GM/Isuzu to Invest $60 million at Duramax Plant

DuramaxEngines02 II

GM announced Wednesday that the company will invest $60 million along with Isuzu in their joint-venture plant that makes the turbo-diesel 6.6-liter Duramax, the engine used in Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra Heavy-Duty pickup trucks, as well as in full-size Chevy Express and GMC Savana vans.

The DMAX Ltd. plant has been open since 2000 and has produced nearly 1.6 million engines but is in need of upgrading to meet more stringent EPA requirements by 2017 and again in 2025. GM owns 60 percent of the facility and Isuzu the remaining 40 percent; the investment will retain 500 jobs at the Moraine, Ohio plant, as well as improve the emissions capabilities of the engine.

To read the complete press release, click here.


DMAX exterior II





The earth's atmosphere is 100's of times deeper and broader than all of the world's oceans. Human activity only affects the climate in small patches. People who live in Beijing or Mexico City have different needs for air pollution than folks who live in Idaho or (Upper) Michigan.

The climate gang is a joke. Try reading something that isn't entirely devoted to ruining the US way of life and the American economy for a change!

Um, correct me if I'm wrong but it appears PUTC has deleted posts from those who believe man-made global warming is real. The gibberish and spin remains though. Outstanding! The comments I read and level of discussion here makes perfect sense now. Congrats, you've created a first-class slum for the ignorant. Disgusting. I had you pegged completely wrong.

@papa jim--I don't think most want to live on Chinese wages. There is a happy medium between substandard wages and top tiered union wages. As for the politicians they share a large part of the blame but not all. Big corporate interest control most of the political system especially in Washington DC. We have a political system that takes care of those who are at the very top and those who are on the lower end. The rest of us in the middle are left to pay for everything. If it were not for unions we would not have 40 hour work weeks, safer working conditions, retirement plans, and a few other benefits. The problem is when a group like unions get too much power. It is best when no group has too much power.

As for the environment none of us really know the complete effect greenhouse gases have upon climate change. To say that there is no effect is completely wrong. Would any of us really like to go back to having no clean air and water standards? Maybe some would but not me. I do think that the additional benefit of stricter standards needs to be weighed against the cost. I do not have all the answers but to say that there should be no standards is extreme.

@Jeff S there is a simple solution: We have a representative form of government. let the people decide, not bureaucrats or unions.

Listen to what the people want.

I want a Suburban, but Obama wants me riding a bike or standing in line to buy a Chevy Volt.

Trucks and SUVs are the choice millions of Americans make every year. GM and Obama had to subsidize the Volt to make people buy one.

@Jeff S and Papa Jim
I don't think you don't have the the right not to buy a Suburban Papa Jim. It's just harder to get.

This goes back to what Jeff S stated about minimum pay, etc. The US is living in a far more competitive world now. I has to compete. For the past 40-50 years the US has gradually tried to protect it's position financially and economically as this competition increased. I would also like to add this problem isn't just with the US, but most modern economies.

It's just not viable and it's unsustainable to keep on trying to protect yourself from competition. Now its costing jobs and living standards, ie, the ability to have that Surburban. This problem has started since the 40s and the US more or less reached it's zenith between the 70s and late 80s.

Even though the jobs front in the US is looking better the reality is 59% of the population is working, in 2004 it was 64% of the population working, this will also impact the economy. Many have dropped out of the US job market.

We are living older, immigration and population increase is reducing isn't keeping pace with expected growth.

Life will get harder as we age, that means maybe you might only have the money to buy a four cylinder just to go shopping one day in the near future.

This transition is already occurring. Look at your vehicle makeup compared to 25 years ago. It's not all left wing or right wing issues. People look at issues and say before government X or Y it was better, but like hidden corrosion the underlying problems existed for a long time.

The US has had the 'easy' life for many decades, people have become accustomed to this and now expect it to be the norm. Now everyone is blaming everyone and there is a more polarised US society. Everyone is expecting their neighbour to fix the problem. The US isn't functioning as a nation like it used to. One of the cultural values that made the US great is now undermining it, that is the 'individual'. Now is the time for team work, not factional infighting.

The problems in the US is everyone's, so everyone must do their share. That means for Papa Jim you might just have to drive a medium CUV instead of that Suburban. The guy flipping burgers might have to catch a bus instead of buying a $1 000 $hitter to drive.

It's not just the US, look at the GFC. There will be winners and losers out of the GFC. The US will be better off than most, but maybe not what it used to be.

