Are Republicans Going To Make A Deal With Terrorists?

[Boojatta]

Some terrorists want random Americans to die. New legislation designed to allow automobile manufacturers to cut corners on safety features might not only kill random Americans, but also increase short-term profits for some auto manufacturers.

The danger is that some Democratic politicians might see the deal as a way to improve job security for employees of struggling auto manufacturers.

Who can we rely on to oppose such a deal?

[saltpoint]

1. Can you establish that such a deal even exists?

If you can, can you name the principals?

A "deal" is not the same thing as "legislation." "Negotiation" within the chambers of Congress is not the same as a deal, presumably furtive, between terrorists and automobile manufacturers.

Are you equating automobile manufacturers with terrorism?

I think that's a reach.

Is there really a traceable link between fears over job security and international terrorism? Where is that connection?

[Boojatta]

3. "Can you establish that such a deal even exists?"

Note the future tense: "Are Republicans Going To Make A Deal...." Do deals that have not yet been made exist in some kind of metaphysical limbo? I don't really have any comments on that issue.

"Are you equating automobile manufacturers with terrorism?"
No, simply wondering whether it would be theoretically possible for some politicians to appease terrorists by creating circumstances that will increase the number of people who die on the roads and highways each year.

"Is there really a traceable link between fears over job security and international terrorism? Where is that connection?"
What value would "a traceable link" have and why do you think it is important?

[saltpoint]

4. Your language about "causing random deaths" and "deals" precludes

which TENSE your question is posed in, Boojatta.

In short, it's absurd.

You need to talk to an attorney if you feel that strongly about the issue. I frankly don't see the connection.

[Boojatta]

5. What would an attorney do?

I didn't intend to suggest that the legislation would be so obviously unconstitutional that the Supreme Court would strike it down.

[saltpoint]

6. You characterized such a "deal" as a link between automobile

manufacturers and terrorists.

I hope it's not your view that Democrats OR Republicans would support that "deal."

An attorney could assuage your misgivings about the nature of protections under the law. I don't see any cause for concern myself.

[saltpoint]

7. Let me recommend a novel to you, Boojatta. It's THE PLOT AGAINST

AMERICA by Philip Roth.

I won't spoil the story for you, but I will say that I feel you will love the book very much. After you've read it, it wouldn't surprise me at all if you went racing through the nation's streets screaming in elation about how well-written it is and how timely. There are many other things to like about it also, but one is the juxtaposition of fictional events with actual history.

Honestly. I think you'd love it.

[MindPilot]

2. Make a deal with them?! They ARE the terrorists.

This is one of the places where there is not a dime's difference between the GOP and the Dems. Either one of them will pimp your grandmother if it means more corporate profit.

[damntexdem]

8. Incompetent U.S. automakers can't sell their cars anymore.

They get fuel economy that is too low. So they think they can sell more by lowering safety standards?

Too bad -- the auto industry was a great one when it used to exist in the U.S.

[saltpoint]

10. Yes. Agree -- when it was thriving, it was more than just economically

successful.

It was a mythic engine.

It's just amazing what we owe to that era, and the automakers were a huge part of it.

Not to subtract one iota from their profile as industrial giants in that time, but they came to represent even more in the overall culture.

"..but you oughta hear 'em screamin
for their dirt track demon
in his 57 Chevrolet." (Jim Croce)

--and a million others.

References to cars and what they meant to the country's cultural history are everywhere.

[aikoaiko]

9. consumers -- if they don't want them, they don't have to buy them