Not interested in taking this off task.
Posted By: The question is directed to pubs about pubs. nm on 2008-09-01
In Reply to: Why do all of a sudden want to hold leaders accountable? - sam
nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I am on task.
You answered your own challenge here. Of course you cannot reduce taxes, give tax breaks (or whatever other ill-considered literal read you may choose) on people who do not pay them. That would lead any person with a triple-digit IQ to conclude that he is referring to people currently paying taxes....wouldn't it? Your main premise is faulty, as in flawed, caput, no dice, etc. Let's state the obvious again, in case you weren't paying attention. You can't cut something that is not there. We agree on that one.
However, we not agree on your assertion that Obama is lying. According to you, any movement of wealth out of the hands of those who earned it into the hands of those who didn't is redistribution of wealth. Perhaps those fat cat oil company CEOs and stockholders would not agree with your argument. The O windfall profit proposal is a one-time jump-start energy rebate aimed at economic stimulus for middle class families, who in case you haven't noticed lately, are having a helluva of time. It is not a permanent scheme where Americans become "collective owners" of the resource (decidedly more Marxist) as Palin's is...income sharing at its finest hour. There is a difference, all right, but not the one you are willing to concede.
Again, we see you dance around the issue of the long-established progressive tax structure question and just how is it socialist only when Obama reforms it? You cannot seem to answer that fundamental central issue, can you?
No, let's don't. Let's stay on task.
0
Again. Could you PLEASE stay on task.
!
Sorry. Just trying to stay on task.
Thread started out about hate speech, then turned toward lawsuit. Silly me. Do you always change the subject when you start to look stupid? The only plants at the SP rallies spring up from the seeds of bigotry and racism that come spilling out of her mouth every time she opens it...in the form of a crop of hateful ignorance. Must make you feel right proud.
You as well need to stay on task...
Fact. He has said he is going to give a tax break to 95% of the American people. 40% of the American people don't even pay federal taxes. How can you give a tax break to people who don't even pay taxes? In the form of a check. How ELSE is he going to do that? THAT is classic redistribution of wealth Marxist style. Either he is lying about the 95%, or he is going to cut a lot of checks. YOU tell ME how he is going to do it.
As far as Palin...you really need to focus here. Yes, she did a windfall profits task. And yes, she distributed it to the Alaskan people. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, rich and poor alike, every single citizen of Alaska. That is NOT redistribution of wealth. See the difference? And it is not taking from the tax coffers that everyone in Alaska paid into...which is what Obama is going to do. He is going to tax small businesses and the so-called rich (the threshold for which gets smaller every day) and redistribute that to 95% of people...40% of whom don't even pay federal income tax.
Marxist re-distribution of wealth.
No soup for you either, but plenty of ice cream.
You seem to be having a little trouble staying on task.
Let's try this again. The subjct is guilt by association. The post you are answering listed Mc'Cain's associates as follows:
Just off the top of my head:
1. US Council for World Freedo. Can you say Iran contra? How about dong business with terrorists (the arms seller AND the arms customer)?
2. Phil Gramm, (co-chair of the McCain campaign), champion of Enron tax loopholes and author of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that effectively neutralized any existing regulation of financial services industry. You remember good ole Phil. He's the one talking on McCain's behalf when he said we were having a "mental recession" and we have a nation of a bunch of whiners.
3. Gordon Liddy. That's the guy who got a 20-year sentence for his conviction of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping in the Watergate fiasco. m
4. Let's don't forget the Keating 5.
5. Richard Quinn, publisher of Southern Heritage ragazine for neo-confederates…unapologetic bigotry and proud of it!
6. Rick Davis, McCain CEO, lobbyist, paid $15,000 each month for "consulting" from end of 2005 until September 2008.
Let me spell out the issue at hand. If we are to infer that Obama embodies the phuilisophies of each and every single person or organization that he has ever encountered dring the corse of his lifetime, then we can infer the same about McCain. Are you with me so far? an appropriate, direct and credible response would not include the word democrat in it. It would deal with the issue at hand and with the list of pub snakes McCain pals around with.
I think you're the one who needs to stay on task
you even asked it. Go back up a few posts and you'll see where I said:
"I'd say the same about anyone who dies after they cast their vote but before the election. It shouldn't count. Where's the accountability?"
Anyone would refer to grandma, pap, brother, sis, aunt, uncle, etc.
Geez, you people make it so easy for me to feel smart. 
Next time, please try to stay on post task.
