John Adams

I was actually complimenting Trent--I meant he did a good job reading the blitz and finding the hot WR. Of course, then a play happens where he barely has time to make the playfake before the LB is on top of him. Unreal.

Good blitz pickup.

Bad choice. That's a toothless amendment.

I've been hearing about this for months so it's not exactly news.

It's much better here without him. See how nice it's been.

No, you could still be an idiot.

That's twice you've admitted you're wrong in this thread. See a trend? The automakers would not predict this downturn; I'll give you that. But the reason GM and Chrysler are suffering is that they were sucking BEFORE the downturn. Toyota and Honda can weather a downturn better because they have more cash. Why? Those small high quality cars (you know...the ones with lesser performance) made them a ton of money.

730-4 is a decent day's work. My painting of teachers is born of this thing they (you) all do to justify your importance. Some (like you) probably are that good and important. In my experience as a student, father, and teacher, I've run into more teachers who were poor than those who were good. That's my anecdotal evidence. Testing and the state of education provides objective support. The good news is that good teachers make school worthwhile.

(Duh. His username has Flutie in it.)

Thanks for that. I needed a good laugh. I know a lot of teachers. I'll let you know when I meet one that puts in a 9+ hour workday. I have been to a lot of schools. At 5pm (the end of an 8 hour workday), they are empty. Stop with the whining or whine on your Summer vacation. Or your 2 week Christmas break. Or your 1 week Spring Break. And on and on. You have a good important job. Just do it already.

You obviously don't post here a lot. This was actually pretty insightful for PastaJoe.

Just because you keep saying this doesn't make it so. Toyota is not a high performance car brand and yet it's the No. 1 autoseller and is on the rise while the Big 2 fall. Ditto Honda on the rise. Ford has gotten better because of its Escape and Focus, not because of the Mustang, Explorer, Expedition (all of which were down in 2007-8).

Understood. I was actually talking about innovation being stifled across a broader spectrum because of things like windfall profit taxation.

That's a nice meaningless stat from the 2007 numbers. Let's look at things now: In Nov 2008, the Tundra sold 6,607 units. 11/2007: 19,571. For the Prius...2008:8,660. 2007:12,494. Seeing as how you're putting on such an impressive display of business acumen, I'm guessing you'd say the Tundra is doing better than the Prius.

And 2005, after the Prius was released (God knows how they had the foresight to release it.)

Here's 2007. The Camry comes standard as a V4.

Did you miss his point? Let me clear it up: You're a !@#$ing moron.

I don't have a boss nimrod. Riiiiight. The huge Camry and Corolla...not to mention the Yaris, Prius, and RAV4. See actual November data below doofus. It shows that the small car lineup outsells the Highlander/Tacoma beasts by a lot.

You are an idiot. No one HAS to dump money into anything. If Cerebrus's investors don't want to dump money into Chrysler, they need not do it. Again: that's life. They didn't know Chrysler was going to sh-- the bed like this. Let me tell you: If I had a billion dollars in Cerebrus and they said they were going to make a huge investment in the POS Chrysler, I'd pull my money out tomorrow. Some investments are bad. Chrysler is the definition of a bad investment. You really don't get it. (Ford is different. It's actually been forward thinking and has a smaller more efficient lineup on the road already, with fewer cars. They are a success story.)

Please tell me you're a troll. So now you're telling me that whenever the American consumer changes his mind, someone should get a bailout? That's rich brother. Somehow Toyota--though struggling--is not about to collapse. And yet they make mostly smaller cars. How could this be? Could it be that they were better managed? Had better insight? Had less dealers? Invested in fuel efficient cars while GM was putting out Suburbans? And for this failure of foresight, you argue--not just that Am auto needs rescue for the economy's sake--but that they "deserve" a bailout. As if failure somehow MERITS reward. Tell us you're Hogboy, please.

Nein. In times of recession, innovation often flourishes. My point is that if you take away the rewards inherent when businesses take risks (by taxing the businesses when they make money), you take away the incentive for businesses to take risks, innovate, and grow. What's the point?

You obviously do not understand the company that owns Chrysler. Just because it has access to a ton of money doesn't mean it should pour it into Chrysler. They are in business to make money. Why should they dump cash into Chrysler, which is a hugely risky investment, when they have other safer investments? Would you? Of course not. Again, your lack of understanding is baffling. When it comes time to cut back, you cut back. It sucks for long-time business partners as you sever relationships. It sucks for employees. There's no easy way to do it. You just do it. Unless you live in your fairytopia where some gilded-greenbacked angel bails you out. Car dealers can eat sh-- because having too many is part of the problem. The solution is not forcing me to fund them. The dealers took the risk when they went into business with GM and Chrysler that some day, GM and Chrysler might struggle. Now that risk is home to roost.

Your post boils down to this: "American carmakers made bad decisions and are now paying the price." And your solution for a horrible business decision is to make me bail them out? And you have the never to say he's the dumbest person on this message board?

PJ's theory is that if you make money, you don't get to keep it and if you don't make money, the government will bail you out. How's that for capitalism? Can't you just hear innovation screeching to a halt?

When I bought a Lexus, I had a choice of two dealers. They are 60 miles apart and I live between them. Terribly inconvenient. When I asked the dealer why they were so spread out, he said that Lexus requires them to not be near one another. On the other hand, within 10 miles of me are 5 GM dealers that I can think of. GM has something like triple the number of dealerships that Toyota has. Which company is doing better? And how is that Wall Street's fault? Show your work. "Deserve some sort of compensation." So you're in the camp who believes that every time a bell rings, a car dealership should get some money? Do you have ANY understanding that business in this country is based on risk? When things go well, businesses make money. When things go poorly, businesses suffer. That's how things work. There's no bailout fairy for most people. No Elves making magic cars to save American auto. Business is supposed to be, by definition, risky. There's no "deserve" or any of that kumbaya bull sh-- unless the parties to a transaction agree to be nice (which often happens but is not required). I'm guessing you're an academic. A government worker. A student. Or unemployed. If you're none of these, you're just clueless.