Republicans in Detroit [[photos)

[gnome]

Aww, don't get your little, lacy panties in a bunch over me! I think it's sweet you want to be a chirpy little cheerleader for the right-wingers. Perhaps we can get you some little pink panties!

You are looking more foolish with each post Dnerd. I thought I was giving you some friendly advice, but alas, your retort indicates your personal bias clouds your ability to understand how kind Hermod has been with you.

You dismissively refer to him as a "loyal adversary" as though you actually consider that you are a match for his superior knowledge and experience. That is not the case. Your misunderstanding of basic facts marks you as intellectually inferior, and your persistence reveals the unearned arrogance of a self-possessed egoist.

Moreover, I'm curious as to why you would want to suggest that my panties are bunched. Is this some pre-pubescent homoerotic fantasy you desire? Are lacy panties on men something that concerns you to a froth? Is this yet another example of being so uninformed that you resort to 5th grade epithets in lieu of real conversation? Did poopy-butt or booger face somehow elude your over-matched lexicon?

However, I will retract my previous advice and urge you to continue your uninformed posts. The effortless way Hermod has been jujtsing you to the mat is quite funny.

Please, continue.

[mpow]

Yes, I love that Pat Boone photo. The photographer states that he showed these at Detroit Public Library.

[Detroitnerd]

Yes, I love that Pat Boone photo. The photographer states that he showed these at Detroit Public Library.

I think Pat Boone is something we can all agree on.

[jflick3535]

As for me, I'm in "independent," as in "none of the above." At least get that right before you start your head-shaking and tsk-tsking.

I love when liberals call themselves "independents"--As in "I'm an independent but I'll never vote for a republican!"

[Detroitnerd]

I love when liberals call themselves "independents"--As in "I'm an independent but I'll never vote for a republican!"

Face it: Most of the people who run for office are selfish, lying, vain pieces of shit. Show me one who isn't and I'll consider voting for him. In the last several elections, I haven't even voted because I've been so disgusted with all the candidates.

[jflick3535]

Face it: Most of the people who run for office are selfish, lying, vain pieces of shit. Show me one who isn't and I'll consider voting for him. In the last several elections, I haven't even voted because I've been so disgusted with all the candidates.

In order to be an independent you must have voted for a Republican in the past.

would love to know

If you have never voted republican then you are not an independent, you are just an unmotivated liberal during elections

[Pam]

In the last several elections, I haven't even voted because I've been so disgusted with all the candidates.

They have other things on the ballot you know, like proposals. You should still vote.

[Detroitnerd]

They have other things on the ballot you know, like proposals. You should still vote.

Yes, I know. Thanks. I need a little chiding sometimes. Mostly, the feelings of disgust overwhelm me.

[Detroitnerd]

In order to be an independent you must have voted for a Republican in the past.

would love to know

If you have never voted republican then you are not an independent, you are just an unmotivated liberal during elections

I don't know. This could be one of those things where I just don't pass muster with you, but, for what it's worth, in high school I joined the young Republican club and in 1988 I voted for Ron Paul for president. I still have a lot of respect for Paul, though he has a snowball's chance of winning the 2012 nomination.

Of course, this was back in the 1980s, when you could argue that Republicans actually were people of conscience who provided a counterbalance to a leftish Democratic party. Today it's just so obvious the government is for sale to the highest bidder that they all gross me out.

[jflick3535]

I don't know. This could be one of those things where I just don't pass muster with you, but, for what it's worth, in high school I joined the young Republican club and in 1988 I voted for Ron Paul for president. I still have a lot of respect for Paul, though he has a snowball's chance of winning the 2012 nomination.

Of course, this was back in the 1980s, when you could argue that Republicans actually were people of conscience who provided a counterbalance to a leftish Democratic party. Today it's just so obvious the government is for sale to the highest bidder that they all gross me out.

that absolutely passes muster with me--I just hate when people call themselves independent but have never voted for a republican--Liberal blacks are the worst offenders of this way of thinking

[Detroitnerd]

that absolutely passes muster with me--I just hate when people call themselves independent but have never voted for a republican--Liberal blacks are the worst offenders of this way of thinking

I wish we had more than two parties and had to have coalition governments like they do in Europe. It's a good way of getting past the "your-party-bad, my-party-good" runaround we always seem to get stuck in here.