@ Big Al

since Australia and the US still have the vestiges of a representative, constitutional form of government, let me repeat my remark to Jeff S.

"Listen to what the people want.

I want a Suburban, but Obama wants me riding a bike or standing in line to buy a Chevy Volt.

Trucks and SUVs are the choice millions of Americans make every year. GM and Obama had to subsidize the Volt to make people buy one."

I didn't say that you can't get a Suburban, I said that our nannies in Washington want me to have a bicycle or ride in mass transit instead (based on their spending and policy priorities).

Economic growth in the US crashed after the bust and has never recovered. There were some hopeful signs of health during the Bush years but they were mostly the result of deficit spending and Fed policy.

By the way, I think the Chevy Volt is a great approach to hybrid powertrains, I just don't need one. Because my wife and I only drive about about 10k miles/per yr what I drive has to be versatile. My Silverado (and her Outback) fill the bill. We made those choices without the help of government bureaucrats or their subsidies.

@papa jim--I agree with Big Al, economics plays a much larger role in determining what type of vehicle one drives. If you have the resources and you want to drive a Suburban or large American crew cab pickup it does not matter what bureaucrats or Obama want you will buy what you want. After reading the comments on this website it doesn't matter what elected officials want us to drive, consumers vote with their pocketbooks.

Big Al is also correct in that the US is not as competitive in a World market as it once was. If you go through history there have been a succession of empires and countries that have been the dominate power and then have lost their dominance. There is always another country or power that is just a little hungrier and more ambitious to challenge the reigning power. World War II was the defining moment for the US when we became the dominate power and replaced Great Britain. Regardless of who our President is or which political party is in charge we will not retain the Number 1 status forever. There are fewer higher paying jobs and for the first time the average young American will not have it as good as their parents. There are many that might like a bigger or nicer vehicle that will buy smaller because they simply cannot afford more. There are many who would like to own a vehicle that cannot afford one and will ride the bus instead.

@papajim: One statement along gives the lie to your entire response to me: "Human activity only affects the climate in small patches."

If this statement were true, please explain how China's pollution is affecting America's air quality? It's not just 'small patches" that we affect, we affect our entire environment and have been doing so now for centuries. Prior to the Age of Steam, I would have fully agreed with you, simply because 90% of the world was burning wood for fuel and using wind and muscle power for transportation--with a bit of help from the flow of water in our rivers. Now with the extensive burning of coal and other petrochemicals we've put more smoke, gases and other particulates into the air than we as a species have since the dawn of mankind. But that's only a tiny piece of the problem.

As I stated before, all you have to do is watch your skies to see how we're affecting the climate. Rain comes from clouds and clouds come from the aggregation of water vapor into denser structures. Immediately after a cold front comes through, I'm sure you've noticed how dry the upper atmosphere becomes. Jets fly high overhead without leaving even the shortest trail. A day or two later the trails become more visible and its not long before those trails span the entire breadth. Worse, these vapor trails begin to spread and join until your sky is covered in high, thin clouds. This isn't just a 'tiny patch', it's thousands of square miles covered in an overcast that shouldn't be there. An overcast, by the way, that holds heat in.
Now remember, based on your own statements, I live only a few hundred miles north of you. I'm able to predict rain and even storms days in advance without needing to resort to the National Weather Service by simple observation of the sky. I see those clouds forming from vapor trails or spreading thin to create that white haze that portends a heat wave. The week after 9/11 we lost that haze--for the entire period those planes were grounded. Within two days of unrestricted flight, our air was back to "normal".

@papajim: On another note, your political rant is completely off the mark. Let's start with this statement: "GM and Obama had to subsidize the Volt to make people buy one."
I'm sure you already know that it takes force to make somebody do what they don't want to do. A subsidy only makes it easier for somebody to do what they already WANT to do. That subsidy certainly didn't make YOU buy a Volt, did it? That shows the fallacy of your viewpoint.

