Thread: New chest grabber....

Tweet

Just when you thought you had heard all there was to hear about the Nazis in power, comes this chest-grabber........

This could be a scandal of epic proportions and on that makes Nixon's Watergate or Clinton's Monica Lewinsky affair pale by comparison.

Why was there neither rhyme nor reason as to which dealerships of the Chrysler Corporation were to be closed? Roll the clock back to the weeks just before Chrysler declared bankruptcy. Chrysler, like GM, was in dire straits and the Federal Government "graciously" offered to "buy the company", keep them out of bankruptcy and "save jobs". Chrysler was, in the words of Obama and his administration, "too big to fail". Same story with GM.

The Feds organized their "Automotive Task Force" to fix Chrysler and GM. Obama, in an act that was and is 100% UNCONSTITUTIONAL, appointed a guy named Steve Rattner to be the White House's official Car Czar. Literally, that's what his title was. Rattner was the liason between Obama, Chrysler and GM.

Initially, the national media reported that Chrysler had concocted the list of dealerships to be dismantled. Not true. The Washington Examiner, Newsmax, Fox News and a host of other news agencies discovered the the list of dealerships to be imploded was put together by the "Automotive Task Force", headed by none other than the aforesaid "Car Czar", Mr. Steve Rattner.

Now, the plot thickens. Remember earlier we said that there was neither rhyme nor reason why certain dealerships were closed while others remained in business? Actually, there is a very interesting pattern as to who was closed down and who stayed open. The Washington Examiner and Newsmax exposed the connection. 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 $200 to Obama's campaign.

Steve Rattner is the guy who put the list together. Well, he happens to be married to Maureen White. Maureen happens to be the former National Finance Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As such, she had access to campaign donation records from everyone in the nation, Republican, Democrat or Independent.

On that list of dealerships being closed down, a wierd thing happened in Arkansas, Northern Louisiana and Southern Missouri. It seems that Bill Clinton's former White House Chief of Staff, Mack McClarty, owns a chain of dealerships in that region, partnered with a fellow named Robert Johnson. Now, Johnson happens to be the founder of Black Entertainment Television and was a huge Obama supporter and financier. These guys own a half dozen Chrysler stores under the company title of RLJ-McClarty-Landers. Interestingly, none of their dealerships were ordered closed. Not one! Eight competing dealerships located near the dealerships owned by RLJ-McClarty-Landers were shut down. Thus, by the stroke of the pen of one of Obama's henchmen, these major Obama supporters now have a virtual monopoly on Chrysler sales in their zone.

Now, if you thought Chrysler is owned by Fiat, you are mistaken. Under the Federal Court ruling, 65% of Chrysler is now owned by the Federal Government and the United Auto Workers/Fiat owns 20%. The other 15% is still privately owned and presumably will be traded on the appropriate exchange.

As horrifying as this may be for you to comprehend and being as how this used to be the United States of America, it would appear that the President has the power to destroy private businesses and eliminate upwards of 100,000 jobs just because the principals of the firms don't agree with his political agenda. This is Nazi Germany stuff and it's happening right here, right now, in our own back yard. There are voices in Washington demanding an explanation, but the "Automotive Task Force" has released no information to the public or to any of the Senators demanding answers for what has been done.

Steve Rattner has since resigned and been replaced by former Steel Workers Union boss Ron Bloom. According to CBS News, Rattner left "to return to private life and spend time with his family". Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said "I hope he takes another opportunity to bring his unique skills to government service in the future". Interestingly, Rattner is under investigation for a multi-million dollar pay-to-play investment bank scandal in New York.

PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH ANYONE YOU KNOW WHO LOST THEIR JOB AT A CHRYSLER/DODGE/JEEP DEALERSHIP SO THEY CAN HELP CLEAN OUT THE HOUSE AND SENATE IN NOVEMBER.

landers McLarty is who i bought my toyota from .. and yes they are buying up every dealorship in the area ..

Tech, That is truely terrifying! People believe that things of this nature can't and won't be done! How nieve we've become to the power of our government. My guess is that Steve "RAT"tner is home guarding his family from the dangerous condition he created. I will pass this on to everyone I know!..Thanks....CR

We have A Ford, Chevy, GMC, Toyota ,Subaru, Volvo, Audi. Kia,VW and almost everything else Dealer(5 locations), the only three brands he does not sell are Hyundi, Honda and Chrysler. Last year our only Dodge dealer was shut down, He was the type of dealer that wrote a check when they unloaded the truck and was not a burdon to Chrysler. He has remained open selling used cars and has not laid off any employees. We now have a new Franchised Dodge dealership opening 1/4 mile from the old.Guess who owns it

Now I am not in any way a supporter of the government ownership process, but from Snopes it appears that the Car Czar list story may not be factual. Here's a link, you can make your own assessment:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chrysler.asp

But then, who controls Snopes??? I have no idea!!

