RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Government Shuts Down Republican Donors Busines

Posted by: Boldwin
- [133532810] Wed, May 27, 2009, 20:41

One of the problems of a one party fascist state, where some private ownership is allowed but with government control, is that the one party can close down donors to their competitors and the country becomes even more 'one party state'.

Republican Donors Closed Down, Democrat Owners Handed Monopolies

Chysler [against their will] is being forced to close down dealerships in competition with the Democrat connected McLarty's of Arkansas [remember Clinton administration Chief of Staff Max McLarty?]

Chief of staff being practically acting president in some ways. Nice reward. When the blood is running in the streets the power elite clean up.
1Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Wed, May 27, 2009, 20:49
Yeah, that's not a biased story...
2Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Wed, May 27, 2009, 22:01
Did you also think that stories proving every single enemy of the Clintons was illegally targeted for an IRS audit was biased?
3DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Wed, May 27, 2009, 22:04
You weren't, so obviously the statement is false.
4Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Wed, May 27, 2009, 22:20
One of the problems of a one party fascist state,

you're cute. adorable even.

but i don't remember hearing you complain much when the Republicans controlled the presidency and congress.

you're just a bitter old man, who's side lost the culture war, because that's all they hung their hat on. your side sold out, ignored its own principles and ideals, and attempted to forge a nationalistic pride based on war and religion.

throughout time, that strategy has failed, and it failed again.

btw, if i start a blog that says all Jehovah's Witnesses are child molesters, does that make it the truth?
5Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Wed, May 27, 2009, 23:41
Sorry, had to read it again for another laugh. It's all too rich--like a comedy writer's first draft--even more funny for people taking it as true. It's got it all: The Clintons! Underhanded tactics! Overzealous government bureacrats! Republican victims!
6Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Thu, May 28, 2009, 00:09
Losing a car dealership is a disaster when it happens to you. Your glee is one of your more ugly moments.
7Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Thu, May 28, 2009, 00:21
The glee, to make it clear, is your attempt to make this about the Clintons. Or perhaps you find that the appropriate response to dealers of bloated, inefficient, and money-losing car manufacturers is to attack the Democrats with a contrived piece about presumed bias?

BTW, did you bother to check the political affiliations of those who did not lose their car dealerships? No?
8Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Thu, May 28, 2009, 03:22
The investigation is not complete but the results benefiting McLarty make it pretty clear already.

Imagine if Karl Rove had nationalized the copyright business you are in, PD, and arbitrarily kicked you out of it over your Obama bootlicking. And I was over on the side laffing like it was nothing at all. You think it is funny to see the country sink that far? It is a little matter?
9Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Thu, May 28, 2009, 04:30
More imaginative play. If you were, like, 2 years old I'd be clapping enthusiastically for you.

The investigation is not complete but the results benefiting McLarty make it pretty clear already.

Well, there you go. You realize that, Max McLarty's candidate lost in the primary, yes? And also that just because someone benefits from an action it doesn't mean that they've committed a crime of some sort. A lot of smoke here. But no fire that I can see.

10Frick
      ID: 4945458
      Thu, May 28, 2009, 09:20
Considering the number of car dealerships that are being closed down, it seems likely that dealerships on both sides of the political spectrum are being shutdown. So there isn't a single instance of a democrat supporting dealership being shut down? And did any of the people on the site make donations to any other canidates?

Re: 4

and attempted to forge a nationalistic pride based on war and religion.

throughout time, that strategy has failed, and it failed again.


This should probably go in the Israel thread, but do see the irony in your statement Tree?
11boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, May 28, 2009, 09:26
The only thing that Chysler seems to be doing is shutting down the smaller dealerships, which has to be great boom in business for bigger dealerships which are getting regional monopolies in some cases...I have a feeling this is not going to end pretty for Chysler.
12Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Thu, May 28, 2009, 10:17
My link at the end of #7 is about the fact that the owners of car dealerships are strongly Republican. That doesn't mean that the closures are politically biased. It means that closures will fall on mostly Republicans because they are the majority of owners.

Also, as boikin points out, the smaller dealerships are getting the longer look. These tend to be in rural and small town areas which (as we know) are more Republican than not.
13Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Fri, Jun 05, 2009, 17:23
Dealerships to be closed don't cost Chrysler anything, no justifiable reason for their closing exists. Dealerships with long records of sales leadership are still an asset even with one bad recession.

Chrysler seems to be penalizing dealers who were fiscally responsible and did not participate in Chrysler's most recent 'incentive to overstock' program, with the firesale benefiting the already overstocked dealers who did participate and who will remain. Blacklisted dealers are presumably protected by state franchise laws from this kind piracy. Not that laws mean anything in the Obama era of government intrusion into business.

