Jump to content

Because Biden


nitflegal
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Honda decision comes from two causes, neither of which is Brexit.

firstly, car plants need regular reworking to accommodate the often massive changes between major model generations. This means that the future of a car plant is dependent on the expectation that the cost of retooling will be recovered during the model life.

Second, the arrival of the EU-Japan trade deal that removed tariffs on imports meant that the marginal cost of transferring the Swindon capacity to Japan was much lower than retoooling Swindon. You can see that the primary reason was the trade deal triggering a new costing exercise as the factory approached the time for upgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DB said:

The Honda decision comes from two causes, neither of which is Brexit.

firstly, car plants need regular reworking to accommodate the often massive changes between major model generations. This means that the future of a car plant is dependent on the expectation that the cost of retooling will be recovered during the model life.

Second, the arrival of the EU-Japan trade deal that removed tariffs on imports meant that the marginal cost of transferring the Swindon capacity to Japan was much lower than retoooling Swindon. You can see that the primary reason was the trade deal triggering a new costing exercise as the factory approached the time for upgrade.

I'm not suggesting it's a primary cause. But It might have been the straw that broke the Camels back.

The trade deal is the primary reason, but when you see the haemorrhage of Ford out the UK, it's probably not the only reason. In their case it was aging plant syndrome. Killed Bridgend, Southampton and Dagenham. Similarly the Honda plant was errected at South Marston in 1985. Not old for a British plant, but very old for a Japanese one.

The background to it all imho, is the UK is not a friendly place for manufacturing. You can't explain why the UK has such prevalence of its industry based upon financial services if it was not. We aren't bad engineers after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Anything in which I would consider the loss of British lives and treasure would be an acceptable cause. But anything that furthers the cause of freedom, democracy and liberty strikes me as worthy enough.

Old fashioned? Yes. But I've never quite got the hang of the Trump doctrine, which amounts to 'screw you jack, I'm alright' and nothing else by way of ideology. Hope I never shall.

The sad thing is there are plenty of countries that have horrible leaders and governments that deserve to be over thrown. Iraq under hussean and Afghanistan under the taliban.  The Norks under any of the little kim's. Russia under putin, China under the commies. Countries under islamic  tyranny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DB said:

The Honda decision comes from two causes, neither of which is Brexit.

I understand it, but still do not like it. Turning Marysville, OH into Hondaville, USA was as much a function of concern over the spectacle of America and Americans smashing Japanese cars with baseball bats a generation ago as it was of cost optimization.

Honda would do well to remember that, as I have a feeling the people of Swindon will be doing some remembering of their own for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sunday said:

Stuart, the neoconservative warmonger. Will wonders never cease?

Well, so far I have not seen a war in the last 20 years that he did not want to be involved. Ok, not him personally, but you get a point. :D He even supported Libya, despite later claims to the contrary.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

I'm curious what conflict in the world do you think is worth the expenditure of U.S. lives and treasure?

 

It would be easier to ask Stuart what conflict is NOT worth U.S. lives and treasure. He's been pretty much willing to fight to the last American and dollar to right all of the world's wrongs as he perceives them. He will then promptly pull out the UK's dead and injured to justify bleeding America white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, bojan said:

Well, so far I have not seen a war in the last 20 years that he did not want to be involved. Ok, not him personally, but you get a point. :D He even supported Libya, despite later claims to the contrary.

I think you have a point here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

The sad thing is there are plenty of countries that have horrible leaders and governments that deserve to be over thrown. Iraq under hussean and Afghanistan under the taliban.  The Norks under any of the little kim's. Russia under putin, China under the commies. Countries under islamic  tyranny. 

Cuba, the People’s Republic of Vietnam, Myanmar, the Philippines, Hati, Laos, Cambodia, and a multitude of repressive African countries should be added to this list by association.

Next would be nations for which social expectations are higher, but that are spiraling toward social failure. Mexico belongs on this list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Old fashioned? Yes. But I've never quite got the hang of the Trump doctrine, which amounts to 'screw you jack, I'm alright' and nothing else by way of ideology. Hope I never shall.