"I said that our nannies in Washington want me to have a bicycle or ride in mass transit instead." Really. Where is the evidence? Yes, I do agree that SOME spending is going towards such policies--at the request of people who WANT to be able to ride their bicycles safely or travel more quickly and smoothly on trains. The government isn't FORCING them to do so, but as an example more people now ride the train between Boston, New York and Washington, DC than fly; it's just as fast and significantly more comfortable and hassle-free. Even your own home state has an intercity passenger rail service--something not readily available in most states (as compared to intra-city or commuter rail). With crowding what it is, our highways effectively become parking lots during rush hours. Roads designed for 70mph speeds are slowed to less than half that due to congestion twice a day. Rail doesn't slow and more people are realizing savings beyond mere fuel as they arrive at work more rested and back home less stressed. The benefits are incalculable for all that they are imperceptive to economical analysis.
You also put the blame on our economy in the wrong place. Yes, I agree that the dot com bust was real, but it actually emphasized the actual cause being that American jobs have been going overseas for decades. I got 'laid off' from two completely different manufacturing jobs because one went to Japan (I was a Boilermaker then) and the other went to Mexico (inductive ceramics). The only worthwhile jobs that haven't gone overseas are corporate management and banking along with those that for one reason or another simply CAN'T be out-shopped, which are relatively few. You blame our illegal immigration problem on politics but it's really due to the fact that those illegal immigrants are willing to perform tasks Americans no longer want to perform at wages Americans will no longer accept. You want to eliminate illegal immigration? Take their jobs away from them. Let Americans take back those jobs. I can safely say that I don't believe that will ever happen.

No, our economic woes weren't caused by the dot com bust--they've been building for decades and the dot coms were the final straw. At least now we're on the rise again but it's going to take a long time to get back up to where we were--if ever.

@RoadWhale--You have brought up some very significant points which we all know in truth but do not consider. All these points are true and the economic situation did not happen overnight it has been building up for decades. I did notice that the sky was much clearer after 9/11. I don't think that this is all doom and gloom, but this is just what is. We as a country have to adapt to these changes and move forward. Even if this discussion is off topic it does make for a good stimulating conversation.

@Roadwhale, dude, take a breath!

All this stuff about climate--is it something you saw on TV? Vapor trails. Give me a break!

The world's atmosphere is full of micro climates. Mexico City, LA and Beijing are simply examples of places that have huge populations and polluted air. Someone who lives in Manitoba or Utah has different needs in this regard than someone who spends their day in the midst of millions of people.

Your whole riff about 9/11 is sad. Did Michael Moore ever return your phone calls?

@Jeff S

Americans have a constitutional form of government. We vote for the leaders we want. Judges rule on the meaning of the law.

Our system was not ever intended to provide a President with executive powers he can wield whenever he pleases. Washington has used the executive branch agencies like EPA for several decades to screw the American consumer and our workers.

Washington adds a lot of cost to the price of a big SUV through penalties and regulations. Have you ever seen quittin' time on Pennsylvania Avenue? There a lines of Suburbans and Denali's as far as you can see.

Our rulers in Washington don't stand in line at the airport waiting on the TSA inspection in their stocking feet. They travel on special military transport jets (and corporate jets).

More sweet & sour shrimp, Senator?

I want a Suburban. I spent the last fifty years on the job and paying taxes. I've earned it.

I'm going to buy one, but it's aggravating that the same people who want to make it harder for me to have one, are riding home from their office tomorrow in a big SUV paid for by America's taxpayers.

@Papa Jim
I don't think you've earnt that Suburban, or you would have it right now.

You think you're entitled to a Suburban, there's a huge difference.

Like I said many in the US think it's eternal, this just isn't the case, as you can see it's as fragile as any other nation.

The US has changed and I think the final straw was the GFC. The US will rise, but not where it was, it will be similar to what Europe was 20 years ago.

After WWII the world was in a shamble and the US reigned, but this could only last until countries rebuilt themselves. The US is where it would have been without WWII. Just like The EU, Australia, Canada, etc.

We are all mortal.

People will have cars and trucks, but everything will cost that little bit more in the US.

You will see more businesses buy those little Chev vans instead of pickups. That Ducato camper style of van will become popular for business as well.

The world is changing, affluence and effluence is moving around the globe.

Interesting debate and illustrates a truth that I have just recently realized, we do not search for truth, we search to validate our emotion derived beliefs.

@Lou_BC, go back to LOU! it's easier to type, no shift, underslash, etc.

You've hit the nail on the head. People have a preconceived idea of how the world around them works.

People reflect and when conflict arises with their beliefs and reality, it's someone's or somethings fault.

A more simplistic way for a person to manage this is to generalise, to simplify.

The US is in a poor position and has a quagmire of regulations that have evolved to protect. Now it's become a virtual mess of regulatory measures that are costing more than they initially saved.

The best and fairest way to manage is to stop pandering to the minority, like Papa Jim stated. But it's these minorities (and lobbiest's) that put a government into power.