1st paragraph. I agree. That's why O's and B's supporters are voting for them. Not more government. Better government...smarter government…and one with vision for a different America than what you cons are peddling. You are straying from the subject again. Pay attention. The discussion is about O and JM how JM's plan differs from Bush's plan. On the voting record, last time I checked only O and JM are running for president and those are the voting records we are inspecting now. It is the 90+% of MC'CAIN'S votes in support of Bush's initiatives that we now showcase. Do not complicate the plan comparisons with a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors peripheral unknowns. Candidates. Got it?
Have it your way. Bush adopted O's exit strategy first and JM followed his lead who followed O's lead. He did not start talking exit at all until the Bush flip-flop(s) (i.e., we dont negotiate with terrorists but a US interests section in Iran might work) began getting press during the primary campaigns. I have not had time to examine the context from which you lifted O's surge statement from the other O's Fox interview which you continually and confidently predicted he was too scared to do. Once I do that, I will comment further on the surge statement. Don't know how to tell you this, but the surge was not the greatest national security/foreign policy decision, although it is plain to see that the cons often get military strategies pretty mixed up with foreign policy. Again, ask the Iraqis how successful our missions have been at slaughtering more than 100,000 of their family members. Another bubble to burst here. There are many among us who do not feel that the war has made our nation safer from terrorists. So, in fact, we are not done with this subject, no matter how quickly you would like to dismiss it. Obama was simply trying to avoid MORE quagmire and advance the withdrawal plan that is not only promoted by him, but now suddently promoted by Bush and JM in tow. Some call it vision, others call it judgment.
Did not ask about JMs speeching. Asked about the plan. What is it, if he laid it out so plainly? Must have missed all that between the fear/military references last night. BTW, as I told you in the past post, govt transparency is a democratic initiative that was launched back in the early 90s during the Clinton administration, squashed during the undercover Bush administration and is now clearly articulated in O's technology section under issues.
Cons cannot speak for democrats as to how they can or cannot define pork barrel spending. I know very well what it is. I do find your example of moveon.org rather peculiar in this context. When was the last time they benefited from pork barrel legislation? Please do not reply with a regurgitation of Fox and O'Reilly campaign to demonize the group. You want to talk PACs, fine, but put them in the correct context and tread very lightly for your own sake.
The class warfare is waged by pubs against dem constituents, so yes, I am familiar with that subject and plan to continue to advocate and support measures that will level that playing field. I have a lot of company in that regard. TBone advocates drilling once or twice inside the context of a whole arsenal of other energy initiatives that you discount by omission. He does not, however, try to sell the public on the notion that this will bring prices down anytime in the first of second terms of the upcoming administrations like JM and company would have us believe. On the American imperialist delusions of grandeur, if you have to ask, no soup for you. Would be a waste of time, but this concept is not lost on the better versed in Bush/Cheney NeoCon visions which JM is trying to deny and embrace at the same time. Good luck with that one.
Stay on task, sam. This thread is about refuting
Guess you can't reconcile facts staring you straight in the face with the fiction you couldn't wait to post. Again, if O voted against Katrina funds, there had to have been something REALLY stinky the proposal, and I for one prefer to wait and see exactly what it was before passing judgment.
Why do pubs have so much trouble staying on task?
I like facts. Troopergate has lots of them. Try reading it. Then try answering the questions. Challenge yourself. Get though one single entire post, begining to end, without trashing Obama. Can you handle that? Probably not, but give it your best shot. By the way, there is only one person here who you need to educate....and it ain't me, babe.
Why do pubs have such difficulty staying on task?
Evidently smearing the dems is more important to you than equal pay for women. With this kind of tendency to self destruct, no wonder you folks lost so many elections.
Chavez Takes Bush to Task Over Iraq War
See link
Counting by hand of 100 million votes would be a task...sm
Not that it is an unworthy one, I just doubt it will be done.
One idea was that the computer gives the voter a reciept of their selection and then the reciept, once verified by the voter, is deposited into the machine.
Brainstorming, I suggest they take it one step further and have a real time tally for each candidate per voting center. That way the voters can verify that their vote was casted, counted, and affected the number. The last voters, along with the volunteers could verify the final numbers for the districts.
Pubs can't stay on task if their lives depended on it.
Americans don't elect issues wimps.
You evidently have a hard time staying on task.
if your mother, father, daughter, son, grandmother, grandfather, husband or best friend cast a vote in the early election and passed away on November 4th, how would it make you feel if their votes were thrown out?
I am interested in this
What is a little definition? And how is your definition a big definition. Can you provide sources for this categorization?
I am still waiting for the sources of the claim that a liberal poster(s) has stalked a conservative poster(s) at some point. I find this very very intriguing and eagerly await the details!!!