I printed a lot of copys of this to hand out at Cool April Nights in Redding this next month>

Interesting. Snopes did prove this to be false. But what was interesting is that something like 88% of all car dealorships donate to Republican party vs. Democrat. Which make sense since most of the auto retrictions are proposed by the Democrats (both good and bad!) I.E. safety stuff vs. smog!
Still wouldn't be supprised to hear stuff like this really happening reguardless if it's the Dems or Repubs, because they all are politicians! Like the guy said on the Hunt for Red October
": Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open. "

This really is a “gut wrencher” for several reasons. The federal government should not be in the car business as a matter of course. I could certainly support an exception for a real war time emergency to redirect production to military vehicles or factory retooling to address a true national emergency – but poor management by GM and Chrysler could have been better dealt with by no government intervention and allowing the consumer to dictate which automobiles will be supported in this country. While the initial impact would have been severe, the long term outcome would have been a leaner automotive manufacturing entity that produced cars and trucks that people really want as would be evidenced by what “get’s sold”…

As it is, we are being force fed a product that represents a small segment of the American people who will always embrace the “politically correct” agenda and trust the government to take care of them. I am not at all opposed to energy efficient automobiles but I would like to choose without the government providing me “several choices” none of which I want. As most on this site, I remember being able to choose between a 140 cubic inch Ford Falcon or a dual-quad Mercury Marauder. If you want a hybrid Toyota, great – I may want a different car that does a “bit more” – like haul a 7,000 trailer or my (heaven forbid) four of five kids in relative comfort and safety.

Steven Rattner is probably a criminal. He’s not yet been indicted, but as of March 10th, per New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, he (Rattner), “remains under investigation in his office's long probe of the former New York State Comptroller, Alan Hevesi.” What made Rattner even remotely qualified to decide on the ultimate fate of General Motors and Chrysler defies logic and his calculations that show GM bringing money back to the American people are just not correct.

Barron’s Magazine, which has pimped GM as the “hot IPO of 2010,” agrees that taxpayers will not come out ahead, i.e., “Even if the debt rallies, bondholders will fare the worst, reflecting the restructuring of GM by the Obama administration that favored the union over bondholders despite their similar legal claims. The union is also apt to do better than taxpayers, based on its sweet deal.”

The same Barron’s report cites a JP Morgan analyst’s “aggressive” valuation of GM at $63 billion, with $50 billion given as a more conservative valuation. Considering GM was functionally worth nothing prior to the bailout, and was revived to the tune of about $50 billion (not counting GMAC, retooling loans, etc..) the $50 billion valuation is probably closer to reality.

The Chrysler dealers in general, were hosed – plain and simple. It will be interesting to see if the current arbitration efforts will result in any of them being able to stay open - might be hard after a year of being beat to death and shunned by their corporate headquarters.

I rarely put any faith in Snope’s after they have been outed as a left-leading husband/wife team with little to no real research capability. I’m far more inclined to go with the Wall Street Journal’s opinion (right wing it may be, but with one of the best records for reporting truth) than anything Snope’s may say.

Check out this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thR-lVuztIY&NR=1

Passionate posts concerning the manner in which the government of this country is destroying the automobile industry has nothing to do with what one eats – it is a reflection of what one believes and is willing to stand up for.

Thanks, Richard, et al, for sharing your passion and expressing your opinion. Last time I checked, that was still okay in America.

Just my 2 cents
Glenn

Originally Posted by Evolvo

If this is a chest grabber, its cause you've been swallowing to much bullshit!

I smell a Democrat....
I suspect you voted for him.....
And I suspect you support him....
I can only hope the results of the actions of these Socialist lunatics come back to bite you and others of your ilk....

Glenn, thanks for being real....

Steve, how in the name of all that is holy can anyone affirm or deny a story like this. Get real. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's more than likely a duck.

Originally Posted by techinspector1

I smell a Democrat....
I suspect you voted for him.....
And I suspect you support him....
I can only hope the results of the actions of these Socialist lunatics come back to bite you and others of your ilk....

Glenn, thanks for being real....

Steve, how in the name of all that is holy can anyone affirm or deny a story like this. Get real. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's more than likely a duck.

Speaking of ducks, Tech I've been skunked 4 days in a row Turkey hunting! Today they circled us just out of sight for two hours! Stillmit was fun trying to call them in!. Next mont the season is over, then back to the truck!