Here's an interesting article on how we a heading in Australia now. The government stated 'We are open for business.........but only profitable business'. No more handouts, sink or swim is how we will run our country. I think this is great.

Coca Cola of all companies asked the government for a handout. A very profitable company! Because one of their subsiduaries isn't doing so well and the factory requires plant ad equipment to modernise. The government told Coke, you have money, invest the money to make your business stronger and don't expect the tax payers to bail you out.

Here's some interesting reading, maybe other countries should follow suit, no, that would make use less competitive.

@Big Al

I have 12 grandchildren, soon to be 14 (twins this year). My kids and their kids come first. Our GMC got a little long in the tooth so today one of our kids has it.

I don't worry about whether someone else thinks I've earned an SUV or not. Our family's vehicles are paid off.

The Suburban would be a perfect sled to haul the team to the games, or carry a load of kids to the airport.

But I really don't need politicians and professors telling me not to drive the car I want. I'm not alone here: The biggest sellers from the Big 3 are SUVs and halfton trucks.

PapaJim - UncleSam aka big brother does think we do not know what is best for ourselves. The political system is a mess. Spending a billion just to get elected means a lot of asses to kiss and boots to pick.

@Big Al - my comment applies to you too ;)

Hate auto-correct... Meant boots to lick.

I do have my own opinions and tenets.

But, I do try and search for answers, not only to suit myself.

Ask anyone if they think they have any extreme views and they will respond with a no.

But what isn't extreme to one could be extreme to another.

Just look at the issue I had on TTAC the other day, with the word 'retard'. It about how you view the world. I had my beliefs and will stand by them, even if it meant being removed from a site.

But, I do agree with Papa Jim, even in Australia political parties target the swinging voters and fringe groups.

I bet if some could come up with an unbaised political party they would get elected. But over time that political party will become institutionalised and become like any other. The institution comes first.

This occurs within any large organised group. That's why Detroit had issues and other succeeded. The military is a classic example. The UAW, it might had started out for the workers, but in the end it had nearly destroyed a whole industry with the help of the very industry that it was reliant on.

Religion and politics, paradigms.

@Big Al from Oz - If logic prevailed, countries would not be in the messes that they find themselves in.

One does need to recognize how primitive instincts and emotions affect what we do and how we think. That should be used as a starting point to learn critical thinking.

There are aspects of my job that require the removal of emotion but that is in extreme cases only. Emotion or being able to place yourself in the position of another and understand what they are going through is crucial for people to get along and find common ground. It is as important as the application of logic and critical thinking.
That was something Ruggles on TTAC could not fathom..... for profit health care just like dealerships are designed to extract maximum profits from the consumer but no one hates a nurse but almost everyone hates a salesman.

One group is able to understand another's emotions/feelings for the benefit of that person whereas a salesman uses that understanding for self gain. Politicians are no different.

Fear. The strongest of all the primitive emotions.

The unknown, retain the comfort of knowing. Stick to what we know, as it has to be better. The past was great and fear the future as it is unknown.

You see quite a significant amount of this emotion on these car sites.

Somehow I think it will work out, like it always has:)

@ Big Al from Oz - that is true. I suspect that is why fanboys react so strongly when someone criticizes their brand. Insecurity and basing their sense of self worth by the product they drive. They view a critique of the product as a critique of themselves.

@Big Al & Lou BC--It is human nature to resist and fear change. Just as you were stating Big Al that many fanboys are very defensive when it comes to their brands. You are also correct in that the USA would have not been the Number 1 power if it had not been for WW II and the aftermath. After WW II Europe was devastated and relied on the US. It took decades to recover from the war. I do agree with some of papa jim's arguments about the politicians but they are not solely to blame. Many of the younger generation (not all) feel entitled to have material things and do not really want to work. My neighbors across the street have their 41 year old son living with them. I rarely see their son bring the mail in or put the garbage out and I have never seen him mow the lawn or remove the snow off the driveway even though they have a snow blower. I have seen this first hand with people I work with and ride the bus with. Most of the time the adult children move back home and the parents do not charge them any rent.

Big Al your point about the unions and political parties is spot on. Both can be formed with the best intentions and become so institutionalized that they no longer serve their purpose. I agree with Lou in that logic is seldom a consideration for most of us. If logic were a consideration then we would not have the problems we have.

@Lou BC--One question I would ask the fanboys would be if your favorite brand of truck were no longer made what would you buy? There have been countless brands of cars and trucks in the past that have gone away. What did Studebaker loyalists do when Studebaker went out of business? Most of us know the answer.

