and GM, have gotten a bad rap the last 10 years or so - people's memories of the junk they drove in the 70's and 80's is long.
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    JD Powers sorry

    A quote from their site on methodology.

    "Unlike the J.D. Power Initial Quality StudySM (IQS), which measures owner satisfaction after 90 days of ownership (and is a gauge of how well a vehicle has been put together during assembly), for VDS, original owners are asked whether they have experienced problems in any of nearly 200 different problem areas. The resulting information—straight from those who own and drive a particular model—is invaluable to consumers who use the study findings to help them make more-informed choices when considering both new and used vehicles. Consumers aren’t the only ones paying close attention to VDS results—manufacturers also take note, as the study helps them design and build better models in the future."

    Don't get me wrong - I'm not a pusher of the Domestics - I own a Mazda myself. I just think the Domestics, especially Ford and GM, have gotten a bad rap the last 10 years or so - people's memories of the junk they drove in the 70's and 80's is long.
    Powers. Right. I knew that

    After 90 days of ownership, I'd venture that many owners are still in the honeymoon frame of mind. Plus people tend to justify their choice. I'm talking about "data" drawn from service and repair records, and from resale reciepts, going back for 5-10 years, depending on the model.

    In other words, we're talking about two different approaches to evaluating cars. Feelings after 90 days versus a decade of data about what actually happened to the cars.

    I'll take the data, but that's personal choice of course.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10.    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    On that note, I can understand that CR may looked biased towards Toyota. I remember though that they were also fans of the Ford Explorer for over a decade (90s). Certainly some of their reviewers could be biased. But it's the stats and figures related to repair, maintenance, and customer satisfaction surveys that are the primary drivers for their endorsement. I've studied them pretty closely, and let's face it... GM's and Chryslers reliability records speak for themselves.

    My admittedly anecdotal personal experience agrees more with Solarus. My family has had a variety of cars, and the GM vehicles more than hold their own against supposedly high-quality Japanese cars in terms of reliability. I realize you probably think I drive a BMW or a Volvo, but in fact I just replaced a 9 year old GMC SUV with a new version because I could get a great deal on it. I have had almost no trouble with the last four GM vehicles owned in my family....and more with the Subarus, in fact.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    ......that paragon of Toyota fanb0y-ism, Consumer Reports.
    Did you catch that Consurmer Reports totally blasted the Lexus GS 460 (SUV) telling consumers not to buy it? This was only the 2nd time, I believe, they told consumers to not buy a vehicle. So.....apparently they aren't the "******-ism" that you think they are regarding Toyota. Not all Toyotas got the high recommendations, but I think those that did got them because they were/are good vehicles. I personally have a car made by Toyota and have no fear driving it....fantastic vehicle....
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  12.    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Did you catch that Consurmer Reports totally blasted the Lexus GS 460 (SUV) telling consumers not to buy it? This was only the 2nd time, I believe, they told consumers to not buy a vehicle. So.....apparently they aren't the "******-ism" that you think they are regarding Toyota. Not all Toyotas got the high recommendations, but I think those that did got them because they were/are good vehicles. I personally have a car made by Toyota and have no fear driving it....fantastic vehicle....

    I saw it...and in general I think they are unbiased, but I also feel they have pushed Toyota for years as being far and away the best cars made...and I don't think they are. Some are very good and reliable, but they are not that much better than GM based on what I have seen personally.

    Why do I feel like I'm in Bizarro World, arguing with you about how American cars are as good as Japanese cars? I figured you for a F150 all the way.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Why do I feel like I'm in Bizarro World, arguing with you about how American cars are as good as Japanese cars? I figured you for a F150 all the way.
    Okay....you got me to laugh on that one I owned some smaller trucks back when I had teenagers, and actually had a Toyota truck and a Ford truck. The Toyota truck was excellent until one of my step-sons decided to flip it. The Ford truck was constantly in the shop and end up living up to what somebody told me when I bought it: Ford = Found On side of Road Dead.

    I hear the American companies are making better cars, but nothing has really caught my eye
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #34  
    I went from a '96 Ford Explorer (which I dearly loved but it started falling apart all at once after 100k miles), to a 2006 Rav4, which I also dearly love. So far it's like new, and it's 4 years old and paid for....

    I'd consider Ford again in the future... GM, not so much. But that's me.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. ght
    ght is offline
    ght's Avatar
    Posts
    772 Posts
    Global Posts
    886 Global Posts
    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    Not sure how you got that from what I said. Ford borrowed against its assets, it had nothing to do with getting leaner it had everything to do with cheap interest rates and their desperate need for cash just like GM. GM simply took a different route, they sold off assets, most non-core, to raise the cash they needed. One strategy isn't worse than the other its just that Ford lucked out when the market tanked - they already had the cash on hand while GM couldn't sell any more of their assets or even borrow against them (no buyers or lenders).

    And to top it all off the economic situation was not a simple recession, it was as close to a complete melt down of the financial market as you can get without a depression. The huge drop of sales in the entire auto industry had more to do with the fear created from a financial mess outside of the norm, than a true lack of demand for product created out of typical recessionary pressures.

