US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Rshermr]

Already explained it.

You claimed you read it (Mulally's explanation) -- you obviously lied since you still don't know what that explanation is.

I've heard his "explanation", Faun...unlike you and Georgie however...I don't think it made any sense at all! GM going bankrupt would have been the best thing to happen to Ford since Henry came up with the assembly line!

Again, if you heard his explanation then you would have known I already answered your question since I quoted his explanation. You clearly didn't or you wouldn't keep asking.

And again, no one gives a flying fuck if you think you're more economically savvy than the CEO of Ford. You don't have to like the answer he gave but no one owes you anything beyond his explanation; which of course, stems from first hand knowledge of his industry, first hand knowledge of company, first hand knowledge of his suppliers; whereas you don't know any of that in any level of depth compared to his knowledge.

In every conversation about Ford between you and the CEO of Ford -- you lose.

His first hand knowledge of his industry? Mulally didn't even come into the car industry until 2006! Before that he was in the aircraft business...running Boeing! That hardly matters however because basic business fundamentals run true in ALL industries! One of those basic business fundamentals...something that is just plain common sense...is that the elimination of your biggest competitor (for whatever reason) is going to help your business...not hurt it!

At no time have I ever claimed to be more economically "savvy" than Mulally! What I do claim however is that despite what Mulally claimed in front of Congress a bankruptcy by GM could only benefit Ford...something that Mulally actually admits later on when he relates how GM's bankruptcy problems helped Ford's auto sales substantially.

And yet he still knew the collapse of his competition, amid a massive recession which he believed could have led to a depression had they not been bailed out, would have also threatened Ford.

And again... any discussion about Ford between you and the CEO of Ford -- you lose.

And for about the twentieth time...HOW DOES GM GOING INTO BANKRUPTCY "THREATEN" FORD!!! You still haven't addressed Mulally's remarks that GM's looming bankruptcy HELPED Ford's sales! How can it do that...yet still "threaten" Ford?

Didn't know Mulally didn't have much experience in the auto industry...did ya', Faun! Oh, you think I don't notice how you ignore whole parts of my posts when they show you up?

Jesus, you are really getting excited. And, me boy, trying to make light of a ceo who has guided Boeing, then Ford, is a hoot. You are a clown.

 

[Rshermr]

What, where he said it was "the right thing to do"? Why, Faun? Why was it the right thing to do for Ford? Why would GM's bankruptcy have caused a bankruptcy by Ford? Why is it the GM's bankruptcy didn't cause Ford problems? Why did Mulally also state that GM's going into bankruptcy was great for Ford's sales?

Nope, wrong quote. Now try looking at the Mulally quote I posted where he cited some reasons a GM & Chrysler collapse would have threatened Ford.

Typical oldstyle. He is simply turning himself inside out to post drivel that he states prove that Ford had no problems. He does not want to post the Mulally quotes because they prove your post to be honest. And OS could care less about honesty. Typical of him.
What OS does is post lies and personal attacks. Nothing else. Because, of course, he is a con tool with no integrity.

I think the funniest part is him claiming to know what was better for Ford than the CEO credited with saving the company.

Right. We know Mulally is one of 27 total ceo's who run or has run the 27 largest corporations in the US. He ran Boeing, number 27, for years, and then ran Ford number 9, for a number of years.
Now, Oldstyle, on the other hand, is like me in one respect. He, like I, have never run even a fortune 1000 company. The difference is, Oldstyle thinks he knows more than a person who has spend years running one of the largest companies in the US, in terms of Gross Revenue. I know that I do not know nearly as much about his companies as Mulally does. Poor old Oldstyle seems to not have a clue.

Business fundamentals are in many ways universal and don't change because of the size of a business. Your biggest competition going out of business is great news for a Mom & Pop grocery store just as it is for a Fortune 500 company and it's RIDICULOUS to claim that happening would be a threat!

Right. You would know. All of your fortune 50 experience, running those huge companies. Oh, yeah, you did nothing of the sort. Not even a fortune 1000 company, me boy. Nothing. Really, you get funnier and funnier.

