The World Is Going to Hear the Roar of Our Engines

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Loved the commercial, but let's be real: The company he is talking about is half owned by government, and half owned by an Italian bicycle company. Not exactly the second half I was thinking of...

[Deleted]

"Eastwood-the former Republican mayor of Carmel, Calif., opposed the bailout, telling the Los Angeles Times in 2010: “We shouldn’t be bailing out the banks and car companies. If a CEO can’t figure out how to make his company profitable, then he shouldn’t be the CEO.”

Funny how that work$.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 6, 2012 16:31:02 GMT -5 @joey said:

"Eastwood-the former Republican mayor of Carmel, Calif., opposed the bailout, telling the Los Angeles Times in 2010: “We shouldn’t be bailing out the banks and car companies. If a CEO can’t figure out how to make his company profitable, then he shouldn’t be the CEO.”

Funny how that work$.

The man is an actor- and a good one. He was hired to do a job, and he did it. As an actor, I'm sure you can't limit your roles to those you agree with completely?

[Deleted]

Feb 6, 2012 16:36:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 6, 2012 16:31:02 GMT -5 @joey said:

"Eastwood-the former Republican mayor of Carmel, Calif., opposed the bailout, telling the Los Angeles Times in 2010: “We shouldn’t be bailing out the banks and car companies. If a CEO can’t figure out how to make his company profitable, then he shouldn’t be the CEO.”

Funny how that work$.

The man is an actor- and a good one. He was hired to do a job, and he did it. As an actor, I'm sure you can't limit your roles to those you agree with completely?

Yes, and no. Being a man of legend, Mr Eastwood surely has the choice of standing by his beliefs or cashing in his persona for the almighty dollar.

He chose the latter. No big deal, I just find it ironic if not a tad hypocritical.

[Sum Dum Gai]

I just find it ironic if not a tad hypocritical.

Kind of, but the other side of the argument is that whether you agree with the bailouts or not, once they're made it's in all of our best interests that they work.

[deziloooooo]

Feb 6, 2012 17:12:46 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I just find it ironic if not a tad hypocritical.

Kind of, but the other side of the argument is that whether you agree with the bailouts or not, once they're made it's in all of our best interests that they work.

Agree and would those doing the lamenting on the help given rather not have a Automobile Industry in the States and all the innovation, side industries that come from it..

To me, as other country's help by subsidizing what they feel is important personal industry's in their world wide competition with others..keeping their own people employed and working , also able to tax workers and the subsequent industry's..so we do / did the same, yet methinks if these naysayers are not ones directly affected, they enjoy their soap box and love getting up there and pontificating as they blow out all that hot air, IMHO of course.

My feelings, as people ask what is different about a Dem a Pub, our POTUS and those who would love to take his place..he DID get involved in this Industry and took action..glad he did..think , in fact now, he did the right thing and for those who are crying the blues..well *&(^ em ..

There definitely is differences between those two sides, libs , cons..black and white, night and day..nothing even close and for most of us , the better results will be from the left not the right..even when they screw up, at least they are trying to help out the majority..doesn't work, well who said life is a bed of roses..always some thorns thrown into the pile, just the way life is..

granted some screw ups, thinking one I was personally involved in, a real biggie ..but over all..still thinking over all, they are the better choice , though a few more of those and I would be looking for another answer I guarantee you...

[Driftr]

Feb 6, 2012 17:12:46 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I just find it ironic if not a tad hypocritical.

Kind of, but the other side of the argument is that whether you agree with the bailouts or not, once they're made it's in all of our best interests that they work.

Short term? Yes. Our best interests.

Long term? No. IMO anything that gives .gov the feeling that they did something right when they did this and anything that makes the people feel like .gov is the best alternative in a situation like this leads down a path of more and more .gov control.

[Don Perignon]

A hyperbolic sentence as an OP, accompanied by a photoimage of a little pink car and a cryptic allusion to some "Italian bicycle company"... you call that a topic?
How about making some sense, Paul... give us a link to the subject matter, or some real facts... something more than the usual bombastic bluster a la Beck.

[Deleted]

Message deleted by moonbeam.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 6, 2012 17:12:46 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I just find it ironic if not a tad hypocritical.

Kind of, but the other side of the argument is that whether you agree with the bailouts or not, once they're made it's in all of our best interests that they work.