Dealers are being forced to liquidate in five days which is ruinous overkill on an already heinous situation.

Evidently this bankruptcy judge hasn't heard that we'll be taking the real world pain into consideration when making rulings.

I'm sure Sotomayor will feel the pain involved. Certain ones anyway.
14Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Jun 05, 2009, 18:36
Chrysler seems to be penalizing dealers who were fiscally responsible and did not participate in Chrysler's most recent 'incentive to overstock' program

Penalizing people for being financially responsible? Where would they have learned that? *cough* Democrats *cough*
15sarge33rd
      ID: 32539519
      Fri, Jun 05, 2009, 20:39
knew this was gonna come up here.

Boldy, here is your dilemma....

88% of all dealership owners...are registered republicans. So is it any surprise, that 90% of the closing dealerships, are owned by Republican donors?
16sarge33rd
      ID: 32539519
      Fri, Jun 05, 2009, 20:46
link
18Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Sun, Jun 07, 2009, 06:19
Useful. We'll add that to the ongoing investigation.

If the survivors all end up being owned by the McClarty family that won't be quite so persausive.
19Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Sun, Jun 07, 2009, 10:10
Was it as useful when I linked to it in #7, I wonder?

:)
20Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Sun, Jun 07, 2009, 10:54
2 Boldwin
ID: 133532810
Wed, May 27, 2009, 22:01 Did you also think that stories proving every single enemy of the Clintons was illegally targeted for an IRS audit was biased?
3 DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Wed, May 27, 2009, 22:04 You weren't, so obviously the statement is false.


Yeah, in fact that was the only time I was ever audited was back when I was all over the Clinton scandals at Salon TableTalk.
21sarge33rd
      ID: 4655879
      Sun, Jun 07, 2009, 10:58
and I was audited in consecutive years back in the late 80s. What's your point?
22Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Sun, Jun 07, 2009, 10:59
PD#19

As I stated in the very next post..."The investigation is not complete" but the results benefiting McLarty make it pretty clear already.

IE... I'll wait to see the complete results before adding it all up, while noting with deep cynicism the results benefiting some of the most politically connected democrats.
23sarge33rd
      ID: 4655879
      Sun, Jun 07, 2009, 14:26
Boldy...you note with deep cynicism; anything remotely beneficial to any Democrat, at any time, in any place.

Could you at least be honest in your patent bias and admit that when you 'add it up', your conclusion is already determined?
24Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Wed, Jun 17, 2009, 20:33
More on those chosen to survive...
It came on Thursday, Feb. 5. Thousands of Chrysler dealers across the country dialed in to hear another in a string of pitches from Press and Steven Landry, Chrysler's executive vice president.

With the passion of a street preacher, Press implored the dealers to order as many cars as possible to help the company as a deadline loomed to prove its viability to the U.S. government.

"You have two choices," Press told the group, according to reports. "You can either help us or burn us all down."

Many dealers would long remember the warning that followed to those who refused to order their whole allotment of cars: "If you decide not to do that, we've got a good memory."

"Our jaws dropped," said Alan Spitzer, who appeared before Congress on Friday and until last week owned eight Chrysler-brand franchises in Ohio. "It was clearly a threat. There was no other way to take it."

Chrysler officials dispute that view, saying executives were simply working to save the company and had no plans to go into bankruptcy at the time.

But the Call has become part symbol, part rallying cry for the hundreds of Chrysler dealers who say they have endured a litany of indignities at the hands of the struggling automaker. Referenced by dealers in numerous interviews and during Chrysler's recent bankruptcy proceedings, it offers a window into the carmaker's increasingly frantic final months, as it sought to bolster its bottom line by pressuring dealers to buy more inventory, even as their showrooms overflowed with cars they couldn't sell.

25Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Wed, Jun 17, 2009, 20:49
I've been completely baffled by this ever since I heard it also...
DETROIT (AdAge.com) -- General Motors Corp. is looking to sell three brands and kill off one, Pontiac. And which brand was overwhelmingly named by consumers in a recent survey as the one they'd like to live on? Pontiac.
Because who would want to buy these dogs...

When you could be buying Obamamotors?

26DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Wed, Jun 17, 2009, 21:48
Wow, the people at World Net Daily learned to use Photoshop. The future possibilities are endless. I look forward to their insightful news reporting with all sorts of new Photoshopped pictures.
27Pancho Villa
      ID: 115161721
      Wed, Jun 17, 2009, 22:16
Given that GM was making such handsome profits prior to Obama's presidency, it's logical to scapegoat him as the reason for the company's demise.
28Seattle Zen
      ID: 535221713
      Wed, Jun 17, 2009, 23:35
I have grave doubts that consumers "overwhelmingly" wanted the huge pile of shit that was Pontiac to live on. They haven't built a car worth driving since the GTO Judge 69-71.
29Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Thu, Jun 18, 2009, 00:08
That was a survey of which brand consumers would want to "live on."