 

[Rshermr]

And don't think I haven't noticed how much you want to talk about Mulally instead of why you can't come up with the economic formula for determining "jobs saved", Georgie! Still running scared from that one...aren't you!

Not at all, me poor ignorant con tool. Just waiting for you to honor your part of the bargain. You have to name the bill republicans brought forward to address the unemployment problem that resulted from the great republican recession of 2008. Really, you are such a tool.

 

[Rshermr]

You have no point. None at all. You have taken the quote, and suggested you do not understand it. I have explained it more than once Faun has explained it multiple times. The problem me boy, is you. Obviously.

You can't explain what the formula was for determining "jobs saved"..

Says who? I can. But the offer was mine. And the offer, as you know, me lying con tool, was that I would IF you would provide the information on the Bill the Republican congress put forward to try to decrease unemployment. As you well know. And you have not. So, me boy, you long since ran out of time. You are along with being a lying con tool, a fraud.

.Faun can't explain why losing one's major competitor would be bad for any business...but I'm the one with the problem?
Now try to concentrate, dipshit. Faun is 100% correct, he has posted the reasons why the ceo of ford said it would have brought ford down, and you just keep saying he did not. More lies, and more wasting people's time.

You both have a problem because neither of you can rationalize the bullshit you're putting out on this board!
Not so, me lying con tool. What we put on the board was rational and ethical. No lies or game playing. That is you, me con tool.

You can't find that formula you promised to deliver (how pathetic is A-B=Jobs Saved!)
I will try to find a response from Georgie. OOOOPS, there is no Georgie. Must be Oldstyle playing games again.
Not true, me boy. But it does show you are playing games. I can and would have provided you the formula, which you really do not want. But that is not your point. Because I have told you multiple times that you need to keep your side of our bargain, and name the bill put forward by republicans to decrease unemployment. Which you can not do. As you well know.
and you couldn't find the two Nobel Peace Prize winners from George Mason University? You're not that bright...are you, Georgie?

I did not look for them, me boy. Because there was no reason to. You simply mentioned there were two, and I did not dispute that. I found one by chance. The other economics Laureate is dead. Maybe you were referring to this guy:
Fake Nobel prize taken away from George Mason prof who asked for RICO investigation of climate skeptics
JunkScience has done it again.
I was alerted this morning that Jagadish Shukla, the professor and climate profiteer leading the charge to have skeptics investigated under RICO, had falsely claimed to be a Nobel prize winner on George Mason University’s web site.
Fake Nobel prize taken away from George Mason prof who asked for RICO investigation of climate skeptics
He is not actually dead like the other Laureate, just his reputation is.

You have no point. None at all. You have taken the quote, and suggested you do not understand it. I have explained it more than once Faun has explained it multiple times. The problem me boy, is you. Obviously.

You can't explain what the formula was for determining "jobs saved"..

Says who? I can. But the offer was mine. And the offer, as you know, me lying con tool, was that I would IF you would provide the information on the Bill the Republican congress put forward to try to decrease unemployment. As you well know. And you have not. So, me boy, you long since ran out of time. You are along with being a lying con tool, a fraud.

.Faun can't explain why losing one's major competitor would be bad for any business...but I'm the one with the problem?
Now try to concentrate, dipshit. Faun is 100% correct, he has posted the reasons why the ceo of ford said it would have brought ford down, and you just keep saying he did not. More lies, and more wasting people's time.

You both have a problem because neither of you can rationalize the bullshit you're putting out on this board!
Not so, me lying con tool. What we put on the board was rational and ethical. No lies or game playing. That is you, me con tool.

You can't find that formula you promised to deliver (how pathetic is A-B=Jobs Saved!)
I will try to find a response from Georgie. OOOOPS, there is no Georgie. Must be Oldstyle playing games again.
Not true, me boy. But it does show you are playing games. I can and would have provided you the formula, which you really do not want. But that is not your point. Because I have told you multiple times that you need to keep your side of our bargain, and name the bill put forward by republicans to decrease unemployment. Which you can not do. As you well know.
and you couldn't find the two Nobel Peace Prize winners from George Mason University? You're not that bright...are you, Georgie?