[Bearinabox]

I love when liberals call themselves "independents"--As in "I'm an independent but I'll never vote for a republican!"

I love when people confuse "independents" with "moderates" or "centrists," as in "only people who have voted for a Republican are allowed to call themselves independents!"

For example: someone who says "I voted for Obama because he's a Democrat" is a partisan. Someone who says "I voted for Obama because of his views on X, Y and Z" is an independent. If they also voted for John Kerry and Al Gore because they shared Obama's views on X, Y and Z, that doesn't make them less independent than someone who changes their party affiliation every few election cycles.

[Hermod]

Actually, according to TACOM, Warren's tank plant has been idle for years, something I knew when I asked. But you're a little sneaky, Hermod, only mentioning that the Lima plant opened so Detroit could continue producing. What you don't note is that the tank plant was marked for closure in 1995, ceased production in 1996, and started transferring the plant to Warren in 1998. The deed was finally transferred in 2001. To the best of my knowledge, they may do some research up there, but no tanks rolling off the line.

The tank plant quit production after the last of the M60 series vehicles rolled out [[as I noted). This was the last of the manufacturing operation in Warren. The "tank plant" is being transferred to Warren and the TACOM operations at Selfridge are being scaled back. TACOM [[the R&D managers and readiness operations) are still be there in the TACOM complex at 6501 E. 11 Mile Rd. Warren, MI.

The Lima Tank Plant was reactivated to produce the M1Abrams Tank during the Carter admin. Clark Equipment Company [[cranes and power shovels) had just closed their plant in Lima and Ohio was expected to be a swing state in 1980.

[PlymouthRes]

"Tanks have not been built at the Warren Tank plant for years. Apparently you missed that." D'Nerd

Perhaps you are mis-informed when it comes to the plant in question:

"
"Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant"
This tank arsenal was the first ever built for mass production of American tanks. When World War II erupted in Europe, and Germany began using tanks in its Blitzkrieg offensives, the United States did not have a tank production program. By mid-1940, the U.S. realized it needed an armored force separate from its infantry. In response to this need, the Detroit Tank Arsenal Plant sprang up seemingly overnight in the winter of 1940-'41, on 113 acres of farm land located north of downtown Detroit, in what is now the city of Warren. The mammoth structure measured five city blocks deep and two blocks wide, designed by master industrial architect, Albert Kahn, in the Moderne style.
Owned by the government and run by Chrysler, the plant received its first contract to build 1,000 M3 tanks in 1940. The government accepted the first M3 on April 24, 1941, while the plant was still under construction. The delivery was marked by a festive occasion, broadcast over a nationwide radio hook-up. VIPs and plant workers cheered as the tank fired its guns, smashed telephone poles, and destroyed a mock-up house. The plant also built M4 Sherman tanks, which have a turret mounted 75-mm gun. The plant set an all-time monthly production record by delivering 896 M4s in December 1942. As the war ended, the government suspended tank production.
During World War II, the Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant built a quarter of the 89,568 tanks produced in the U.S. overall. Its production closely matched tank production of either Great Britain or Germany. During the Korean War, the plant was modified to build the new battle tank, the M47 Patton. In all, Chrysler built 3,443 M47 Patton tanks between 1952 and 1954. During the '60s, the plant produced 500 of the superior M60A2 tanks, which had a novel turret mounted on an M60 chassis and featured a 152-mm gun launcher that fired both conventional rounds and a guided missile. In response to the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, the plant was producing a record five tanks per day.
In 1979, the Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant built components for M1 tanks, which were built at the Lima Art Tank Plant, and continued to build M60 tanks. Because the Lima Plant could not keep up the M1 production, the Detroit Tank Arsenal plant also began producing M1s for the army. In 1982, Chrysler sold the plant to General Dynamics, which produced both M60s and M1s until 1987. The plant was closed in 1996, and the government transferred the property to city of Warren, where it is located, for reuse and development.
Documentation includes the publication, Tanks and Industry, The Detroit Arsenal, 1940-1954, an eight-page overview and chronology, 13 black-and-white photographs, and a videotape.
Originally submitted by: Carl Levin, Senator."
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/legacies/MI/200003172.html

This clearly shows that not only have tanks been produced since 1940, but well into the 90's. Sorry to point that out to you but it is a fact that you said did not exist. I took the liberty of highlighting the dates so that you could see directly that you mis-represented the actual dates that tanks were built there. In summary, according to the articles calculations, it appears that WTP made over +50,000 tanks of various types THRU 1996.

Also, there has been a ressurgance in the building of WHEELED VEHICLES there, as we have many programs running there now, both wheeled and tracked. To say that it is a "minor player" compared to other areas of the States is a bit of a misnomer, too.

"Well, where else was the United States going to build its war machines? Of course they had to build them here. My point is that after the war they instituted a program of industrial dispersal. It made the kind of one-city arsenal Detroit was impossible. Are you aware of that policy?"

Since they were starting from scratch, they could have built them anywhere. They DID NOT have to build them here, it was just convenitent to switch over already existing MASS PRODUCTION systems to military rather than private industry. The unions didn't make a bit of difference at the time, as once the military took over production of their vehicles at those automotive sites, rules changed dramatically from privatized to military, and unions had NO say as to how they worked the employees of the plants. And yes, the unions back then WERE TOTALLY different than modern era unions [[1980's thru present).

As for "not putting all their eggs in one basket" as a reason for dispersal, that is somewhat plausible given the intense concentration of manufacturing efforts here. To spin the conspiracy side of it though, you had to make the point you make. But I wholeheartedly disagree with your presumtion that it was the sole reason.

"We're still talking about World War II here."

No, if you notice, I mentioned Fort Wayne and the other installations involvement from 1851 thru 1972, which is a pretty long span and not just specific to WWII. I also failed to mention Selfridge ANG Base, a place that was rocking all things military as far back as when Eddie Rickenbacker served there in the early 1900's. Although not a production facility in terms of vehicle production, the amount of training and men who passed thru there on their way to their involvement in the various wars they served in made them a quasi "production" facility in the fact that many passed thru their portals on their way to contributing to the various wars we won.

To downplay the significant contribution that the "northern" states have and will continue to make is really not accurate or representative of the way things really are. The bottom line is Michigan and most of the northern states still make very significant contributions to the war effort of this country. The ONE tank plant, cited above, of the many that existed in the north, built +50,000 tanks, so that does speak volumes to me that they did provide significant support to the military well into the 80's if not the 90's.

It has very little to do with the unions and a heck of a lot more to do with logistics from what I see and read.

[Hermod]

It's too bad Reagan wasn't able to handle the UAW the same way he handled PATCO. He would have been a hero and we might actually still have a world-class U.S. auto industry today.

PATCO did something illegal under the Civil Service Reform Act [[written by a Democratic congress and signed into law by Jimmy Carter). PATCO actually was one of the three unions to support Reagan in 1980 as opposed to supporting Carter like the rest of the unions. The government was negotiating with PATCO till the militant members of the union decided to do a little "dick swinging" and struck. Reagan told them to go back to work and continue negotiations. REagan told them that the law required the strikers be fired if they didn't return to work. The controllers didn't believe he had the balls to call their bluff. Guess what??

Reagan never went head-to-head with the UAW. He figured the auto companies were big enough to take care of themselves.

[Retroit]

Thank you Hermod and PlymouthRes for making this an extremely interesting and informative thread. If there is one good thing to say about Detroitnerd, it's that he brings out the best in others.

[Detroitnerd]

This clearly shows that not only have tanks been produced since 1940, but well into the 90's. Sorry to point that out to you but it is a fact that you said did not exist.

No, that is in agreement with what I posted about TACOM's own information.