@Jeff S - we get blinded by doctrine and convince ourselves that our belief system is all that matters.
The old saying "do not judge another man until you have walked a mile in their moccasins" is a very apt code of conduct.
If politicians flushed the partisan doctrinaire beliefs and pandering we would make huge gains in virtually ever metric that determines quality of life. It is obvious that a Republican way or purely Democrat way does not work. Both sides have ideas and ideals that need to be blended to make things work.

@Lou BC

So Lou, what about the Studebaker question?

@Lou BC--Exactly, neither Republican or Democrat way will work. A blending of ideas is better. Also I have owned many different brands of cars and trucks and each has their strong and weak points. I like Chevy but if they and/or GM disappeared I would manage to find a car or truck that meets my needs whether it be a Detroit, Japanese, Korean, or other such badge. The most important criteria would be does this vehicle meet my needs and can I get many years of reliable service out of it. I have been more than satisfied with the Fords, Chryslers, Chevies, Buicks, Hondas, Mitsubishi, and etc that I have owned. Square or round wheel openings are not a deal breaker for me.

@Jeff S and Lou BC

So, is moderation the ideal in every situation fellows?

@papa jim--For most situations moderation should be the norm. It is much better for your health and sanity not to listen to Fox news or MSNBC. As a matter of fact sometimes it is best to just take a break from the news.

@Jeff S

Were you a philosophy major?

@papa jim--The philosophy of life.

@Jeff S

I look to history for my guidance.

The majority of moderates in the US back in 1939 opposed American intervention in Europe or in the Pacific, despite the aggression of the Nazi’s and the Japanese military in those regions at that time.

President Roosevelt pressed for a greater role for American strength in those places and it took 12 million Americans in uniform, millions of lost lives, and cities bombed into ashes to make it stick.

Europe recovered. Japan took its place in the free world. FDR was proved to be right.

History remembers Roosevelt fondly for his bold leadership at a time when most of the philosophers and politicians wanted to look the other way.

There was nothing moderate at all about converting American industry to a war footing in 1940 and 41, but it was the right path, despite all of the chaos, bloodshed and tragedy of WW2--and it worked!

@papa jim--Entrance into WW II was a necessity. There is a difference between war and peace. There is also a difference between those who want to eliminate the role of government completely and those who want government in everything. I will not waste my time blaming the Government for me not being able to drive a Chevy Suburban. I would rather go on about the business of living and not obsess about politicians and bureaucrats.

@papa jim, @JeffS - I am neither conservative or liberal. If anything I tend to lean more to the conservative side with a bit lof libertarianism sprinkled in. I am a realist and am more pragmatic. I go for what works i.e. the best socioeconomic platform as opposed to the doctrine behind a party.
Unfortunately both liberal and conservative governments in Canada and the USA are corrupt and pander to whatever interest groups get them elected.
Would a purely liberal or conservative approach work to fix the ills of a country?
Proponents on either side say their way is the best.

I haven't seen much benefit with either approach. A study done prior to the last election in my province indicated that there wasn't any concrete evidence that one party was better for the economy than the other. All economic indices came up comparable if one factored in global trends. The only difference was in job creation. More jobs were created in the public sector with a liberal/left government and more jobs were created in the private sector with a Conservative/right leaning government. There were no real difference in the accumulation of debt.
That is why I'd rather see a government take good ideas from where ever they may be in the political spectrum and apply them to fixing government.

@Papajim - There are times when war is unfortunately the only option.

We must be a student of history to ensure the mistakes made by our ancestors are not repeated.

I could bring up interventions in the Middle East or Central and South America as evidence where intervention has not had any benefit other than shoring up political ideology.

@ Jeff S

"...Entrance into WW II was a necessity. There is a difference between war and peace."

That's deep, Jeff!

@Lou, @Jeff S

Guys, I was talking about the fact that everyone who picked the "moderate" viewpoint in WW2 got screwed.

Britain, France, China all tried and failed to take the moderate path during the 1930s and really got hosed by the Nazis and the Japanese for it.

Moderation is not always the best choice. Trying to compromise with someone like Obama is a fool's errand.

Now, with regard to GM and Izuzu working together to create a new generation of diesels for trucks is great news. No need for moderation there, either. Full steam ahead!