I did not look for them, me boy. Because there was no reason to. You simply mentioned there were two, and I did not dispute that. I found one by chance. The other economics Laureate is dead. Maybe you were referring to this guy:
Fake Nobel prize taken away from George Mason prof who asked for RICO investigation of climate skeptics
JunkScience has done it again.
I was alerted this morning that Jagadish Shukla, the professor and climate profiteer leading the charge to have skeptics investigated under RICO, had falsely claimed to be a Nobel prize winner on George Mason University’s web site.
Fake Nobel prize taken away from George Mason prof who asked for RICO investigation of climate skeptics
He is not actually dead like the other Laureate, just his reputation is.

You didn't look for them? Then why did you claim that you did?

"So, no me boy. You are indeed lying again. Everyone knows what George Mason is all about. It is paid to teach what the Koch brothers want taught. And the areas of interest for the Koch brothers are economics (they are, of course, Libertarians) and politics. The Nobel Prize winner is in Bioscience. Can't find another, though he/she may well be there.

You obviously DID look for them and you obviously were too stupid to find them! Every time you post here you get caught in yet another lie, Georgie...and yet you steadfastly declare "I never lie". You obviously went back again and found them (I don't know how you could have missed them the first time...they're right there!) because you suddenly now know that one of them has passed away! Your not finding them the first time comes down to one of two things...either you're incredibly bad at research with awful basic reading skills...or you deliberately pretended that you couldn't find the two Nobel Prize winners in economics from George Mason! So which is it, Georgie? Are you an idiot or are you a liar?
Now, I know you do not expect me to ever make a mistake. But who was a nobel Prize Laureate was never an issue. Except now, that your comments about this school not being a conservative mecca have been mis-proven, you have had to change the subject. And I had no reason to look for them, and did not.
Wow. You are turning yourself inside out to try to prove something you can not prove. I was looking to see what the world thought of GM. And along the way, I found their Nobel Laureates. Dipshit.


Oh and by the way? There is no such thing as Nobel Prize for Bioscience...nor has anyone from George Mason ever won a Nobel Prize in ANYTHING but Economics! Just one more thing you're either ignorant about or that you're lying about!

Uh, really. You are trying too hard! Your claim is simply too easy to disprove:
January 10, 2011
Renowned pioneer in biochemistry Ferid Murad will establish a lab, teach and mentor students.
A Nobel Prize winner will soon be teaching and conducting research at the George Washington University.
Ferid Murad, recipient of the Nobel Prize in medicine and world-renowned pioneer in biochemistry, will join GW’s faculty in April.
Uh, what department of economics is biochemistry?

Then, GM claimed this one, which proved to be a FRAUD:
I was alerted this morning that Jagadish Shukla, the professor and climate profiteer leading the charge to have skeptics investigated under RICO, had falsely claimed to be a Nobel prize winner on George Mason University’s web site. See image below.




So, that is one thing George Mason has a right to be proud of. It is one of only three universities in the world to have announced a Nobel prize winner that was, in actuality, a lie. As in Fraud. Now, that should be something you are quite proud of, OS.

Do you even know who Shukla is or what he stands for? He's the climate fear peddler who wanted scientists who didn't agree with him on climate change to be investigated under the RICO Act! The fact that he's a professor at George Mason would appear to directly contradict your claims that GMU is a right wing university! If that really WERE the case then why would they have someone like Shukla teaching there?[/QUOTE

He is out there and you can find what you want about him on Google, dipshit. As you did. But the real question is why do the Koch brothers and other conservatives poor so much money into GM. Everyone, except apparently you, know that it is a bought and paid for school. As I proved to you earlier. Really, dipshit, even you can not be that stupid.

 

[Rshermr]

Now, me boy, do you have an impartial site???

Your desperation is duly noted.

Please, me poor ignorant con tool, tell me why you think I am desperate. I need a laugh. And you are, me boy, laughable.

 

[Rshermr]

I have to admit, I do find the Progressive posters here most amusing. They make claims, then when asked how they came about those figures, the Progressives look like a deer caught in headlights.

