Reply With Quote
I mean, isn't that what political campaigns do all the time?
Even if these liberals did try to create a narrative... so? I mean, sure it's shady and unethical, but do we really think that a group of conservatives AREN'T doing this somewhere?
I mean, isn't that what political campaigns do all the time?
what?Even if these liberals did try to create a narrative... so? I mean, sure it's shady and unethical, but do we really think that a group of conservatives AREN'T doing this somewhere?
Journalists should stand on their own statements, not get into a conspiracy and synchronize columns in order to slam a political opponent.
see fox news..
on a side note i agree. it's weak if people get together to manufacture or coordinate the reporting of the news
Last edited by George Gervin's Afro; 07-24-2010 at 01:04 PM.
I was unaware. That is criminal.
I'd wait until more information came out... yoni jumps the gun alot
Yoni lies all the time.
And repeatedly turned a blind eye to the collusion of Republicans, Fox News and conservative columnists and radio hosts.
Glass houses.
The self-defeating Yoni drags in here is saying the best he can muster about the Repugs is they are no worse than the Dems, which is a lie and of course right-wing-nuttiness, not that the Repugs are good for anything, esp not good for the country.
dubya on Mt Rushmore? Yeah, Yoni, it's coming.
, George! Why don't you just seek out the facts?
The information IS OUT!
I guess you meant, "I'd wait until the media spins it out there..."
"FACTORS AFFECTING THE DECISIONS OF GENERAL MOTORS AND CHRYSLER TO REDUCE THEIR DEALERSHIP NETWORKS"
46 PAGES OF FACTS...
Here's one for a teaser:
What does race or sex have to do with economics?
hey dumbass did you read the do ent? I just wasted 15minutes of my day going through it and found about 1/2 of the report went through in detail of what factors were weighed... Both GM and Chrysler had criteria but fully acknowledged there were some decisions that did not follow the criteria established.
You're a liar.. and a bad one at that.
The DEALERS made the decisions yoni, no one in the govt had anything to do with it..
You're naive.
Shuttering the dealerships was a Treasury recommendation and Obama appointed a "Car Czar" and task force to oversee it...
Who do you think was telling the Auto manufacturers how to shut down dealerships?
translation I never read the do ent... nice Fox Newsing yoni.. someone call breitbart, o'keefe..!
Another SnC hallmark is having two threads about the very same topic on page one.
As I recall it, SnC debuted that way here.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sear...archid=2090835
they didn't tell them which ones to close yoni.. ..
Murdock, Cox, Hearst. The reality is that the news ownership is dominated by wing-nuts and the Republican noise machine operates at full blast. The so-called bias of mainstream media is Orwellian bull .
They sure as DID!
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...obama_car.html
The Obama administration, already under fire for unprecedented allegations of racial bias, faces a new bias claim from a most unlikely source: one of the administration's own inspectors general.
Decisions on which car dealerships to close as part of the auto industry bailout -- closures the Obama administration forced on General Motors and Chrysler -- were based in part on race and gender, according to a report by Troubled Asset Relief Program Special Inspector General Neal M. Barofsky.
[D]ealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships. [Emphasis added.]
Thus, to meet numbers forced on them by the Obama administration, General Motors and Chrysler were forced to shutter other, potentially more viable, dealerships. The livelihood of potentially tens of thousands of families was thus eliminated simply because their dealerships were not minority- or woman-owned.
As has been widely reported, the Inspector General's study skewered the Obama Gang for strong-arming the companies into closing 2,000 dealerships, costing an estimated 100,000 people their jobs during a recession.
But the news media has ignored key elements of Barofsky's report -- elements that are far more damaging, if possible, to Obama. As we reported earlier in the week, a top Obama official, manufacturing czar and "Auto Team" leader Ron Bloom admitted that the dealerships could have been kept open, saving those jobs, "but that doing so would have been inconsistent with the President's mandate for 'shared sacrifice.'"