"Well, where else was the United States going to build its war machines? Of course they had to build them here."

Since they were starting from scratch, they could have built them anywhere. They DID NOT have to build them here, it was just convenitent to switch over already existing MASS PRODUCTION systems to military rather than private industry. The unions didn't make a bit of difference at the time, as once the military took over production of their vehicles at those automotive sites, rules changed dramatically from privatized to military, and unions had NO say as to how they worked the employees of the plants. And yes, the unions back then WERE TOTALLY different than modern era unions [[1980's thru present).

Huh? Are you saying you believe that the United States could have built its own factories from scratch, developed tanks and fighter planes and heavy bombers, then still have them all set and ready to go in two years? No way, man. Of course they had to rely on existing mass production. As decisions go, that's a no-brainer.

As for "not putting all their eggs in one basket" as a reason for dispersal, that is somewhat plausible given the intense concentration of manufacturing efforts here. To spin the conspiracy side of it though, you had to make the point you make. But I wholeheartedly disagree with your presumtion that it was the sole reason.

The program of industrial dispersal meant the dismantling of Detroit and instead placing lots of smaller industrial facilities in places that were away from cities and harder to attack. Just so happened that dispersal went all over.

"We're still talking about World War II here."

No, if you notice, I mentioned Fort Wayne and the other installations involvement from 1851 thru 1972, BLA BLA BLA

No, I'm referring to the other part about Fort Wayne.

which is a pretty long span and not just specific to WWII. I also failed to mention Selfridge ANG Base, a place that was rocking all things military as far back as when Eddie Rickenbacker served there in the early 1900's.

Well, if you want to get all Michigan History on a pretty narrow discussion of labor and the aftermath of World War II, I'll add to that that the native peoples of Michigan honored that place, as it had been the site of victorious battles for them in the past. What does that have to do with what we're talking about? Very little.

To downplay the significant contribution that the "northern" states have and will continue to make is really not accurate or representative of the way things really are. The bottom line is Michigan and most of the northern states still make very significant contributions to the war effort of this country. The ONE tank plant, cited above, of the many that existed in the north, built +50,000 tanks, so that does speak volumes to me that they did provide significant support to the military well into the 80's if not the 90's.

Oh, jeeziz. Now I'm shitting all over Michigan's great contribution to war? That's not what I started out to do. I started out to explain how policies of industrial dispersal likely were related to management and government fearing unions and wanting to locate newer stuff away from that. All of a sudden I'm defaming Michigan's wonderful bomb-makers. Far from it. I am so proud of the bombs, tanks and any other stuff that blows up. Somewhere, a child has a leg or an arm that bothers him. Thanks to Michigan's contribution, one day that child will be untroubled by an arm or leg. Thanks, Michigan! And God bless America.

[jflick3535]

I love when people confuse "independents" with "moderates" or "centrists," as in "only people who have voted for a Republican are allowed to call themselves independents!"

For example: someone who says "I voted for Obama because he's a Democrat" is a partisan. Someone who says "I voted for Obama because of his views on X, Y and Z" is an independent. If they also voted for John Kerry and Al Gore because they shared Obama's views on X, Y and Z, that doesn't make them less independent than someone who changes their party affiliation every few election cycles.

Just want to make sure I understand--someone that has NEVER voted for a republican can consider themselves an independent?

In order to be an independent your vote must be up for grabs but if you always vote for Democrats or Republicans you simply can't be an independent.

There is nothing wrong with always voting for the same party but don't kid yourself into thinking that you are big independent thinker when the choices you give yourself on election day are vote democrat or don't vote at all

[Bearinabox]

Just want to make sure I understand--someone that has NEVER voted for a republican can consider themselves an independent?

Certainly, if they don't decide who to vote for based on partisan affiliation. If partisan affiliation is irrelevant to an independent, why should it matter to them if they have or have not voted for a Republican [[or a member of any other party)?

In order to be an independent your vote must be up for grabs but if you always vote for Democrats or Republicans you simply can't be an independent.

With all due respect, you are wrong.