Originally Posted by stovens

Interesting. Snopes did prove this to be false. But what was interesting is that something like 88% of all car dealorships donate to Republican party vs. Democrat. Which make sense since most of the auto retrictions are proposed by the Democrats (both good and bad!) I.E. safety stuff vs. smog!
Still wouldn't be supprised to hear stuff like this really happening reguardless if it's the Dems or Repubs, because they all are politicians! Like the guy said on the Hunt for Red October
": Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open. "

I received the following in an email this morning.........

Snopes.com is not giving the whole story!

I always suspected David and Barbara Mikkelson who were behind "Snopes" were Obama and liberal oriented --now we know!!

Go to Google!!
Who watches the watchers?
Please read it all to the bottom!
Guess we have to use "Truth or Fiction" now .
For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email . But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com
Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding . Well, finally we know . It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers . It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby .

David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research .

After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?
The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong .

Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues .
A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obamaand made a big splash across the Internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com . In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place .

David Mikkelson was contacted thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it .
He never called Bud . In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm . Yet, snopes.com http://snopes.com/ issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!
Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal .

As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative .There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their web site findings .
Gee, what a shock?

So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts . . . 'proceed with caution .
Take what it says at face value and nothing more .
Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself .
Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do .

After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com

I have found this to be true also!

Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False . . . . Then they gave their Liberal slant . . . . !!! I have suspected some problems with snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths . If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder . www.truthorfiction.com A better source for verification, in my opinion .

I have recently discovered that Snopes . com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama . There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to Youtube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things . So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes . com . . . . ever for anything that remotely resembles truth! I don't even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore .

A few conservatives told me about snopes.com a few months ago and I took it upon myself to do a little research to find out if it was true .

Well, I found out for myself that it is true .

Anyway just FYI please don't use Snopes . com anymore for fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as well .
Many people still think Snopes.com is neutral and they can be trusted as factual .

We need to make sure everyone is aware: that Snopes is a hoax in itself .

Originally Posted by chopper1

I received the following in an email this morning.........

Snopes.com is not giving the whole story!

I always suspected David and Barbara Mikkelson who were behind "Snopes" were Obama and liberal oriented --now we know!!

Go to Google!!
Who watches the watchers?
Please read it all to the bottom!
Guess we have to use "Truth or Fiction" now .
For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email . But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com
Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding . Well, finally we know . It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers . It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby .

David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research .

After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?
The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong .

Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues .
A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obamaand made a big splash across the Internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com . In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place .

David Mikkelson was contacted thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it .
He never called Bud . In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm . Yet, snopes.com http://snopes.com/ issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!
Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal .

As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative .There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their web site findings .
Gee, what a shock?

So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts . . . 'proceed with caution .
Take what it says at face value and nothing more .
Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself .
Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do .

After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com

I have found this to be true also!

Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False . . . . Then they gave their Liberal slant . . . . !!! I have suspected some problems with snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths . If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder . www.truthorfiction.com A better source for verification, in my opinion .

I have recently discovered that Snopes . com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama . There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to Youtube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things . So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes . com . . . . ever for anything that remotely resembles truth! I don't even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore .

A few conservatives told me about snopes.com a few months ago and I took it upon myself to do a little research to find out if it was true .

Well, I found out for myself that it is true .

Anyway just FYI please don't use Snopes . com anymore for fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as well .
Many people still think Snopes.com is neutral and they can be trusted as factual .

We need to make sure everyone is aware: that Snopes is a hoax in itself .

I believe someone on this forum in the past also questioned the accuracy of Wikipedia. Point is no one knows who to believe. We hide behind parties that we feel represent us but they really only represent themselves. I guess we have to look at multiple sources and weed out what seems right. In the end I stick with my original statement Politician shouldn't be trusted.

.... or like the article said, do your own research. Generally if I want to check the 'truthfulness' of something, I will go on line and check several on line sources and make my own judgment call. I have found some of Snopes information either misleading or only partially complete. But, with that said, usually just too lazy to bother. As far as Wikipedia, there are many of those on-line articles that have disclaimers at the top as to whether the information is correct or even complete. Before I quote one of their statements, I'll look at some of the attachments and notes.

Just politics as usual, don't really understand why anyone would be shocked or upset!!!!

As long as the politicians can keep going with the one party blaming the other party, and all us voters just calling each other names they have no reason to "fix" anything...

Dang, You people will believe any bullshit they print, Snopes.com has proved it was all FALSE! But you all refuse to believe it! What is this world coming to!