I post an article by Dr. Walter Williams concerning bankruptcy. None of the Progressives can legitimately dispute the information, they are afraid to attack the author as he is BLACK so they attack the school. As if the school wrote the article.

For the convenience of all here is an abbreviated version of the essay along with the source and link.

Bailouts and Bankruptcy
By Walter E.Williams
December 9, 2008 5 Min Read

[...]

What happens when a company goes bankrupt? One thing that does not happen is their productive assets go poof and disappear into thin air. In other words, if GM goes bankrupt, the assembly lines, robots, buildings and other tools don't evaporate. What bankruptcy means is the title to those assets change. People who think they can manage those assets better purchase them.

Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, where the control of its business operations are subject to the oversight and jurisdiction of the court, gives companies a chance to reorganize. The court can permit complete or partial relief from the company's debts and its labor union contracts.

A large part of the problem is the Big Three's cozy relationship with the United Auto Workers union (UAW). GM has a $73 hourly wage cost including benefits and overtime. Toyota has five major assembly plants in the U.S. Its hourly wage cost plus benefits is $48. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out which company will be at a competitive disadvantage. Then there's the "jobs bank" feature of the UAW contract where workers who are laid off workers get 95 percent of their base pay and all their benefits. Right now there's a two-year limit but in the past workers could stay in the "jobs bank" forever unless they turned down two job offers within 50 miles of their factory. At one time job bank membership exceeded 7,000 "workers." GM, Ford and Chrysler face other problems that range from poor corporate management and marketing, not to mention costly government regulations.

[...]

How much congressional involvement do we want with the Big Three auto companies? I'd say none. Congressmen and federal bureaucrats, including those at the Federal Reserve Board, don't know anymore about the automobile business than they know about the banking and financial businesses that they've turned into a mess. Just look at the idiotic focus of congressmen when the three auto company chief executives appeared before them. They questioned whether the executives should have driven to Congress rather than flown in on corporate jets. They focused on executive pay, which is a tiny fraction of costs compared to $73 hourly compensation to 250,000 autoworkers. The belief that Congress poses the major threat to our liberty and well-being is why the founders gave them limited enumerated powers. To our detriment, today's Americans have given them unlimited powers.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Bailouts and Bankruptcy by Walter E.Williams

That is because you are a con tool. so you do not care for, or pay attention to, the idea of impartial sources. Or journalism. Or that sort of thing. Dipshit.

 

[Faun]

Already explained it.

You claimed you read it (Mulally's explanation) -- you obviously lied since you still don't know what that explanation is.

I've heard his "explanation", Faun...unlike you and Georgie however...I don't think it made any sense at all! GM going bankrupt would have been the best thing to happen to Ford since Henry came up with the assembly line!

Again, if you heard his explanation then you would have known I already answered your question since I quoted his explanation. You clearly didn't or you wouldn't keep asking.

And again, no one gives a flying fuck if you think you're more economically savvy than the CEO of Ford. You don't have to like the answer he gave but no one owes you anything beyond his explanation; which of course, stems from first hand knowledge of his industry, first hand knowledge of company, first hand knowledge of his suppliers; whereas you don't know any of that in any level of depth compared to his knowledge.

In every conversation about Ford between you and the CEO of Ford -- you lose.

His first hand knowledge of his industry? Mulally didn't even come into the car industry until 2006! Before that he was in the aircraft business...running Boeing! That hardly matters however because basic business fundamentals run true in ALL industries! One of those basic business fundamentals...something that is just plain common sense...is that the elimination of your biggest competitor (for whatever reason) is going to help your business...not hurt it!

At no time have I ever claimed to be more economically "savvy" than Mulally! What I do claim however is that despite what Mulally claimed in front of Congress a bankruptcy by GM could only benefit Ford...something that Mulally actually admits later on when he relates how GM's bankruptcy problems helped Ford's auto sales substantially.

And yet he still knew the collapse of his competition, amid a massive recession which he believed could have led to a depression had they not been bailed out, would have also threatened Ford.

And again... any discussion about Ford between you and the CEO of Ford -- you lose.

And for about the twentieth time...HOW DOES GM GOING INTO BANKRUPTCY "THREATEN" FORD!!! You still haven't addressed Mulally's remarks that GM's looming bankruptcy HELPED Ford's sales! How can it do that...yet still "threaten" Ford?

Didn't know Mulally didn't have much experience in the auto industry...did ya', Faun! Oh, you think I don't notice how you ignore whole parts of my posts when they show you up?

Really? You've asked 20 times??

Then for the 20th time -- go read my post where I quoted Mulally's reasons.

As far as Mulally's experience in the auto industry, what I said was, "stems from first hand knowledge of his industry, first hand knowledge of company, first hand knowledge of his suppliers," which as the CEO of one of the U.S.'s leading auto manufacturers -- is true. First hand knowledge means he worked in that industry.

You don't even understand English yet you think you know more about Ford than their former CEO.

 

[Oldstyle]

I've heard his "explanation", Faun...unlike you and Georgie however...I don't think it made any sense at all! GM going bankrupt would have been the best thing to happen to Ford since Henry came up with the assembly line!

Again, if you heard his explanation then you would have known I already answered your question since I quoted his explanation. You clearly didn't or you wouldn't keep asking.

And again, no one gives a flying fuck if you think you're more economically savvy than the CEO of Ford. You don't have to like the answer he gave but no one owes you anything beyond his explanation; which of course, stems from first hand knowledge of his industry, first hand knowledge of company, first hand knowledge of his suppliers; whereas you don't know any of that in any level of depth compared to his knowledge.

In every conversation about Ford between you and the CEO of Ford -- you lose.

His first hand knowledge of his industry? Mulally didn't even come into the car industry until 2006! Before that he was in the aircraft business...running Boeing! That hardly matters however because basic business fundamentals run true in ALL industries! One of those basic business fundamentals...something that is just plain common sense...is that the elimination of your biggest competitor (for whatever reason) is going to help your business...not hurt it!

At no time have I ever claimed to be more economically "savvy" than Mulally! What I do claim however is that despite what Mulally claimed in front of Congress a bankruptcy by GM could only benefit Ford...something that Mulally actually admits later on when he relates how GM's bankruptcy problems helped Ford's auto sales substantially.

And yet he still knew the collapse of his competition, amid a massive recession which he believed could have led to a depression had they not been bailed out, would have also threatened Ford.

And again... any discussion about Ford between you and the CEO of Ford -- you lose.

And for about the twentieth time...HOW DOES GM GOING INTO BANKRUPTCY "THREATEN" FORD!!! You still haven't addressed Mulally's remarks that GM's looming bankruptcy HELPED Ford's sales! How can it do that...yet still "threaten" Ford?

Didn't know Mulally didn't have much experience in the auto industry...did ya', Faun! Oh, you think I don't notice how you ignore whole parts of my posts when they show you up?

Really? You've asked 20 times??

Then for the 20th time -- go read my post where I quoted Mulally's reasons.

As far as Mulally's experience in the auto industry, what I said was, "stems from first hand knowledge of his industry, first hand knowledge of company, first hand knowledge of his suppliers," which as the CEO of one of the U.S.'s leading auto manufacturers -- is true. First hand knowledge means he worked in that industry.

You don't even understand English yet you think you know more about Ford than their former CEO.

He wasn't a car guy, Faun...he was an airplane guy! Something you'd know if you really knew anything about the man! He only came over to Ford in 2006...shortly before the economic crisis in 2008. For you to claim that he has years of experience with the automobile industry is not true. Doesn't make him a bad CEO. Neither does it explain why losing your main competitor in a market is a bad thing for ANY company...Boeing or Ford!

And you STILL haven't explained Mulally's comment that GM's bankruptcy did wonders for Ford's sales!

 

[Oldstyle]

And don't think I haven't noticed how much you want to talk about Mulally instead of why you can't come up with the economic formula for determining "jobs saved", Georgie! Still running scared from that one...aren't you!

Not at all, me poor ignorant con tool. Just waiting for you to honor your part of the bargain. You have to name the bill republicans brought forward to address the unemployment problem that resulted from the great republican recession of 2008. Really, you are such a tool.

Admit it, Georgie...you'll NEVER provide that formula because you know it doesn't exist! That's why you gave me that pathetic A-B=Jobs Saved and then pretended to put me on ignore. You do what you always do when you paint yourself into a corner posing as an economist...you run away.

 

[Faun]

Again, if you heard his explanation then you would have known I already answered your question since I quoted his explanation. You clearly didn't or you wouldn't keep asking.

And again, no one gives a flying fuck if you think you're more economically savvy than the CEO of Ford. You don't have to like the answer he gave but no one owes you anything beyond his explanation; which of course, stems from first hand knowledge of his industry, first hand knowledge of company, first hand knowledge of his suppliers; whereas you don't know any of that in any level of depth compared to his knowledge.

In every conversation about Ford between you and the CEO of Ford -- you lose.

His first hand knowledge of his industry? Mulally didn't even come into the car industry until 2006! Before that he was in the aircraft business...running Boeing! That hardly matters however because basic business fundamentals run true in ALL industries! One of those basic business fundamentals...something that is just plain common sense...is that the elimination of your biggest competitor (for whatever reason) is going to help your business...not hurt it!

At no time have I ever claimed to be more economically "savvy" than Mulally! What I do claim however is that despite what Mulally claimed in front of Congress a bankruptcy by GM could only benefit Ford...something that Mulally actually admits later on when he relates how GM's bankruptcy problems helped Ford's auto sales substantially.

And yet he still knew the collapse of his competition, amid a massive recession which he believed could have led to a depression had they not been bailed out, would have also threatened Ford.

And again... any discussion about Ford between you and the CEO of Ford -- you lose.

And for about the twentieth time...HOW DOES GM GOING INTO BANKRUPTCY "THREATEN" FORD!!! You still haven't addressed Mulally's remarks that GM's looming bankruptcy HELPED Ford's sales! How can it do that...yet still "threaten" Ford?

Didn't know Mulally didn't have much experience in the auto industry...did ya', Faun! Oh, you think I don't notice how you ignore whole parts of my posts when they show you up?

Really? You've asked 20 times??

Then for the 20th time -- go read my post where I quoted Mulally's reasons.

As far as Mulally's experience in the auto industry, what I said was, "stems from first hand knowledge of his industry, first hand knowledge of company, first hand knowledge of his suppliers," which as the CEO of one of the U.S.'s leading auto manufacturers -- is true. First hand knowledge means he worked in that industry.

You don't even understand English yet you think you know more about Ford than their former CEO.

He wasn't a car guy, Faun...he was an airplane guy! Something you'd know if you really knew anything about the man! He only came over to Ford in 2006...shortly before the economic crisis in 2008. For you to claim that he has years of experience with the automobile industry is not true. Doesn't make him a bad CEO. Neither does it explain why losing your main competitor in a market is a bad thing for ANY company...Boeing or Ford!

And you STILL haven't explained Mulally's comment that GM's bankruptcy did wonders for Ford's sales!

Moron... he worked for Ford. That alone gave him "first hand knowledge."

For you to claim that he has years of experience with the automobile industry is not true.

You're lying again con tool, I never said he had years of experience with the automobile industry (though he did).

You can't post without lying can you, ya con tool?

 

[Oldstyle]

His first hand knowledge of his industry? Mulally didn't even come into the car industry until 2006! Before that he was in the aircraft business...running Boeing! That hardly matters however because basic business fundamentals run true in ALL industries! One of those basic business fundamentals...something that is just plain common sense...is that the elimination of your biggest competitor (for whatever reason) is going to help your business...not hurt it!

At no time have I ever claimed to be more economically "savvy" than Mulally! What I do claim however is that despite what Mulally claimed in front of Congress a bankruptcy by GM could only benefit Ford...something that Mulally actually admits later on when he relates how GM's bankruptcy problems helped Ford's auto sales substantially.

And yet he still knew the collapse of his competition, amid a massive recession which he believed could have led to a depression had they not been bailed out, would have also threatened Ford.

And again... any discussion about Ford between you and the CEO of Ford -- you lose.

And for about the twentieth time...HOW DOES GM GOING INTO BANKRUPTCY "THREATEN" FORD!!! You still haven't addressed Mulally's remarks that GM's looming bankruptcy HELPED Ford's sales! How can it do that...yet still "threaten" Ford?

Didn't know Mulally didn't have much experience in the auto industry...did ya', Faun! Oh, you think I don't notice how you ignore whole parts of my posts when they show you up?

Really? You've asked 20 times??

Then for the 20th time -- go read my post where I quoted Mulally's reasons.

As far as Mulally's experience in the auto industry, what I said was, "stems from first hand knowledge of his industry, first hand knowledge of company, first hand knowledge of his suppliers," which as the CEO of one of the U.S.'s leading auto manufacturers -- is true. First hand knowledge means he worked in that industry.

You don't even understand English yet you think you know more about Ford than their former CEO.

He wasn't a car guy, Faun...he was an airplane guy! Something you'd know if you really knew anything about the man! He only came over to Ford in 2006...shortly before the economic crisis in 2008. For you to claim that he has years of experience with the automobile industry is not true. Doesn't make him a bad CEO. Neither does it explain why losing your main competitor in a market is a bad thing for ANY company...Boeing or Ford!

And you STILL haven't explained Mulally's comment that GM's bankruptcy did wonders for Ford's sales!

Moron... he worked for Ford. That alone gave him "first hand knowledge."

For you to claim that he has years of experience with the automobile industry is not true.

You're lying again con tool, I never said he had years of experience with the automobile industry (though he did).

You can't post without lying can you, ya con tool?

"And again, no one gives a flying fuck if you think you're more economically savvy than the CEO of Ford. You don't have to like the answer he gave but no one owes you anything beyond his explanation; which of course, stems from first hand knowledge of his industry, first hand knowledge of company, first hand knowledge of his suppliers; whereas you don't know any of that in any level of depth compared to his knowledge."

Nah, you just spouted off about all of Mulally's "first hand knowledge"...when he'd only been with Ford for a very short time...something that I had to point out to you! So what do you do? You accuse someone who's embarrassed you over a lack of knowledge of being a "liar"! The truth is...you can't rationalize Mulally's statement so you come back with that lame "no one owes you anything beyond his explanation" excuse!

So were you EVER going to explain how GM going bankrupt was going to "THREATEN" Ford...when Mulally actually came out and said that the looming GM bankruptcy did wonders for Ford's sales?

 

[Oldstyle]

You two come with the "liar" bullshit and the "con tool" bullshit...every time you can't argue your points. Grow up already.

 

[Faun]

And yet he still knew the collapse of his competition, amid a massive recession which he believed could have led to a depression had they not been bailed out, would have also threatened Ford.

And again... any discussion about Ford between you and the CEO of Ford -- you lose.

And for about the twentieth time...HOW DOES GM GOING INTO BANKRUPTCY "THREATEN" FORD!!! You still haven't addressed Mulally's remarks that GM's looming bankruptcy HELPED Ford's sales! How can it do that...yet still "threaten" Ford?

Didn't know Mulally didn't have much experience in the auto industry...did ya', Faun! Oh, you think I don't notice how you ignore whole parts of my posts when they show you up?

Really? You've asked 20 times??

Then for the 20th time -- go read my post where I quoted Mulally's reasons.

As far as Mulally's experience in the auto industry, what I said was, "stems from first hand knowledge of his industry, first hand knowledge of company, first hand knowledge of his suppliers," which as the CEO of one of the U.S.'s leading auto manufacturers -- is true. First hand knowledge means he worked in that industry.

You don't even understand English yet you think you know more about Ford than their former CEO.

He wasn't a car guy, Faun...he was an airplane guy! Something you'd know if you really knew anything about the man! He only came over to Ford in 2006...shortly before the economic crisis in 2008. For you to claim that he has years of experience with the automobile industry is not true. Doesn't make him a bad CEO. Neither does it explain why losing your main competitor in a market is a bad thing for ANY company...Boeing or Ford!

And you STILL haven't explained Mulally's comment that GM's bankruptcy did wonders for Ford's sales!

Moron... he worked for Ford. That alone gave him "first hand knowledge."

For you to claim that he has years of experience with the automobile industry is not true.

You're lying again con tool, I never said he had years of experience with the automobile industry (though he did).

You can't post without lying can you, ya con tool?

"And again, no one gives a flying fuck if you think you're more economically savvy than the CEO of Ford. You don't have to like the answer he gave but no one owes you anything beyond his explanation; which of course, stems from first hand knowledge of his industry, first hand knowledge of company, first hand knowledge of his suppliers; whereas you don't know any of that in any level of depth compared to his knowledge."

Nah, you just spouted off about all of Mulally's "first hand knowledge"...when he'd only been with Ford for a very short time...something that I had to point out to you! So what do you do? You accuse someone who's embarrassed you over a lack of knowledge of being a "liar"! The truth is...you can't rationalize Mulally's statement so you come back with that lame "no one owes you anything beyond his explanation" excuse!

So were you EVER going to explain how GM going bankrupt was going to "THREATEN" Ford...when Mulally actually came out and said that the looming GM bankruptcy did wonders for Ford's sales?

Poor, con tool. "first hand knowledge" references hands on experience, not length of service.

It is also a knowledge that is gained through firsthand observation or experience, as distinguished from a belief based on what someone else has said.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/firsthand-knowledge/​

As far as the rest of your idiocy -- again ... asked and answered. See the Mulally quote I posted where he explained why his competitors collapse threatened Ford.

 

[Faun]

You two come with the "liar" bullshit and the "con tool" bullshit...every time you can't argue your points. Grow up already.

Fuck you, ya con tool. My points were made. It's not actually incumbent upon me for you to understand. Nor am I under any obligations to play along with your con tool games.

 

[Chuz Life]

And the win goes to oldstyle. Point set and match. Kudos to oldstyle for sticking to his guns.

If the failure or failure of one company was an inherent economic risk to all of that company's competitors. . . We would have no basis for or any need for laws against monopolies. Would we.

 

[Faun]

And the win goes to oldstyle. Point set and match. Kudos to oldstyle for sticking to his guns.

If the failure or failure of one company was an inherent economic risk to all of that company's competitors. . . We would have no basis for or any need for laws against monopolies. Would we.

LOL

The person who sought for GM and Chrysler to be bailed out and said Ford would be threatened if his competitors folded was .... the CEO of Ford.

Your credentials are?

 

[Oldstyle]

And the win goes to oldstyle. Point set and match. Kudos to oldstyle for sticking to his guns.

If the failure or failure of one company was an inherent economic risk to all of that company's competitors. . . We would have no basis for or any need for laws against monopolies. Would we.

LOL

The person who sought for GM and Chrysler to be bailed out and said Ford would be threatened if his competitors folded was .... the CEO of Ford.

Your credentials are?

Yet you can't explain WHY Ford would be threatened other than Ford's CEO said it would be a bad thing for the country? One doesn't need "credentials" to see that you're full of it, Faun!

Love how you're trying to spin your fail on Mulally's car industry expertise! Just can't admit you got exposed yet again...can you?

 

[Oldstyle]

And the win goes to oldstyle. Point set and match. Kudos to oldstyle for sticking to his guns.

If the failure or failure of one company was an inherent economic risk to all of that company's competitors. . . We would have no basis for or any need for laws against monopolies. Would we.

You're asking Faun to use common sense, Chuz...and both he and Georgie are incapable of that. Anyone with even an iota of common sense knows that losing your biggest competitors in any market is not a bad thing for a business.

 

[Rshermr]

And the win goes to oldstyle. Point set and match. Kudos to oldstyle for sticking to his guns.

If the failure or failure of one company was an inherent economic risk to all of that company's competitors. . . We would have no basis for or any need for laws against monopolies. Would we.

 

[Rshermr]

And the win goes to oldstyle. Point set and match. Kudos to oldstyle for sticking to his guns.

If the failure or failure of one company was an inherent economic risk to all of that company's competitors. . . We would have no basis for or any need for laws against monopolies. Would we.

Congratulations. I am assuming, of course, that you are in the competition for the stupidest post this year contest. Made up only of conservative tools. Best of luck.