    And the notion that either GM or Ford didn't build cars that people wanted is bunk. The market wanted SUVs in the 90's they weren't forced on anyone. That doesn't mean either company isn't at fault for not being better at seeing that oil prices would go up dramatically. Bottom line is that both Ford and GM had problems with the real issue of "cars people want" - both should have been more diverse in their product portfolios since it takes time to turn a auto company's product portfolio on a dime when oil double in price over 12 months.

    GM "makes junk" is the biggest misnomer in the industry. Some of their stuff wasn't and still isn't up to par for sure, just like every other manufacturer. GM's reputation for poor quality simply isn't valid anymore, hasn't been for the last 7-8 years. Bottom line is that no-one makes a bad car anymore, not even Kia.

    Ford's "better reputation" is more perception than reality, essentially because in the 80's Ford recovered its quality reputation from the 70's before squandering it away in the 90's again. Because Ford had a good reputation in the late 80's after it introduced the Taurus most people remember that so despite their horrendous quality in the 90's Ford were perceived as having better quality in the '00s even though most studies found it to be roughly on par with its domestic counterparts.



    Take a look at JD Edwards short-term and long-term dependability studies on cars and trucks for the last 10 years and I think you will find GM's products are not at all as bad as many perceive. What speaks for itself is that GM is the worst company on the planet for getting its quality message out to the public, lame commercials don't cut it.

    Just a note on Consumer Reports - they are to unbiased reviews what CNET is to responsible tech journalism.
    I'm glad you typed this up before I had to. I worked for GM for 8 years, and I've seen the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of it. Four things have crippled GM for years: Elitist/incompetent management, greedy unions, incompetent/criminal dealers, and CAFE standards. For those of you who argue to let GM fail per the free market, I say remove the CAFE standards and let the free market decide which cars people buy. GM and the other domestics spent decades selling small cars at a loss so they could continue selling SUVs/pickups at a profit without violating CAFE rules. That is money that could have gone into new product research and development, paying debt, etc. It's not fair to say let them die by the free market when they weren't allowed to live in a free market. The CAFE rules were imposed by lawmakers too cowardly to induce real change in consumer behavior and raise gasoline taxes. This forces the automakers to produce vehicles people don't want rather than changing what consumers want. But, like I said, they're more worried about getting re-elected than doing what's right for our country.

    I've driven Nissans, Hondas, and Toyotas. I've never been impressed. I'll keep my Chevy Impala. It's more comfortable, and with 198,000 miles on it, it's never been to the dealer for more than routine maintenance.
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by GHT View Post
    The CAFE rules were imposed by lawmakers too cowardly to induce real change in consumer behavior and raise gasoline taxes. This forces the automakers to produce vehicles people don't want rather than changing what consumers want. But, like I said, they're more worried about getting re-elected than doing what's right for our country.
    I appreciate and agree with much of what you've said, but I have to disagree on one point. It's not the governments role to "change what consumers want". Consumers should drive demand based on need, not on compulsion.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Here's the problem....when Chrysler was bailed out in the late 70's, wouldn't you think other auto companies would have realized that the union pay and benefits were going to do the same to them? A smart company would have started to make the appropriate adjustments to such ridiculous pay scales and benefits, but no, in the back of their mind they had to be thinking that government would bail them out if need be....so.....business as usual. The interesting thing will be to see if in 10 years they have learned their lesson, or if unions are still trying to get more than they are worth and willing to risk needing another bail out. My guess? At some point down the road they will be asking for another bail out.....I hope I'm wrong.
    is not the whole concept of the economy free market based on supply and demand? if this is true. then you have a supply and demand situation regarding unions. The unions supply skilled workers, the auto industry or any industry for that matter, demands it. so based on that the union people are worth every penny that any company or industry will pay. Simple capitalistic system.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    is not the whole concept of the economy free market based on supply and demand? if this is true. then you have a supply and demand situation regarding unions. The unions supply skilled workers, the auto industry or any industry for that matter, demands it. so based on that the union people are worth every penny that any company or industry will pay. Simple capitalistic system.
    Please show the quote of mine where I said unions should be outlawed or baned. Can you find that comment? I actually agree with you that if a company bends to the demands of unions and agrees to what they demand, then that should be their perogative. However, if said expenses and benefits cause them to not be as profitable then that business should suffer the consequences.....simple capitalistic system. If you run an efficient business, you survive....if you don't run an efficient business, you die. So you disagree with that?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  19. rjwerth's Avatar
    Posts
    16 Posts
    Global Posts
    23 Global Posts
    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Here's the problem....when Chrysler was bailed out in the late 70's, wouldn't you think other auto companies would have realized that the union pay and benefits were going to do the same to them? A smart company would have started to make the appropriate adjustments to such ridiculous pay scales and benefits, but no, in the back of their mind they had to be thinking that government would bail them out if need be....so.....business as usual. The interesting thing will be to see if in 10 years they have learned their lesson, or if unions are still trying to get more than they are worth and willing to risk needing another bail out. My guess? At some point down the road they will be asking for another bail out.....I hope I'm wrong.
    You raise an excellent example of why the government should NOT bail out corporations. They bailed out Chrysler in the 70's....and again in the 21st century?? And now look at them still...they are by far the worst of the big 3. They weren't worth bailing out then, and they aren't now. Government should not be in the business of bailing anyone out.