@papa jim--Politicians come and go. Obama is a lame duck President who has only 3 years left and it is doubtful he will get any significant legislation passed in his remaining term. Even Democrats are distancing themselves with midterm elections. I am no fan of Obama or W (the Texas cowboy) but having said that I will not blame either for everything that has gone wrong in the US or my personal life. I would rather have Joe Isuzu, at least he was just selling cars.

Papa Jim, you should go ahead a buy a Suburban if that is what you want. All the years that I have been on this site I have never read a comment from anyone that stated the a politician or a bureaucrat would determine what they would drive. Do you think Denver Mike cares what a bureaucrat tells him? We are a long way from a Government that forces us to drive what we don't want to. Granted large SUVs and large pickups will change becoming lighter with smaller more efficient drive trains, but no government official will tell us what to drive.

As my father once told me, as long as there are two people on the planet there will always be war.

@Jeff S

You have not been following the news. Obama has stated that he does not care about passing laws. He wants to issue executive orders so he won't have to work with his opponents in Congress.

It's a big deal but most people are watching the Olympics and either don't know or care.

@papa jim--Executive orders cannot be used to enact legislation. We do have three branches of government--Executive, legislative, and judicial. There is also the impeachment process that can be used if a President goes beyond the scope of powers that are granted him. There are enough Republicans that would challenge Obama for going beyond the scope of his executive powers. It is one thing to use executive powers to appoint a cabinet or department post but it is another thing to use it for enactment of laws which is strictly a legislative power. I think you are worrying too much about something that will not happen. President Obama is constantly being challenged on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), Immigration, and a host of other things. There are many Democrats that are more moderate especially those from Southern States that would challenge such actions as well.

@Big Al--Your father is a wise man. World peace is a nice concept but humans are not peaceful beings. Just read some of the comments on this site they are enough to start a war.

@Jeff S
Alluding to my earlier comment about the late 1930s: Roosevelt used his executive pen and the power of the long distance telephone to overcome resistance in Congress, industry and main street USA.

He moved the nation from a non aligned status to war footing in less than 2 years in this fashion.

Roosevelt also used his ability to persuade--Obama has persuaded very few because he is a Chicago thug. Roosevelt was widely criticized in the press for his decisions; Obama has an adoring cadre of reporters everywhere he goes.

Relevance: Moderation. Neither of these presidents chose moderation but one was an experienced chief executive, a former governor and a clever administrator, and the other is a one time state legislator from an all black district where Dems never lose. He's never had to compromise or deal with opponents because he didn't have any.

GM's decision to partner with Isuzu brings that asian company's experience in diesel mid sizers to a game where GM has mostly played diesel with HD and commercial. I can still remember Isuzu products from the 1980s that were solid and competitive (and plain) small trucks and SUVs. GM has a winner in my opinion.

papa jim--Isuzu brought more to the table than GM. Isuzu has always had a strong reputation for their diesel engines and their trucks. GM about finished Isuzu when GM owned them.

As for moderation I never said that moderation is always good, I said in most situations moderation is good. Obama is not a moderate nor is the Tea Party. Short of impeachment there is no way to remove a President from office. Also the power to declare war is an executive power and does not need legislative support. The fact that Obama said that he will use his executive powers means that he has lost power and Congress is well aware of this. Obama is a lame duck President who will be out of office in 3 years.

@Jeff S

Good grief, young man. Were you sleeping in class--Congress has the power to declare war! Up until the 1960s American presidents respected that.

Even GW Bush respected the constitution enough that he waited until he'd obtained a Congressional resolution before the second Iraq invasion in 2003.

@papa jim--A President doesn't have to declare war in order to get involved in a war or conflict. The President can call troops into a conflict. Most Presidents do ask for Congress to declare war but a President has the right to send troops where ever they deem. I doubt Obama wants to declare war or send troops anywhere. Papa jim I have no problem following the news and I agree with many of your points but I refuse to let Obama or any politician occupy my every thought. I will vote and express my views but I just don't find it constructive to obsess about it. Obama is just another politician who in 3 years will be replaced most likely with a Republican because it is hard for a party to maintain the Presidency for more than 2 terms and most of the voters will want a change. If you look at the poll numbers Obama is at an all time low for a President, but then Congress is as well. Again I would vote for Joe Isuzu before I would vote for most politicians.

Bet China wishes they had gov regulations like the EPA so they could breath the air to side without a respirator! If humans weren't regulated most of the animals would be extinct, seas fished out forest all clear cut! GREED HAS TO BE REGULATED!!!

The comments to this entry are closed.