So, he's protecting our investment? Fair point.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 6, 2012 17:27:42 GMT -5 Driftr said:

Feb 6, 2012 17:12:46 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I just find it ironic if not a tad hypocritical.

Kind of, but the other side of the argument is that whether you agree with the bailouts or not, once they're made it's in all of our best interests that they work.

Short term? Yes. Our best interests.

Long term? No. IMO anything that gives .gov the feeling that they did something right when they did this and anything that makes the people feel like .gov is the best alternative in a situation like this leads down a path of more and more .gov control.

While I agree with the sentiment, I wouldn't hope for failure on the theory that the government would learn anything from it. The government response would more typically be to throw more good money after bad. Take Obama's doubling down on the failed green energy BS.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 6, 2012 17:35:26 GMT -5 Don Perignon said:

A hyperbolic sentence as an OP, accompanied by a photoimage of a little pink car and a cryptic allusion to some "Italian bicycle company"... you call that a topic?
How about making some sense, Paul... give us a link to the subject matter, or some real facts... something more than the usual bombastic bluster a la Beck.

Is there something inaccurate about the OP? Is Chrysler not essentially a partnership between the government and Fiat? Is that car not a Fiat, and so a Chrysler product?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Look, I could sit here and try in vain to articulate the point-- or, as they say, I could use a simple sentence-photo combination because as they say...a picture is worth 1,000 words.

[Sum Dum Gai]

So, he's protecting our investment?

Pretty much. I mean, whether you were for or against the auto bailout, once it's a done deal would you rather see them fail anyway and take our tax money with them, or turn it around and have us get our money back?

[Don Perignon]

Sadly, there are saboteurs who would actively and gladly contribute to the downfall of the nation, only because they would find it entertaining to pin the blame for that catastrophe upon their opponents.
If that isn't evil and perverse, then nothing is.

[usaone]

The government bailed out Chrysler in the early 1980's worked out pretty good. As long as we get our money back with interest I'm ok with it.

All three car companies are making great cars.

[usaone]

I seriously doubt that Eastwood would have made that commercial if he didn't believe what he said. He doesn't need the money.

[deziloooooo]

Feb 6, 2012 18:19:00 GMT -5 usaone said:

The government bailed out Chrysler in the early 1980's worked out pretty good. As long as we get our money back with interest I'm ok with it.

All three car companies are making great cars.

If it saves American Industry, thus keeping jobs in country for Americans, by Americans..I would even fore go the interest return..

Consider "In the best interest of the country " consideration as enough of a incentive for the Goverbnment to be involved..good cause as any IMHO

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Detroit ‘Comeback' Ad Filmed in New Orleans, L.A.

Not Detroit.

Asked whether any part of the ad was filmed in Detroit, Gutierrez said that previously taken footage from various parts of the Motor City was used. No image of Detroit was shot for the specific use in this ad.

www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/detroit-comeback-ad-filmed-new-orleans-la_621036.html

[Deleted]

I thought it was a well done 'pep talk'. We (the US) needs a kick in the ass.

[Mkitty is pro kitty]

LOL, the Republicans are so busy trying to put out any fires that say this country is improving that their efforts are backfiring on them. Clint Eastwood never voted Democratic in his whole life; good job at cannibalizing your own, guys. Way to show how your Anti-Obamaness trumps everything. Karl Rove said:

"'But it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics,' Rove said. 'The President of the United States' political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising and the best wishes of the management, which has benefited by getting a bunch of our money that they'll never pay back.'"

www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/politics/chrysler-clint-eastwood-superbowl-commercial-karl-rove-republican-labels-obama-bailout-ad-20120206

Lol, Karl is cranking out some grade A tin foil there. Don't ask for proof or anything, just shake your fist at the supposed waste of tax dollars. TAX DOLLARS!!!1! Too bad the commercial doesn't have anyone that looks like an Islamic Atheist Anarchist Socialist Abortionist Welfare Mama. Or does it?!?

They should have just ignored the ad and it would have been forgotten by Valentine's Day. But the Obama Derangement Syndrome is in full force, so watch out, if you have a good day, Karl Rove will come knocking on your door to tell you Obama had nothing to do with it. NOTHING!!!!!1!

Detroit ‘Comeback' Ad Filmed in New Orleans, L.A.

Oh noez! The speed and volume the Republican machine disseminates something is inversely proportional to the relevence and/or truthfulness of it. That Michelle Obama as Marie Antoinette meme sure lit the internetz on fire.

and so a Chrysler product

A, as in singular. You forgot to give it a strawman driver.

Take Obama's doubling down on the failed green energy BS.

Or take your doubling down on the failed foreign expansionist policy BS. By the time those trillions are paid off, we will have a Moon Base, and it won't be Gingrich's. Oh,and how many troops are needlessly killed due to the "failed green energy BS"?

[weltschmerz]

Feb 6, 2012 18:05:30 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Look, I could sit here and try in vain to articulate the point-- or, as they say, I could use a simple sentence-photo combination because as they say...a picture is worth 1,000 words.

You're absolutely right, PBP. What's that picture of, as your avatar? Oh yes; it's junk.

[cme1201]

Feb 6, 2012 18:19:00 GMT -5 usaone said:

The government bailed out Chrysler in the early 1980's worked out pretty good. As long as we get our money back with interest I'm ok with it.

All three car companies are making great cars.

It worked out so well that a scant 30 years later they needed bailing out again.

[usaone]

30 years is an eternity in business.

Karl Rove is not someone I would quote.
He railroaded John McCaine in the 2000 Repub primary.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

"'But it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics,' Rove said. 'The President of the United States' political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising and the best wishes of the management, which has benefited by getting a bunch of our money that they'll never pay back.'"

www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/pol....out-ad-20120206

I'm not a big Karl Rove fan- he's a big time establishment guy, but he's spot on here. Thanks for posting that.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 7, 2012 8:49:31 GMT -5 usaone said:

30 years is an eternity in business.

Karl Rove is not someone I would quote.
He railroaded John McCaine in the 2000 Repub primary.

Someone needed to railroad John McCain in 2000. As bad as Bush was, McCain would have been MUCH worse- which is why I did not vote for him in 2008.

[ugonow]

Eastwood claims there was no political intent,that it was more or less a rallying cry for America, much like Reagans ads. Whether true or not, who knows. But it is sort of funny to hear people that supported no limits on company contributions to campaigns because to limit them would be limiting free speech are now "offended" by this ad.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 7, 2012 7:47:55 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Feb 6, 2012 18:19:00 GMT -5 usaone said:

The government bailed out Chrysler in the early 1980's worked out pretty good. As long as we get our money back with interest I'm ok with it.

All three car companies are making great cars.

It worked out so well that a scant 30 years later they needed bailing out again.

Funny how that works, isn't it? We've been bailing out the auto industry for years- we bailed out Harley Davidson, we bailed out the airlines, we bailed out the Savings and Loan industry after a similar smaller-scale real estate financing debacle.

Until we learn that businesses, like any welfare recipient, will continue to fail unless or until failure is no longer a viable option- we're going to keep shelling out cash to losers.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 7, 2012 9:01:42 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Eastwood claims there was no political intent,that it was more or less a rallying cry for America, much like Reagans ads. Whether true or not, who knows. But it is sort of funny to hear people that supported no limits on company contributions to campaigns because to limit them would be limiting free speech are now "offended" by this ad.

I believe him. I honestly did not see this as supporting Obama or any of that. I saw it as a waste of time supporting a failed car company, a failed industry, and a failed city. Detroit is over- if you don't believe me- go visit. It's NEVER coming back. The US auto-industry lost. The company with the best shot is Ford, and I read somewhere that Ford is cooking the books and not doing as well as claimed.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 6, 2012 19:48:51 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Feb 6, 2012 18:19:00 GMT -5 usaone said:

The government bailed out Chrysler in the early 1980's worked out pretty good. As long as we get our money back with interest I'm ok with it.

All three car companies are making great cars.

If it saves American Industry, thus keeping jobs in country for Americans, by Americans..I would even fore go the interest return..

Consider "In the best interest of the country " consideration as enough of a incentive for the Goverbnment to be involved..good cause as any IMHO

It's not going to save the industry. Bailouts hitch our wagons to a failing industry- it actually HARMS the country. The country should not share in the fortunes of the auto industry-- the fortunes there are not good.