GM, who lost $6 billion last quarter is probably a bit more reality-based and is looking at shedding product which doesn't lose as much money. For GM, surveys about brand names don't matter as much as cars sold.
30Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Thu, Jun 18, 2009, 00:39
Well the above pictured car is the only car I could afford that has grabbed me since minivans. I like utility but I'd squeeze into a small space for that one.
31Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Thu, Jun 18, 2009, 00:52
You notice no one is looking at the levels of native government subsidies to foreign car makers.

America giving 3.5 billion to foreign car makers doesn't help American companies.

Honda, Marysville, OH, 1980, $27 million*

Nissan, Smyrna, TN, 1980, $233 million**

Toyota, Georgetown, KY, 1985, $147 million

Honda, Anna, OH, 1985, $27 million*

Subaru, Lafayette, IN, 1986, $94 million

Honda, East Liberty, OH, 1987, $27 million*

BMW, Spartanburg, SC, 1992, $150 million

Mercedes-Benz, Vance, AL, 1993, $258 million

Toyota, Princeton, IN, 1995, $30 million

Nissan, Decherd, TN, 1995, $200 million**

Toyota, Buffalo, WV, 1996, more than $15 million

Honda, Lincoln, AL, 1999, $248 million

Nissan, Canton, MS, 2000, $295 million

Toyota, Huntsville, AL, 2001, $30 million

Hyundai, Montgomery, AL, 2002, $252 million

Toyota, San Antonio, TX, 2003, $133 million

Kia, West Point, GA, 2006, $400 million

Honda, Greensburg, IN, 2006, $141 million

Toyota, Blue Springs, MS, 2007, $300 million

Volkswagen, Chattanooga, TN, 2008, $577 million

Total: more than $3.58 billion

* total of direct subsidies to all Honda facilities in Ohio

** includes about $200 million for expansions of Smyrna and Decherd plants

List does not include joint ventures with U.S. companies.

These data, drawn primarily from contemporary media accounts, are very conservative. They do not account for inflation; some would be worth far more in today’s dollars. They do not include any estimate of subsidies granted to hundreds of foreign-owned auto supply companies that have located in the same areas, virtually all of which were also heavily subsidized. Finally, they do not reflect later news accounts, which often place higher subsidy values.

32Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Thu, Jun 18, 2009, 01:06
And I am just sick of this idiotic talk as if foreign car manufacturers just make better cars and run better businesses.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

A GM/Opel just barely beat out a Ford/Fiesta for European car of the year.

Let's take Fiat which is laffably being allowed to 'rescue' Chrysler.

Fiat has been hugely subsidized by Italy for 50 years and was itself rescued from bankruptcy by Italy in 2004.

In fact the government handed Fiat so much money that they diversified into government protected insurance and energy sectors instead of spending the money they were supposed to be spending on R&D, leading to a government bailout to prevent bankruptcy.

But of course there is nothing exceptional about the USA or USA auto manufacturers.

I call BS.

33Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Thu, Jun 18, 2009, 01:27
The government subsidies of which I speak are over and above the $2000 health care cost American manufacturers have tagged onto each car compared to Fiat which has government paying their health insurance costs.

Note the role Fiat tried to play in preventing a USA government bailout. And then they take their government subsidies and buy up American competitors on the cheap.

It all stinks to high heaven and in my estimation represents the power elite doing their best to homogenize the world and dilute America's advantages in the world and humiliate America in preparation for the NWO.

34Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Thu, Jun 18, 2009, 09:09
The history of the USA maritime fleet presages the future of the american auto industry if UAW does not equalize their demands with those of foreign auto workers.
35Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Thu, Jun 18, 2009, 09:23
Japanese cars for the first years of this millenium have enjoyed government intervention devaluing the Yen and giving each $25K car a $3000 dollar price advantage in America.

Stupid American businessmen just can't build a competitive car.

36boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Jun 18, 2009, 11:14
that article was from 2003 and never even considers that most Japanese/foreign cars are now made in the USA. Oh and dispite a strong dollar GM does better in foreign markets that it does here.
37Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Thu, Jun 18, 2009, 11:27
Did any of that response counter the idea that on a level playing field American car makers are the best in the world and their problems were do to government and union issues beyond their control?

I wonder really how the American public would have reacted if the car makers had just put their foot down and said, no contract until the UAW gets realistic about competing globally. Why did they have to cave every time and drag that albatross?

38Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Thu, Jun 18, 2009, 11:28
due to.
39Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Mon, Jul 27, 2009, 13:22
Came across this article in my local paper about a largish dealership. I hadn't heard of this:

A provision in H.R. 3170, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, would require automobile companies such as GM and Chrysler to restore franchise agreements with dealers as a condition of having accepted federal funding.

