BF2S Forums Elena Kagan, S.C. Candidate

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

lowing wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

henry ford was a nazi.  do not buy ford vehicles.

I wouldn't buy a ford regsrdless, in fact  Ihave sworn off of all American car company products.

Even though Ford never actually accepted bailout money.

But unless this is about quality of their products then yeah you could do better than a Ford.

Bailout has got nothing to do with it. Quality does. Fors like GM and Chrysler have spent years short cutting quality for a buck. So much so, they have literally built a reputation around it.

If they are doing the right thing now, it is because the other manufactures have twisted their arms behind their backs and is forcing them to. This has nothing to do with an actual concern of building a quality product to be proud of.

i dont get how ford can do so well in europe but be dire in america. they make class-leading cars over here v0v

FatherTed wrote:

i dont get how ford can do so well in europe but be dire in america. they make class-leading cars over here v0v

cuz ford was a nazi

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its because within Ford all the attention is on trucks, no-one gives a shit about the cars - hence they're shit.
So Ford can sell big, profitable fuel hungry trucks they have to sell small, cheap fuel efficient cars - hence the cars are small, cheap and drive like shit.

That and technologically Ford, and the other US manufacturers, are decades behind the competition.

Ford actually has done pretty well in terms of design over the last few years.  Most of what Toyota has been riding off of in the last few years is reputation rather than actual innovation.  This became painfully apparent after the whole braking issue they've had to deal with.  Honda hasn't had any major mechanical debacles, but they still charge a lot more than they really need to, which is why companies like Mazda can provide almost the same quality level for a much lower price.

Obama may use executive privilege to withhold Kagan papers...
http://kaganwatch.com/2010/06/03/white- … documents/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162- … 04564.html

via http://www.drudgereport.com/

Harmor wrote:

Obama may use executive privilege to withhold Kagan papers...
http://kaganwatch.com/2010/06/03/white- … documents/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162- … 04564.html

via http://www.drudgereport.com/

Hey, Harmor, I know you like Drudge Report, but would you do us all a favour and stick to copy-pasting only the stuff that actually has meat on it?

11 Bravo wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Obama may use executive privilege to withhold Kagan papers...
http://kaganwatch.com/2010/06/03/white- … documents/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162- … 04564.html

via http://www.drudgereport.com/

Hey, Harmor, I know you like Drudge Report, but would you do us all a favour and stick to copy-pasting only the stuff that actually has meat on it?

are you blind or is cbs meatless also?  kthx.  or google it and look it up yourself if you dont like the link.  kthx.

At least take the time to read a post before being argumentative towards criticism of it. The CBS article has nothing to do with Obama using his executive privilege to withhold anything. The only mention of Obama's name in the article is to explain that Kagan was nominated by him.

The kaganwatch.com "article" outright states that the Obama administration doesn't intend to use executive privilege to withhold any information. What it all sums up to is that some site with the sole purpose of attacking Kagan politically speculated without any tangible evidence that the Obama administration might do something that it said it has no intention of doing.

So, can you point me to the substance that you're defending, 11 Bravo?

11 Bravo wrote:

because i can read between the lines.

"obama does not intend............ but......."

I asked for articles with meat on them; not the kind of speculation that idiots will invariably derive from any public statement. What does it have to do with the CBS article? Or did you not read that yourself?

Last edited by mikkel (2010-06-04 18:23:54)

11 Bravo wrote:

mikkel wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

because i can read between the lines.

"obama does not intend............ but......."

I asked for articles with meat on them; not the kind of speculation that idiots will invariably derive from any public statement. What does it have to do with the CBS article? Or did you not read that yourself?

is an article with the words from obamas mouthperson not meat?  what more do you want then right from the source?

I want something that says more than "The Obama administration might do this, but they also may not. We don't know. I mean, they said that they don't intend to, but who knows, right?"

I doubt that you're really all that hung up over an indefinite answer in politics. It's not exactly an uncommon occurrence.