Comments (16) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   WillBerry said, 7 months ago

   Actually the Great Impostor did not do the firing face-to-face. He had someone else call Wagoner and tell him. Now that is really brave!

2. 

   danielsangeo said, 7 months ago

   WillBerry: Actually, Obama didn’t fire him at all. He doesn’t have that authority.

3. 

   danielsangeo said, 7 months ago

   “You’re right. Jackazz shouldn’t have that authority to do that, and yet…”

   …he doesn’t. Wagoner wasn’t fired.

4. 

   HOWGOZIT said, 7 months ago

   Even Steny Hoyer (D_MD) said he wondered where President got “authority” to remove CEO; with or without he did it according th ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, FOX etc., etc.

5. 

   danielsangeo said, 7 months ago

   No one fired Wagoner, regardless of what the news media says.

6. 

   wbr said, 7 months ago

   stewiez wishes to apologize to the world for our moronic electorate that gave the world our daily embarrassment, Jackazzsays:
   I’d like to see you BOTH step down.

   i agree

7. 

   HOWGOZIT said, 7 months ago

   That’s your opinion Daniels and you are more than entitled to it. But let the truth come forward.

8. 

   danielsangeo said, 7 months ago

   Actually, there’s only one fact. It’s not my opinion that he wasn’t fired. Unless you have some contrary evidence or some definition of “fire” that is not commonly used, the truth is: Wagoner wasn’t fired.

9. 

   motivemagus said, 7 months ago

   daniel: you’re being a bit disingenuous here. Wagoner stepped down because otherwise GM would receive no further government help. Technically, he “chose” to step down, but if he didn’t bankruptcy would be the next step. In practice, when a top executive gets fired, they often say that they “resigned” or “stepped down” to avoid nastiness afterwards. I think it’s safe to say that government money meant more to GM than Wagoner. Which doesn’t mean Obama fired him, of course. If anything, GM decided to let him go, based on dealing with government pressure.

10. 

    danielsangeo said, 7 months ago

    Sorry if I was unclear. What I meant to say (though I guess my implication was lost – darned text-only media!) was that no one in the Obama Administration fired him. I guess I should’ve said “Wagoner wasn’t fired by Obama.” I thought that’s what I was implying, but, apparently, I was mistaken. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

    I agree with you 100% motivemagus. GM wanted government money more than they wanted Wagoner.

11. 

    Corosive Frog said, 7 months ago

    stewiez, an american can’t be unamerican, it’s nonsense, a paradox.

    I know, I know, I am canadian but I could change it to “a canadian can’t be anti-canadian” and the same logic would apply. Someone can’t hate his own nation. It can hate the political entities that lead it, it’s government, its policies but a nation is more than a government.

    Definition of an unamerican;
    Someone hating americans or against american’s interests.

    If somebody is american, he is, by definition, part of America therefore, his interests are also part of america’s interests. Someone can’t be against his own interests.

    Someone can dislike your conception of america (part of the interests of America), doesn’t mean they hate america and americans. They are america, too so they’d have to hate themselves, too.

    Being against a government doesn’t mean being agains the country or nation it leads. That’s why nobody on the left (well, less people than after 9/11 can before Iraq) said brought up the#8220;you hate Obama, than you’re unamerican” arguement, even though we heard it a lot from the right a few years back when Bush was in power.

12. 

    churchillwasright said, 7 months ago

    CF: Boy are you naive. But that’s OK, I was naive when I was your age too, there’s still hope.

    The point you’re making is one of semantics. One of my semantic (but minor) pet peeves is calling only US citizens Americans. I believe everyone from the continents of North and South America (yes Canadians, too) are Americans. That’s why this country is called the United States _of_ America, not America. It’s a minor sementical point, and I ignore it, just as I will below:

    Of course there are Americans that are anti-American. (All these examples are small minorities, by the way) There are those that would like to throw anyone who is not as white or Christian as they are out of the country (or worse). There are people that don’t believe in borders, especially ours. There are those that believe in the violent overthrow of the government because they don’t believe in a capitalistic democratic republic. Some believe in one world government. There are nazis, skinheads and anarchists. Any of these anti-American?

    The phrase anti-American is thrown around too loosely. Want to be part of the “blame America first” crowd? Go for it. Want us out of Iraq in 16 months? (Bad example, we already won). Want us out of Afghanistan next week even if the taliban come down from the mountains and take over? Hopefully clearer minds will prevail. You’re for or against the stimulus and bailouts? It’s a free country, that’s what makes us great.

    But there are also those who openly hope we lose the wars; they see nothing wrong with protesting at fallen soldiers funerals with signs that say “baby killer” in front of the families. I’d say that’s pretty anti-American.

    Are these anti-American Americans self loathing? NO. They LOVE themselves. It’s everyone else they hate!

13. 

    Corosive Frog said, 7 months ago

    Even all those people, they hate a specific part of America (the non-whites, wars, the government), not the united States themselves. They really think America has better things to do than going into war.

    By the way, your separation of America (US) and America (the continent) is pretty interesting. In french, some conspiracy theorists use the word “États-Uniens” (rough tralslation; United-States’ers) instead of the broader “Américain”.

14. 

    Michigander said, 7 months ago

    Well, we taxpayers have to figure a way out of our financial messes, so should big corporations and financial institutions. If they can’t, then just like in our case, oh well!

15. 

    Corosive Frog said, 7 months ago

    Anyways, those american citizens often labelled as “Anti-American” want what they think is best for America. They don’t really want America to be in trouble or wiped from the face of the Earth and its citizens killed (THAT would be anti-american), they try to avoid america (or some americans) some trouble. They just don’t agree with you on what is best for the country.

    In other word, Anti-American, applied to an american citizen, is a nonsense and childish namecalling the American equivalent of what “Traitor to the Revolution” means or meant in many communist dictatorships.

    It’s like Palin’s “Real America”.

16. 

    believecommonsense said, 7 months ago

    CF, Palin’s “Real Americans” references showed how honest, informed discourse was anathema to her intellect-challenged thinking. Kind of like the Hairdo Hannity’s of the world screaming DO YOU WANT AMERICA TO FAIL? when someone would ask what winning in Iraq meant.