Barofsky says the administration insisted on the closings even though a GM official told him
that GM would usually save 'not one damn cent' by closing any particular dealership. ... Furthermore, a GM official stated that removing a dealership from the network does not save money for GM -- it might even cost GM money -- and that savings cannot be attributed or assigned to any one dealership.
And a reading of the IG's study makes plain that some dealership closings forced by the administration were based largely on politics.
The report is highly critical of how dealerships were selected for closure, or termination. Barofsky notes that
experts said that while metro areas were oversaturated with GM and Chrysler dealerships and reductions were needed in these areas, this was not the case in rural areas where GM and Chrysler had an advantage over their import compe ors. [...]
Although sales volume in small towns may be lower, the cost of operating dealerships in small towns is lower as well. In addition, closing dealerships in small towns could ruin the "historic relationship" that GM has had with residents in small towns and force buyers to drive to metro areas, where there are more compe ors. In the worst case, the loss of market share in small and medium-sized markets could "jeopardize the return to profitability" for GM and Chrysler, the (the Center for Automotive Research) representative said. Representatives from the National Automobile Dealers Association also concurred that dealership terminations would cause GM and Chrysler to lose market share in rural areas. [Emphasis added.]
Nevertheless, as Barofsky notes, "ultimately close to half of all of the GM dealerships identified for termination were in rural areas."
That is where raw, hard, sewage-filled Chicago politics came into play.
Records indicate that in 2008, Obama lost the vote totals in the nation's 1,300 rural counties by nearly 80%.
The Obama administration's insistence on radical numbers of closures ended up shuttering dealerships in those rural areas disproportionately, while dealerships and jobs in metro areas -- Obama's geographical base -- were left open.
Additionally, it has been widely theorized that dealers targeted for closure as a result of Obama's interference were predominantly those who donated campaign contributions to Republicans. Although evidence to date is largely anecdotal, given what we've already reported about the Obama administration's handling of the auto bailout, such speculation does have considerable grounds for support.
While that last point is leaves room for debate, the details contained in the Barofsky report are not. As Barofsky points out, the Obama administration was given an advance copy, and "Treasury [the Obama Treasury Department] might not agree with how the audit's conclusions portray the Auto Team's decision making or with the lessons that SIGTARP has drawn from those facts, but it should be made clear that Treasury has not challenged the essential underlying facts upon which those conclusions are based."
Included among those undisputed facts:
-"[D]ealerships were retained because they were ... minority- or woman-owned dealerships";
-Thousands of jobs were lost, unnecessarily, due specifically to Obama's "mandate for shared sacrifice";
-A disproportionate number of Obama-forced closings were of rural dealerships, in areas unfriendly to Obama, even though such closures could "jeopardize the return to profitability" for GM and Chrysler.
Don't like that link?
Heres another one...
http://www.freep.com/article/2010071...014/business01
Theres a bunch more where those came from.
Googles your friend, for brains.
You're right. The buck stops somewhere before Obama. We forget sometiimes that obama isn't a leader. sorry bout the confusion.
typical winehoe post. No substance but going after the poster and not their subject. All while blogging about himself. Are you trying to write more autobiographies than barry?
That link didn't work so I would love to know what you're talking about.
You begrudge me what I still recall about your debut?
Pobrecito!
I wasn't aware I even wrote one. How many did Barry (Marion Barry, Barry Obama, what?) write?
I'll see if I can fix that.
BTW, how was the trip to the winery?
Did you read the TARP report? The report that all of these right wing bloggers are using as their basis to make the claim? Find me where the the report states the Administration picked and chose which dealers to close...
The dealers were the final say and they alone made the decision....end of story..
This blogger states, since we already know Obma we can come to the conclusion...with just anectdotal evidence..
Nice try...
Still haven't read the report.. keep looking even dumber than normal by follwoing the gun jumper yonivore..
I'll save you the read.. GM and Chrysler created their own criteria and acknowledged that some decsions were made outside that standard....
if you had read the report you'd know that but you don' really want to know.
I am not surprised that you'r confused... have you wondered why Yoni hasn't comeback to refute what I have said?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
