Detroit Vs Japan

L.W.(ßill) Hughes III wrote:
> America, love it, or leave it! You got a problem with that?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> http://www.billhughes.com/
>
> JohnM wrote:
>
>>Geez, bill, why so nasty?

You must be awful frustrated in real life to be getting on here with
random nastiness toward those who have opinions which you don't like.

Would you like to talk about it?

John

L.W.(ßill) Hughes III wrote:
> I'll be finished when we nuke your country.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> http://www.billhughes.com/
>

Nice to see that christian love at work..

Funny, you didn't ask what his country is- wouldn't Jesus be impressed
if he happens to live next door to you? Love thy neighbor and all that
rot that don't fit with the hateful christian, eh?

Wonder if Jesus reads usenet..

John

Stephen Cowell wrote:
> "L.W. (ßill) Hughes III" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> What reliability problems were there? People bashing American
>>products say that, but are never capable of giving us an example.
>
>
> Here's two... soft '80s Olds camshafts, and the conversion
> diesels. Plenty more where that came from... now you can't
> say 'never' again!
> __
> Steve
> .

The truck v-6 diesel was a toad, they shouldn't have done that (diesel
conversion of the 350 v-6 years ago).

The Olds diesel is a good motor (well, the DX block is, don't know if
there's any D blocks left). As Bill said, if you feed it gasoline it's
not going to like you but other than that I've found them to be very
much worth having.

Got one in a Sedan deVille right now.. it's not any too much motor to
haul that car around, but it does a good job. I guess mileage, with
lock-up convertor, at around 25 or so on the highway, I see no problem
with that.

John

I will remind you of what you wrote "Geez, that sounds like part of
what makes it a nice place." Was your reply to what Tom wrote about
Japanese Geisha Girls feeling American genitals. Comprende?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

JohnM wrote:
>
> I'll have to ask you what Tijuana has to do with Japan..
>
> John

Nathan W. Collier wrote:

> imÂ*sayingÂ*thatÂ*typicalÂ*non-unionÂ*employeesÂ*canÂ*doÂ*itÂ*betterÂ*simply
> because we stand upon our own merit.Â*Â*weÂ*haveÂ*noÂ*otherÂ*protectionÂ*beyond
> our skills and work ethic.

I'm not against someone working non-union, but from my experience, non-union
workers typically do not do it better in the construction trades. Many
companies hire guys in and give them limited training. I've seen some
pretty shifty work from non-union guys. I've seen some non-union guys do
good work, but they tend to be the exception. I don't fault the workers
themselves, necessarily, because relying on a company that's only out for
its own profitability to provide training, sending them to trade schools,
is not necessarily the best way. They tend to get the bare minimum and the
companies often don't provide the necessary tools to get the job done
properly. Usually, non-union guys are responsible to provide their own
tools, and many times that means a minimal set of tools. Our companies
provide us all our tools and we get all that we need to properly do the
job.

I salute you for your efforts in your career, but my experience is
different.


--

Registered Linux user #378193

The union construction guys are very good sometimes and sometimes they
aren't. Thye problem with the unions is they get bad leadership
sometimes and once that happens getting them out is impossible.

The UAW did the auto industry no favors in the 60s and 70's which is
why everyone bought Toyotas. I don't have a problem with them making
the money they do, but I want first class workmanship for that much
money.

wrote:

> The union construction guys are very good sometimes and sometimes they
> aren't. Thye problem with the unions is they get bad leadership
> sometimes and once that happens getting them out is impossible.

I won't argue with that one bit.

> The UAW did the auto industry no favors in the 60s and 70's which is
> why everyone bought Toyotas. I don't have a problem with them making
> the money they do, but I want first class workmanship for that much
> money.

Well, I think people bought Toyotas in the 70's for several reasons: First
was gas mileage. Second was immediate availability of gas saving vehicles.
Third was the slow response to the market by GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Fourth
was how much nicer their small cars were compared to Mavericks, Pintos,
Chevettes, and Omnis. Fifth was price. Hondas and Toyotas were very
inexpensive cars back then.

There was a lot of bloat in Detroit. During the 1970's, according to
Autoline Detroit, GM hired tons of new workers, mostly unnecessarily. The
bloat was just overwhelming, and the hierarchy to support such size was
full of bureaucracy. It was just a tremendous mess. Since WWII, we went
from many competitors on the market such as Nash, Packard, Hudson,
Studebacker, and others to the Big 3 and AMC. They got fat and lazy.

I really don't think that the UAW had much to do with the problem. It was
poor management and an inability to respond in a timely manner to changing
market conditions. They blamed government regulation and they simply didn't
take the foreign threat seriously.


--

Registered Linux user #378193

I believe American cars were much better relative to the rest of the
world when we had both the majors and the independents. It's no
accident that the most reliable and toughest fifties and sixties
vehicles made in America with the highest percentage still on the road
and with loyal actitvist owner's clubs are Studebaker and International
Harvester. (Jeep was part of an independent then too.) In the late
sixties and early seventies American cars sucked. The Vega was a rust
ball with an engine that self-destructed in some cases in nine months,
the Pinto would explode if rear ended (but ironically had some good
drivelines!), on and on.

That was a personal opinion, and not based on any fact. My opinion
of you is that you don't give a **** about my home land, America! I
consider you a traitor.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Ruel Smith wrote:
><snip BS>

"Ruel Smith" > wrote in message
...
> I salute you for your efforts in your career, but my experience is
> different.

ditto. in the end i dont suppose it matters. those who care about what
they do are going to succeed at it with or without union support.

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com