Here's an extreme example: Let's say Bob is largely apolitical, but is devoutly religious and vehemently anti-abortion. He doesn't care about any other issue, and doesn't know or care where the parties stand on them, but he researches the stances of all the candidates on abortion and votes for those candidates who have the strongest anti-abortion credentials. All the strongest anti-abortion candidates who have run for election in his district since he became eligible to vote have been Republicans, so his voting history is completely one-sided, but he is not voting for them because they are Republicans. He would just as soon vote for a strongly anti-abortion Democrat, but there hasn't been one in his district since he started voting. Bob is therefore an independent who "always votes for Republicans."

There is nothing wrong with always voting for the same party but don't kid yourself into thinking that you are big independent thinker when the choices you give yourself on election day are vote democrat or don't vote at all

I'm curious: how exactly is anyone supposed to be an "independent thinker" when the definition you give of "thinking independently" comprises holding opinions that correspond exactly to the center of the American political spectrum? That doesn't sound very independent to me. A true independent votes for candidates they like, regardless of party affiliation, and if they all happen to be Democrats, they don't go out and randomly vote for a Republican just to keep their independent credentials intact.

[EastsideAl]

Interesting to recall and horribly ironic that the conclusive end to 40+ years of social progress and the death of the middle class American dream started right here in Detroit.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Nice pictures of Republicans? What a strange concept.

[jflick3535]

Certainly, if they don't decide who to vote for based on partisan affiliation. If partisan affiliation is irrelevant to an independent, why should it matter to them if they have or have not voted for a Republican [[or a member of any other party)?
With all due respect, you are wrong.

Here's an extreme example: Let's say Bob is largely apolitical, but is devoutly religious and vehemently anti-abortion. He doesn't care about any other issue, and doesn't know or care where the parties stand on them, but he researches the stances of all the candidates on abortion and votes for those candidates who have the strongest anti-abortion credentials. All the strongest anti-abortion candidates who have run for election in his district since he became eligible to vote have been Republicans, so his voting history is completely one-sided, but he is not voting for them because they are Republicans. He would just as soon vote for a strongly anti-abortion Democrat, but there hasn't been one in his district since he started voting. Bob is therefore an independent who "always votes for Republicans."
I'm curious: how exactly is anyone supposed to be an "independent thinker" when the definition you give of "thinking independently" comprises holding opinions that correspond exactly to the center of the American political spectrum? That doesn't sound very independent to me. A true independent votes for candidates they like, regardless of party affiliation, and if they all happen to be Democrats, they don't go out and randomly vote for a Republican just to keep their independent credentials intact.

So if out of 100 times I vote republican 100 times I am still an independent because I technically could get an anti-abortion, pro-gun rights, small government, anti-tax democrat that I could vote for.

I believe most, if not all, pollsters would have an extremely hard time labeling me "independent"

[Patrick]

TACOM is growing and will continue to do so. The whole corridor from 696 to north of M59 between Mound and Van Dyke is a defense corridor. Why do you think they are relocating workers from Al and IL? Because they can recruit better engineers and technical folks her ein SE Michigan

[Ocean2026]

Hermod wins in my opinion. Although I voted for Obama, Texas has attracted people with low taxes, nice weather and I'm sure some companies were attracted by a much weaker environment for unions. He is correct those military bases were started by Democrats, not Reagan. I was complaining today because its only 60's out - and it normally is 70 by this time in Spring [[lol).

Detroit has such nice architecture though that Texas couldn't hope to ever match. Of course many Detroit buildings are in decay but I'd love to have them here. I just wish Detroit would appreciate them more.

[Hermod]

Hermod wins in my opinion. Although I voted for Obama, Texas has attracted people with low taxes, nice weather and I'm sure some companies were attracted by a much weaker environment for unions. He is correct those military bases were started by Democrats, not Reagan. I was complaining today because its only 60's out - and it normally is 70 by this time in Spring [[lol).

I was stationed at Fort Hood in Killeen, TX from May 1963 to Nov 1964. Biggest troop post in the US.