    Though, I guess I should amend that based on the comment someone made about CAFE...government should not bail anyone out they didn't help sink. I'll try not to wander too far off topic, but I was for the government helping out the airlines after 9/11 since they grounded them for days. But now the airlines are not getting taxed on fees like they are ticket prices and you can see how they are reacting to that policy.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Finally Pre View Post
    Can answer all three in this: If a company like GM fails then let it fail. There would be other companies to take over or move into GM's place. These other companies would hire displaced workers and place orders with suppliers. I bet they might even make vehicles for people.
    Everything then starts new, cleaner and with a more streamlined and tighter bottom line. In the end it would be a better company. Big companies get bought out all the time. What make GM different? It's an icon. Give me a break. GM sleeps with who ever has the biggest handout. Just look at Testla. A tiny company that makes electric cars. GM a giant in comparison and yet they can't make a go of the Chevy Volt. Why? Big oil and the Government. GM just wants to know what is in it for them in the end. = FAIL
    I was with you until the end. Last time I checked, Testla hasn't made a dollar yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I don't agree. What would replace GM is almost certainly an overseas sinkhole of US dollars. Those "other companies" will not be hiring GM workers unless they move to Asia. Unfortunately the advantages that would be realized by the automakers from a real health plan was snuffed out by concern about universal (non-employee based) coverage. When GM has to pay $2000-2500 off the top of each car it sells to cover health insurance for it's workers, and Japanese carmakers spend closer to $100, the playing field is not very level.
    Don't forget that the majority of "foreign" cars are made right here in the US, with US workers who have the same heath insurance issues as "domestic" workers." The real cost is with workers who are no longer working. This is the biggest problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    They should have been allowed to fail. Period. GM squashes innovation. Smaller, more responsive auto innovators would be able to get a foothold on the market. This would drive up efficiencies and reduce emmissions, dependancy on oil, and would in the long run actually increase jobs.

    BTJMHO.
    Oh how right you are.....

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I saw it...and in general I think they are unbiased, but I also feel they have pushed Toyota for years as being far and away the best cars made...and I don't think they are. Some are very good and reliable, but they are not that much better than GM based on what I have seen personally.
    I have owned several Toyotas. The last one (a Tacoma) was "bought back" for 1.5x the blue book value due to a rusty frame. Prior to that, I had to have nearly every sensor replaced on it. I wasn't very impressed with the quality of the vehicle. I was, however, very impressed with the response of the company (buying it back for WAAYYY more than it was worth). No domestic would have ever done that.

    On the flip side. I now am the owner of a GMC. The initial quality STINKS. I've had the battery, driver-side mirror, door interior, and radio replaced. I have had nearly every panel around the dash re-installed due to excessive rattling. The car is big, quick, drives like a dream and looks incredible...but the quality???? Yikes.

    Ironically (compared to your experience) I have had the best luck with our Subaru. Incredible car in terms of performance and durability. Not the most "refined" car in the world...but man, does it get it done.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And I'm positive you realize that the current administration has been responsible for none of the paranoid ideations you evidence in your post. That system has been in place for many many years (how long have we had to register cars in the US?). It appears you are very dissatisfied with the US system of government historically.

    And I doubt that GM workers and workers in the steel industry and other industries that rely on them for business agree that the government, by supporting GM, is "taking money from you and giving it to the rich". If you want to redistribute US wealth so that families can become self-sufficient, you could easily start with the military budget. At least that's what libertarians would say.
    My "paranoid ideations" are based on nothing but fact. I never once linked Obama to creating the documents that relinquish ownership of our lives and properties to the government. I'm not attacking any one man, but all men who relinquish command to their government instead of do something about it.

    The entire point is: YOU HAVE A CHOICE!!!

    - You are not obligated to have a driver's license.
    - You are not obligated to register the gun with the government.
    - You are not obligated to ask for permission to get a Carry Concealed Weapons permit.
    - You are not obligated to pay income taxes and let someone else "redistribute your wealth".
    - You are not obligated to be a U.S. Citizen, and, according to the Internal Revenue Code, you are committing fraud by claiming that you are.
    - You are not obligated to follow statutory law, which would include the Controlled Substances Act.
    - You are not obligated to register your child with the government, creating a legal, fiction (aka: a "person") that the government can act upon.
    - You are not obligated to register your vehicle, insure your car.

    You only do these things by choice, because you do not your rights. That's the point. There is a way out, and I've already told you how to do it. Stand up. Ask questions. When a corporation sends you Notice, send them a Notice in return. There's nothing really all tough behind this all. You just have to USE YOUR BRAIN AND MOVE YOUR A S S!!

    EDIT:

    Did you know that $9 Trillion of our $13 Trillion of debt in question (bailouts) was actually signed into law BEFORE Obama got into office?? Bush ran handed out money at 10x the rate that Obama handed it out in his 15 months or so of office. Just something to think about, because most people don't actually know that.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions