By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Obama, Chrysler, and The Constitution.

TheRealMafoo on 14 May 2009
HappySqurriel said:

If Obama was really worth the hype he could find a way to deal with the economic "crisis" without undermining the very document that protects the rights of citizens; and prevents the United States from being just another totalitarian dictatorship with a charismatic leader.

 

Yea, but first Obama would have to look at the Constitution as an instruction manual, and not as a roadblock. Good luck on that one.

 

Great post by the way.



Around the Network
Tyrannical on 14 May 2009

I think the federal government might have special over sight over the auto industry as it's part of the defence industry. They build tanks durring war time and all. 



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

TheRealMafoo on 14 May 2009
Tyrannical said:

I think the federal government might have special over sight over the auto industry as it's part of the defence industry. They build tanks durring war time and all. 

 

it's not the 1940's anymore. General Dynamics can keep making our tanks thank you very much. Not sure I would want to go to war in a tank made by Chrysler or GM.

We have 1,100 tanks, and have only lost 5 in war (none in the current war). We don't need mass production like we used to.

Although a fun fact. The M1 Abrams (our modern tank) was designed by Chrysler Defense Devision. General Dynamics purchased that devision in 1979.

 



akuma587 on 14 May 2009

But couldn't you also say that protecting domestic production of just about any major manufacturing processes, including cars, trucks, etc., would fall within the President's commander-in-chief power? That would be like saying that the President couldn't do something about a light bulb manufacturing plant who produces 50% of the nation's light bulbs because of a few bankruptcy laws.

Man, I love using the commander-in-chief argument against the people who would normally support it even if I think it is often BS. Cheers to Tyrannical for actually being consistent and sticking to his guns in terms of where his policy standpoint really is.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

TheRealMafoo on 14 May 2009
akuma587 said:
But couldn't you also say that protecting domestic production of just about any major manufacturing processes, including cars, trucks, etc., would fall within the President's commander-in-chief power? That would be like saying that the President couldn't do something about a light bulb manufacturing plant who produces 50% of the nation's light bulbs because of a few bankruptcy laws.

Man, I love using the commander-in-chief argument against the people who would normally support it even if I think it is often BS. Cheers to Tyrannical for actually being consistent and sticking to his guns in terms of where his policy standpoint really is.

 

I am not against bankruptcy, and if the Commander-in-chief wants to keep Chrysler alive for those reasons, good for him. he has yet to state it's a military need.

Also, the issue taken with this article has very little to do with Bankruptcy as a practice, and more to do with this administrations execution of it.

We are a county ruled by law, not men (or we should be). To put this into an example:

Let's say you and I went halves into buying a car. We both owned 50% of it, and everything about that car was taken care of down the middle. There is no question that half of the value of that car is yours, and half is mine. We agree to have Obama sell our car. He sells the car for 10,000, but gives 8,000 to me, and 2,000 to you, because for whatever reason, he thinks I deserve it.

There is no law written down that he can go back to, not precedent he is using to state why I should get more money. It's just because he wants to, or in his terms "it's the right thing to do", and there is nothing that can be done about it.

Does that sound like something that should be legal in the US? Sure doesn't to me. Sounds like something a king would do.

 



Around the Network
Tyrannical on 15 May 2009
akuma587 said:
But couldn't you also say that protecting domestic production of just about any major manufacturing processes, including cars, trucks, etc., would fall within the President's commander-in-chief power? That would be like saying that the President couldn't do something about a light bulb manufacturing plant who produces 50% of the nation's light bulbs because of a few bankruptcy laws.

 

 Well I wouldn't say it fell under Presedential power because of his roll as commander-in-chief. How ever congress could pass laws granting them an oversight on industries vital to national infrastructure. I know at least before the breakup of Bell Telephone the the government had that type of oversight on them, and I sure there is something similar for the power grid.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire