% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

American Capital, Ltd. Message Board

  • mo_scuba mo_scuba Apr 20, 2007 2:38 PM Flag

    Lee Iacocca book exerpt: doesn't hold back


    Here's a link for an exerpt of the new book comming out by Lee Iacocca. He doesn't seem to be impressed with our current leaders.

    This topic is deleted.
    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Listen, when the Japanese starting competing with us way back then, the auto worker unions had made assembly line auto workers part of the upper middle class with their unreal contracts (same with the steel industry by the way). In Asia, those people got paid more appropriate blue collar salaries and the Japanese could easily undercut Ford, GM, etc. Add to that better quality cars and, in short, the WAS NO COMPETITION.

    • abter1 < Seeking converts does not threaten or weaken America...the use of violence does. >

      We agree.

    • abter1 < Religious freedom means every all may seek to convert people to their faith. >

      And so we've come full circle.

      Some may not wish to be converted. That hasn't been a problem in the U.S., but ...

      I posted:

      <<< abter1 <You call Iacocca's comments about factions BS. >

      That's right, because he said a nation of factions shares common principles and ideals and we will rise and fall together. That's not true. Convert or else lose your head is not a common principle of democracy. Nor is the belief that there's no need for democracy, because you have all you need in the Quran. >>>

    • montgomerygator64 < But perhaps part of the reason that GM and Ford have trouble competing cost wise is their higher expense due to the legacy costs of high payments in pensions and medical benefits to retirees they have saddled themselves with. >

      Perhaps part of the reason GM and Ford have trouble competing is because they also don't get the tax abatements their foreign competitors get?

    • Simple_mind99 < This is true not just here but in every country of the world. >

      Wrong. There are countries that have all but eliminated what plagued the people whose stories I ref. Basically in those countries they don't have what was said in one of the stories, " ... staff repeatedly failing to follow basic hygiene and infection control procedures ...".

      Simple < Speaking about serious healthcare topics in such frivolous fashion is not constructive. >

      To call the web page I ref., and the people's stores, and speaking out about it frivolous and reprehensible is an outrage.

      You've convinced me Simple_mind99 that you're a member -- in good standing -- of the "dumbed down" crowd. I'm afraid there are enough of your group to leave the the U.S. without even as much as hope.

    • [continued from previous post]

      The issue of rejecting a theocratic basis for a State seeking to join the Union has a strong foundation in US history involving Utah. In 1849/50 (mail was very slow) the residents of a big chunk of the western US formally petitioned Congress to join the United States as the State of Deseret. Brigham Young's vision of a State of Deseret included not only Utah, but parts of what became 7 other states.

      Congress declined Deseret's petition, explicitly rejecting the concept of a religious basis for a State. The issue was NOT the Mormon practice of polygamy; it isn't clear whether anyone in Congress was even aware of it. No mention of the issue of polygamy appears in the Congressional Record in 1849 & 50. Utah became a Territory in �50 as part of the Compromise of 1850 (granting statehood to California, making Utah&New Mexico territories without a ban on slavery,&banning slavery in the District of Columbia). The Utah Territory was effectively a theocracy, with Brigham Young as the first Governor, but not a State.

      The LDS Church did not acknowledge polygamy until 1854. That announcement caused such an uproar in the Union that the Army was sent on the "Utah Expedition" to replace Brigham Young as Territorial Governor with a non-Mormon Governor appointed by the US President.

      Utah finally joined the Union until 1896, after explicitly accepting that the State of Utah would not have a religious basis. Article III, Section I of the Utah Constitution states (in its entirety) "Perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed. No inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited."

      Unlike Saudi Arabia, Israel, or Brigham Young's hopes for the State of Deseret, the laws of the United States do not embed any religion in our legal basis. Some people are explicitly trying to change this, to make America what they call a Christian Nation in both law&in culture. I deeply hope this will never occur. In law we must guard the American principal of religious freedom. As a civil society I believe we must also guard against religious bigotry, persecution,& violence. Religious freedom means every all may seek to convert people to their faith. Seeking new conversions is deeply embedded in the Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Islam. Scientology&Baha'i religions (among others).

      Seeking converts does not threaten or weaken America...the use of violence does.

    • a3leafclover; On 4/26 You wrote "Sorry abter1, but I don't follow your logic. If 80% +/- identified themself as white, I don't think it means America is not a White Nation."

      A plurality argument is poor way to define or describe the nature of a nation or a society. That was my explicit point in 4/25 post. My satirical suggestions responded to YOUR 2:00pm, 4/25 post using plurality to rebut my opinion that America is not a Christian nation. You wrote "The fact is that the number of Americans who call themselves Christian is still some 80% of the population."

      If you cited this for any reason other than to suggest that America is, or should be, a Christian nation, I misunderstood your point. Other Americans now use our religious data to buttress their point of view that we are, or should be, a Christian nation.

      You also wrote you had no problem if Saudi Arabia call their national values Islamic, or Israel call their nation a Jewish state. These countries have religion deeply built into their laws, their history, their culture. Religion was built in when their countries were formed. In 1744 Muhammad bin Saud joined forces with Muhammad Abd Al-Wahhab to form a country of Arabia based on the ultra-conservative religious beliefs now known as Wahhabism (aka Salifism). Both the 1948 UN "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel"&the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence refer to modern Israel as a Jewish State.

      America does not define itself as having a theocratic foundation. This was not only a much argued issue at the time our nation was formed, but throughout our history. The debate continues today

      [continued in next post]

    • I was speaking in nationalistic terms there, but I agree with you on the point you made. I also agree with buying quality. Our companies improved significantly from the standpoint of cars produced as part of their competition with the Japanese. In no way did I intend my message to be pejorative, but simply pointing out that, IMO, the low prices offered by Japanese manufacturers were part of competing with our automakers....that will change, I think, if Ford and GM go down.

    • Speaking about serious healthcare topics in such frivolous fashion is not constructive. The recent widespread publication of such items in the news, in my opinion, is spreading terror among the population in general and can lead SICK people to stay home an delay critical, necessary care because they become fearful of hospitals (for no good reason). When you treat serious conditions, bad things can happen. This is true not just here but in every country of the world. You have just revealed your profession to all of us with what you just posted and I doubt you are "looking out" for all of us. By the way, do you know where the resistant bacterias come from when people develop live threatening chest infections after thoracic surgeries? The answer is from their own (the patient's own) mouth and nasal passages. Again, propagating extraordinarily unfortunate stories without any context or knowledge, as you are doing, is reprehensible in my opinion. Enough said.

    • Public service message:

      simple_mind99 thinks things are improving. According to simple there's no need to be, in his words, "an alarmist, and a nation of whiners".

      All I initially posted, which set simple_minded off, was, "I recommend every American citizen with a $1 in the bank to get to work protecting themselves from the health care nightmare waiting for them if they do nothing."

      I've posted about the U.S.'s health care rank and food supply. And it ain't getting better! So here are some real stores from real people, and it's just the tip of the iceberg:

    • View More Messages
16.89+0.10(+0.60%)Aug 31 4:00 PMEDT