If you are interested, there is more...
on this on the America's Most Wanted website with some more detail. It does not appear to be biased one way or the other...and there is some food for thought there. They seem to be leaning more toward what I said...that the agents should have been reprimanded but the sentence appears pretty harsh. One of the agents has since been beaten up in prison, AMW contends, by other inmates who recognized him from the show (Hispanics yelling kill the border agent) while they beat him up. I did not try to confirm that part of it. At any rate...I do not think, after reading all of this, it would be wrong for the White House to pardon these two men, even if that pardon included removing them as border patrol agents, if that is what it took. Point being...at most border situations, it is going to be the guards and the illegals and no one else...so there does need to be accountability for border patrol agents...and frankly, illegals, I still say, should have NO legal standing in this country and should understand that if they cross illegally. That does not mean that border patrol should have carte blanche to shoot people, that is not what I am saying. THEY need to be accountable to our legal system. However, the illegals should have no standing and should realize that when they come here illegaly. I know that there are many on the liberal side, and perhaps even on the RINO side but I have not heard of any... who disagree with that and think they should have the same rights as US citizens. I disagree with that strongly.
Ok....certainly your right! Was interested...
in what the kinda judgmental poster who was horrified that she was pregnant and saying that the family had no values because of that...if that poster thought abortion would have been better. Frankly, the fact that the girl elected to marry the father and have the child shows me that her family values are in place. To save the child is also a choice, and I think she made the right one.
Thanks for your answer!
For anyone who is interested...
http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/dnc_corruption.htm
I had no idea there was this much stuff out there.
very interested--thank you! nm
x
Thanks, but no thanks. I'm more interested in
x
Since you are so interested, ...(sm)
I actually did do your research for you, just not in this thread. Try looking under the next thread up about credible sources. That was the point -- the fact that you could not say what you meant, you just spouted out some crap you heard on TV, and then got mad because someone called you on it. Grow up.
P.S. Is this something the ACLU would be interested in?
Thanks again.
I have to say, honestly, I am just not interested.
That is my true feeling on the matter. I am absolutely zero vested in conspiracy theories or ascribing blame. Blame will not bring back anyone and at the same time, I feel there was a long long line of failures leading up to 9/11 that started way before President Bush and continued through many presidencies. I hope, no matter what, in the end they can have peace of mind. I am sure it has to be hard for them.
Interested in knowing...sm
Not to rehash the debate but was it Stephen or another poster who supposedly made threats against the president. I missed that.
the nation really isn't interested
It's just a device used by the neocons to keep the attention of the stifled. They know that the repressed loonies in the county slobber over anything pertaining to sex. Just look at O'Reilly. Nearly every night he has some story about prostitutes, strip clubs, girls gone wild -- he is complaining how horrible it is, yet they always have tapes behind him of half-naked coeds grinding away. If it is so horrible, must we see the tapes over and over?
I'm sure you would have missed it since all you are interested in sm
is your own agenda. You can't even listen to anyone else's point of view and all you can respond with is sarcasm.
For those interested.....here is the blog
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obamas-college.html
I am learning too but interested in
even-sided with obama and dodd's names all over the place?
Not really interested in talking to you. nm
x
What it tells me is that you are interested in
naysaying, innuendo, division, polarization and the like. Sam, what matters to most of us savoring this incredible moment in our history is not what happened in the past. In this way, even the shrub gets a get out of jail card. My interest lies in the future and I see nothing suspicious or scary about Obama despite your best efforts after all these months. I also am not interested in preaching to the choir from either side. What I think matters now is that we try our best to get past this election and on with the business of uniting ourselves behind our leadership and start tackling the very difficult challenges we face on so many fronts. The economy is an equal opportunity crisis. Addressing global warming, the environment and alternative energy offers the promise of benefit for us all, and peace on earth is a goal that we share with the peoples of the world. Those matter to me. Not the implied, possible nefarious ties Rahm Emanuel may or may not have with the boogey man.
but she did not say she is not - I am not worried - just interested - nm
x
The world is interested because -
America has always been a leader in the world and looked up to until the last few years. I don't believe there is anything sinister going on because the world is excited. So much of what goes on in the world revolved around the US for so long. Nobody used to care that everyone looked to us for guidance - what is the problem with it now? I for one am glad that people are beginning to look at us as leaders again and not with the contempt and disdain that they have been feeling!
Another one I would be interested in vetting is
Tom Tancredo of Colorado.
Here's something interested we heard
Last night we were watching the movie Demolition Man. Don't know if you've ever seen it. Sylvester Stallone goes in cryostasis and 70 or so years later he's brought out to hunt down a killer (Wesley Snipes). Anyway...here's what's interesting. He's riding in the car with Sandra Bullock and she tells him Schwartenneger was president. He said something about him being foreign born and she made mention that because he was so popular they changed the ammendment.