Really?

Qasem Soleimani

ISIS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Nobu said:

Senator, we’re both part of the same hypocrisy. But never think it applies to my family.

I think I should clarify. Except for being disfavorable against the last US president, I am not particularly favorable towards D. My comment was a cumulative personal reaction against the comments (against any woman) based on her weight, skin-color, extra-marital affairs and whatnot. If they are incompetent, I dont care if that is pointed out, it should be pointed out. Would I be annoyed if an R woman was called "willing cum-dumpster" because of extra marital affairs? I hope so. But I have not seen it yet in the topics I follow. I just want the posting in here to be a little better than "out there", and I am probably way too naive for today's political climate.

I have appologized to Michael in private, and will do it here to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stefan Fredriksson said:

I think I should clarify. Except for being disfavorable against the last US president, I am not particularly favorable towards D. My comment was a cumulative personal reaction against the comments (against any woman) based on her weight, skin-color, extra-marital affairs and whatnot. (,,,)

Here there should be a quite illustrative profile of Ms. Harris.

5 minutes ago, Stefan Fredriksson said:

I have appologized to Michael in private, and will do it here to.

Another reason to not put you on ignore.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Detonable said:

Really?

Qasem Soleimani

ISIS

Quite true. Then Trump did not do enough with Cuba and Venezuela, and that inaction came to bite him in the rear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Stefan Fredriksson said:

I think I should clarify. Except for being disfavorable against the last US president, I am not particularly favorable towards D. My comment was a cumulative personal reaction against the comments (against any woman) based on her weight, skin-color, extra-marital affairs and whatnot. If they are incompetent, I dont care if that is pointed out, it should be pointed out. Would I be annoyed if an R woman was called "willing cum-dumpster" because of extra marital affairs? I hope so. But I have not seen it yet in the topics I follow. I just want the posting in here to be a little better than "out there", and I am probably way too naive for today's political climate.

I have appologized to Michael in private, and will do it here to.

No clarification necessary, as I both understood your position and respected it.

The quote was in reference to ilk. It would have been an applicable response.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stefan Fredriksson said:

My comment was a cumulative personal reaction against the comments (against any woman) based on her weight, skin-color, extra-marital affairs and whatnot. If they are incompetent, I dont care if that is pointed out, it should be pointed out. Would I be annoyed if an R woman was called "willing cum-dumpster" because of extra marital affairs? I hope so. But I have not seen it yet in the topics I follow.

The treatment of Sarah Palin by the Left during her run for VP was every bit as shabby as Harris' by the Right now - allegations about her handicapped kid being an incest product, rape threats (by other women), etc.; and some honest leftists were horrified at it and stated that their camp had lost any moral claim to "fighting for women". That's irrespective of Palin's abilities or crazy remarks she made then or later; personally I was smitten by her initial image as a rugged Alaskan snowcat-driving, shooting, fishing housewife governor fighter until she opened her mouth in the debates. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

The sad thing is there are plenty of countries that have horrible leaders and governments that deserve to be over thrown. Iraq under hussean and Afghanistan under the taliban.  The Norks under any of the little kim's. Russia under putin, China under the commies. Countries under islamic  tyranny. 

I dont disagree, but Iraq demonstrated the old adage of being able to lead a horse to water and all that.

I should qualify what I said, I would be in favour of defence of nations that embrace those values.  Not pick and choose like we have with Ukraine or Taiwan either. And when other nations pick up those values, defend those too. Its expensive, but far less expensive than not doing so.

I cant warm to this 'ourselves alone' rubbish, whether its Brexit or America first. It ignores how the world is moving which is closer integrated whether we want it or not. Inevitably either our values will succeed, or China and Russia's will succeed.

I dont believe we will succeed by indiference.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Detonable said:

Really?

Qasem Soleimani

ISIS

Tell me, what did the US do when its ally, Iraq, got bombarded by ballistic missiles, and your servicemen came under fire, some injured?