Wanted to park this note here until I can look up this HR3170.
40sarge33rd
      ID: 236141411
      Mon, Jul 27, 2009, 13:40
Wasn't that funding contingent on their paring back their dealer networks?
41Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Mon, Jul 27, 2009, 13:45
I dunno. I think that the dealership cutbacks were a business decision. HR3170 hasn't been acted upon by the Senate, so I'm not altogether sure why Rep Kanjorski is telling GM they can't cut back dealerships, citing a law which hasn't passed yet is is unlikely to do so in a retroactive way.

Also, since the government owns some of GM (for the short term, anyway), it doesn't make sense to keep GM from making business decisions like this one to save itself money. No company should be forced to keep being unprofitable strictly because there are economic consequences down the line. I think the dealership decision falls squarely into the "business decision" ledger into which government should avoid trodding.
42Boldwin
      ID: 347451515
      Sat, Aug 15, 2009, 16:45
Here's one example.

43Razor
      ID: 14791320
      Sat, Aug 15, 2009, 16:57
Bacchman. Hilarious. Rock bottom, Boldwin.
44Boldwin
      ID: 517591515
      Sat, Aug 15, 2009, 16:59
I'll put you down under the 'only democrats should be allowed to keep their businesses' column then.
45Boldwin
      ID: 521116123
      Sun, Dec 02, 2012, 16:45
What it looks like from the eyes of the downtrodden.
46sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sun, Dec 02, 2012, 16:50
Did you ever acknowledge Boldwin, that the entire premise of this thread was false? That some 86% of dealership owners are Republican, yet over 14% of those shut down, were owned by Democrats.
47Boldwin
      ID: 521116123
      Sun, Dec 02, 2012, 20:02
Amazingly, of the 789 dealerships closed by the federal government, 788 had donated money, exclusively to Republican political causes, while contributing nothing to Democratic political causes. The only "Democratic" dealership on the list was found to have donated $7,700 to Hillary's campaign, and a bit over $2,000 to John Edwards. This same dealership, reportedly, also gave $20000 to Obama's campaign.
Amazingly Nate Silver doesn't see a trend there.
48sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sun, Dec 02, 2012, 20:03
horseshit...pure and simple. I'm in the industry. That data, is not complete, correct or accurate.
49sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sun, Dec 02, 2012, 20:09
really B...get OFF those biased, lying, BS rightwing blogs

Last paragraph B, even FOX spews disputes your claim.
50Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Sun, Dec 02, 2012, 20:11
#47 - Do you really expect anyone to believe a site that promotes:

Obama's Administration's ONLY Goal Is To Destroy America.

Sarge is right. Horseshit. The fact that you approve and promote such yellow journalism doesn't speak well for your ethics.
59Tree
      ID: 1910562515
      Sun, Dec 02, 2012, 22:57
i'm as guilty as anyone else here, but i really don't know why we bother.

you've got someone who repeatedly lies, and uses sources that lie. when the lies are easily disproved, he refuses to respond, short of insulting the poster or the president - he doesn't bother to even discuss the lie he just got caught in.

he praises criminals with regularity (as long as they support his causes), and cheers the dead (if they have different political beliefs than he does).

and yet, we try to get someone like this to look at things from a balanced, moral, and ethical standpoint?

why, again, do we bother?
60Seattle Zen
      ID: 3603123
      Mon, Dec 03, 2012, 00:29
you've got someone who repeatedly lies, and uses sources that lie. when the lies are easily disproved, he refuses to respond, short of insulting the poster or the president - he doesn't bother to even discuss the lie he just got caught in.

I've urged Guru to ban him and nuke every thread he ever started. He mocks civil discourse in such a manner that I don't think he is sane.
61bibA
      ID: 54522612
      Mon, Dec 03, 2012, 11:40
I would vote not to ban him. Just as The Onion and Borowitz Reports are admitted satire, hasn't Baldwin admitted that he is not to be taken seriously, along with the likes of Ann Coulter?

I find him as humorous as the others. Just as it is with them, I'm sure he does not actually believe his printed words.
62Boldwin
      ID: 421142310
      Mon, Dec 03, 2012, 11:58
bibA

Serious as a heart attack, much funnier.
63Tree
      ID: 191111311
      Mon, Dec 03, 2012, 12:11
re 61, see post 62, striking out the part about being "much funnier".

SZ nailed the problem - Baldwin isn't actually interested in discussion. he's the master of the drive-by, and refuses to be held responsible or accountable for his actions.
 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: Government Shuts Down Republican Donors Busines

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours11
Last 7 days11
Last 30 days1411
Since Mar 1, 200723961171