DH & I looked at each other and said isn't that interesting.
So pretty much you are interested in
throwing out smears that you are not willing to back up with facts, citations or examples and baiting other posters. You also don't seem to care how ignorant you sound, given the fact that it is patently clear you don't have a clue as to the meaning of racism or bigotry. You also seem quite unwilling to engage in any meaningful debate on the so-called pot-shot issues you fire off in your drive-bys. To top it all off, so far you have shown yourself to have a fairly juvenile, shallow, superficial and limited form of thinking.
Should you decide to step up to the plate and actually post something of substance you are willing to exercise some intellect over, I'll be more than happy to accommodate. In the meantime, I'd rather use my time more productively reading up on the latest news.
So pretty much you are interested in
throwing out smears that you are not willing to back up with facts, citations or examples and baiting other posters. You also don't seem to care how ignorant you sound, given the fact that it is patently clear you don't have a clue as to the meaning of racism or bigotry. You also seem quite unwilling to engage in any meaningful debate on the so-called pot-shot issues you fire off in your drive-bys. To top it all off, so far you have shown yourself to have a fairly juvenile, shallow, superficial and limited form of thinking.
Should you decide to step up to the plate and actually post something of substance you are willing to exercise some intellect over, I'll be more than happy to accommodate. In the meantime, I'd rather use my time more productively reading up on the latest news.
I was more interested in the idea that...(sm)
Alaska is getting hit financially because of the drop in the cost of oil, and yet Palin seems to think this is a perfect time to basically give herself a whopping 20% raise. Sounds some CEOs that I've heard of recently.
You are such a child, interested only in
sake. Do you know what leftie means?
No, I was more interested in what our President had to say
And it was refreshing to here an intelligent, thoughtful speech.
No doubt, that's all he would be interested in doing.
x
You might be interested to know this is the country
Honest to gorblimey, you need to try to blow some of those liberal cobwebs out of your cranium.
Not even interested in the architects of the 9/11 disaster. sm
They either have more lucrative interests in Iraq or are just bent on ridding it of Saddam or all of the above (too much history there), and we all know good and well there were no jihadist extremist there before America invaded that country, so this so-called War on Terror in Iraq was INVENTED.
I am sure the troops in Afghanistan would be interested to know they are not there.
,
I'm really not interested in arguing the point...sm
Of who is worst because you are right they all were wrong. I just don't understand why when someone does something wrong people expect you to not say anything about it because *others* have committed similar crimes in the past and got away with it. And??
I understand being upset about Studd and even Clinton if you feel that strongly about it, but don't expect business as usual when a scandal like this hits the fan. People are going to talk about it. 23 years ago when Studd was having his affair I was in grade school so excuse me for first not knowing what you were talking about (until I researched it) and second not seeing the relevance of it in the case of Foley. I'm sure there was outrage for what Studd did too. Now upon learning about Studd and his (I can't say that here), I even said I do not know how or why the people continued to vote him in and yeah he should have had the decency to step down. Sorry you think I'm being partisan - NO far from it. I am always disgusted with people who prey on children, birth to the day before they turn 18, sexually.
Oh and don't expect me or anyone else to think Foley is some stand up type of guy because he stepped down AFTER GETTING CAUGHT, mind you. Had he not been caught he would still be IM'ing children.
Yeah Clinton was wrong for lying under oath. He should have told the truth and apologized *to his wife*. It's not like it is illegal to have an extramarital affair.
Like you said, they are all morally wrong, but I tend to be more disgusted with child predators. It doesn't matter if you agree with me (there are plenty of people who do). We'll just have to agree to disagree.
One point you didn't bring up was Foley's job responsibility. That makes it a little more eerie. Are people not supposed to be disappointed that this is who we have in charge of protecting our children?
Anyone interested in the candidates houses? SM
On the www.apartmentherapy website, they feature the candidates homes. I love that site. Anway...spoiler alert, if anyone cares.
________________________________
What I found interesting is Mitt Romney lives in a comptemporary home on the water, which is pictured next to Barack Obama's conservative georgian style home.
OK, not of vital interest, I just love looking at homes. 
MasonD, If you are really interested in the truth...
and not bash posting, take a little look at the internet...google Clinton Iraq WMD and see what you get. Clinton thought there were WMD during his administration too. Don't you remember him getting on the TV and telling us all how Iraq had WMD and if they did not comply with the UN and let the inspectors in we might have to use force? I bet I could find that on You Tube or someplace. The CIA director at that time was George Tenet. When Bush was elected, he did not fire Tenet, he kept him on (BAD mistake in hindsight I would say). Tenet told the Congress and everyone else (now this is the head of the CIA mind you, left over from Clinton's Administration) that it was a slam dunk that Iraq had WMD. Soooo...if it is a lie it was one that started during the Clinton administration. So St. Bill believed it too. Even though he seems to have amnesia regarding that fact until a news show confronted him with it. And then it was the stuttering and stammering and "yes I believed it then...but I don't believe it now." Yeah right. Nothing changed between now and then...sheesh. Had that deer in the headlights I did not have sex with that woman MS Lewinsky look.
It really is just amazing to me that you folks cannot see any of the faults in Democrats but EVERY fault in Republicans...lol.
Here are ALL the figures in case anyone is interested...
First---100% of southern Republicans...consisted of ONE senator. When one senator votes against something, yeah, that is 100%. Sheesh. Take a look at ALL the figures.
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X at the United States Capitol on March 26, 1964. Both men had come to hear the Senate debate on the bill.Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, from Mississippi. Under Eastland's care, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a brief filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance on passage of the bill itself. The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964.
Shortly thereafter, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73-27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, We have lost the South for a generation.[2]
[edit] Vote totals
Totals are in "Yes-No" format:
The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)
[edit] By party
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 153-96 (64%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
[edit] By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
Yes, I agree that things change. And the Democratic party got interested in African Americans AFTER they got the vote. Coincidence? I think not.
Not to fear. The Chinese are interested in...
...purchasing these American icons. More selling out of America, right under our noses.
Thank you, Congress. 
Chinese Automakers May Buy GM and Chrysler
By Bertel Schmitt
November 18, 2008 -
Chinese carmakers SAIC and Dongfeng have plans to acquire GM and Chrysler, China's 21st Century Business Herald reports today. [A National Enquirer the paper is not. It is one of China's leading business newspapers, with a daily readership over three million.] The paper cites a senior official of China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology–– the state regulator of China's auto industry–– who dropped the hint that "the auto manufacturing giants in China, such as Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) and Dongfeng Motor Corporation, have the capability and intention to buy some assets of the two crisis-plagued American automakers." These hints are very often followed with quick action in the Middle Kingdom. The hints were dropped just a few days after the same Chinese government gave its auto makers the go-ahead to invest abroad. And why would they do that?
A take-over of a large overseas auto maker would fit perfectly into China's plans. As reported before, China has realized that its export chances are slim without unfettered access to foreign technology. The brand cachet of Chinese cars abroad is, shall we say, challenged. The Chinese could easily export Made-in-China VWs, Toyotas, Buicks. If their joint venture partner would let them. The solution: Buy the joint venture partner. Especially, when he's in deep trouble.
At current market valuations (GM is worth less than Mattel) the Chinese government can afford to buy GM with petty cash. Even a hundred billion $ would barely dent China's more than $2t in currency reserves. For nobody in the world would buying GM and (while they are at it) Chrysler make more sense than for the Chinese. Overlap? What overlap? They would gain instant access to the world's markets with accepted brands, and proven technology.
21st Century Business Herald, obviously with input from higher-up, writes that Chinese industry must change and upgrade. China wants their factories to change from low-value-added manufacturing to technically innovative and financially-sound high-value-add industries. Says the paper: "It would be much easier now for strong Chinese automakers to go global by acquiring some assets of their U.S. counterparts in times of crisis."
Deloitte & Touche sees a trend: "Chinese automakers can start with buying out the OEM projects and Chinese ventures of some global carmakers such as GM and Chrysler."
The Chinese appear to have bigger plans than an accounting firm can imagine. 21st Century Business Herald acts and writes as if its already a done deal, and the beginning of more to come. "In the coming two years China is likely to see a few of its large Chinese automakers and other manufacturing enterprises set a precedent for achieving globalization by acquiring global companies, just like SAIC or Dongfeng's possible acquisition of troubled GM or Chrysler."
Just in case you missed it, the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) is China's largest auto manufacturer. In 1984, the company entered a joint venture with Volkswagen. A decade later, SAIC entered a joint venture with General Motors. In 2007, SAIC bought the Nanjing Automobile Corporation, which had acquired British MG Rover in 2005.
Dongfeng Motor Corporation is a public company, although 70 percent of their shares are reported to be in government hands. They also are one of China's Big Three. The company has numerous joint venture partners, such as Nissan, Peugeot-Citroen, Honda, and Kia. Dongfeng (which means "East Wind") was founded at the behest of Mao Zedong himself in 1968.
Would be interested in your input to posts below
nm
Not interested, really... we've heard it all before
.
|