Whether Qasem Soleimani was the right decision or not I cant say. i can say demonstrating to Iran a complete lack of resolve to defend your own servicemen sent a powerful message, and one that Biden may yet pay for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bojan said:

Well, so far I have not seen a war in the last 20 years that he did not want to be involved. Ok, not him personally, but you get a point. :D He even supported Libya, despite later claims to the contrary.

No, I didnt. I supported Gadaffi being removed, yes, but not by us, it was a matter purely for the Libyan people. I can remember arguing with Swerve about that quite forcefully. Go back and do a search and prove me wrong.

Was not in favour of getting involved in the Saudi/Yemen Conflict. We are, RAF staff are handling their targeting.

Didnt want to get involved in Ukraine, though I wanted to supply them weapons and training.

Didnt want to get us involved in Afghanistan, though after we did, I didnt see the point in withdrawing before it was done.

East Timor, Burma, Georgia. Diddnt want to get involved in any of those either.

 

 

I can give you a list, would it be helpful next time you want to post falsehoods on the forum Bojan?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

The treatment of Sarah Palin by the Left during her run for VP was every bit as shabby as Harris' by the Right now - allegations about her handicapped kid being an incest product, rape threats (by other women), etc.

Horse hockey!
No. They're not. The Left was making shit up about Palin. They were being vitriolic about every thing. 

In the case of Harris there's the clearly stated and reported on issue with her entry into politics by way of the bedroom. This was widely reported THEN as her avenue in and has been a shadow over her career the whole time. Most of the other complaints about Harris clearly hinge on her lack of likability AND her policies while in office. 

When you dig into them the details are that the affair wasn't while Brown was married. NOT that it didn't happen. The affair is in fact acknowledged as FACT. Willie Brown even admits it. https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/Sure-I-dated-Kamala-Harris-So-what-13562972.php

 

Quote

.; and some honest leftists were horrified at it and stated that their camp had lost any moral claim to "fighting for women".

She slept her way into her appointments by the Mayor/House Speaker. Then she was chosen as the VP candidate after dropping out ENTIRELY because she had NO chance of winning her own state. She was chosen BECAUSE of her demographics. 

How that's supposed to be some sort of guide post for women I don't know. 

She clearly has other less than stellar things that she did while acting as Attorney General. The issues of having smoked pot AND also putting people in prison for drug charges is entirely questionable from a basic ethics perspective. Joking about it too isn't very ideal. 

Every bit as shabby as Palin's treatment my left foot. Every bit of what I saw about Palin was either the made up crap from SNL or how they didn't like her face or other crap about how she was from Alaska and it wasn't a real job or something. 

 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still remember when the left was making stupid comments about 'General Betray Us'. A colossial fuckwit stupid thing to say, because all the man was trying to do was stand up Iraq enough to get the hell out. Yes, there is an entire realm of the American left devoted to being fuckwit stupid and saying stupid things.  Although personally I would have hoped that would be a call for caution rather than outright emulation.

I dont really care who Kamala Harris screwed, I really dont. Nobody really paid much attention to Ted Kennedy's bedfellows did they? Well post Chapaquiddick anyway...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I still remember when the left was making stupid comments about 'General Betray Us'. A colossial fuckwit stupid thing to say, because all the man was trying to do was stand up Iraq enough to get the hell out. Yes, there is an entire realm of the American left devoted to being fuckwit stupid and saying stupid things.  Although personally I would have hoped that would be a call for caution rather than outright emulation.

I dont really care who Kamala Harris screwed, I really dont. Nobody really paid much attention to Ted Kennedy's bedfellows did they? Well post Chapaquiddick anyway...

 

Did Kennedy get his job in exchange for sex?  That's the issue, not that she had a sex life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isnt it just like American politics where its implied a women can only have got her place by giving blowjobs or other services? I might fault Margret Thatcher for a lot of things, but nobody on the left ever implied she pulled a train to get to the top. I mean, jesus christ, who would want to anyway? Well other than perhaps Cecil Parkinson.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...