• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

The post-racial administration orders rural white male owned dealerships closed!

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
So the articles' first link or 'evidence' is a Fox news article that just speculates. The second link fails to mention that the decision to eliminate those dealerships was GM's decision not some executive order from Obama. I also love how the article ends on this note of this being "blamed on Bush" like it's something only the left does. Go ahead and try and play that card, it's always going to be beaten.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
The first link to Fox was just to support the claim the administration is under fire for racial bias.

The second link is the TARP special inspector general's report.

I think the article makes this point well.
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.

A more complete first fact would be "dealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, key wholesale parts dealer, minority- or women-owned dealerships.

Now I can understand why key wholesale parts dealers should get preferential treatment, but why any of the other three? Recently appointed? Last hired is usually first fired. Why should race or gender have any bearing? This should be a business decision, not one of re-apportionment.
 
Last edited:

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Would you mind explaining why "racist" decisions make him a socialist? And the tea party wonders why they're called racist.
Oh, I just threw that in for fun. And no, the tea party doesn't wonder why race baiters use race to divide Americans. They know it is typical behavior by leftists to demonize, discredit, and marginalize those with whom they disagree so as to avoid any real debate. You know, similar to trying to change the topic of a conversation by focusing on and picking apart a tangental comment instead of the crux of the argument.

But really, what business is it of the government to determine how many dealerships there should be, where they should be located, and the race and gender of the owner? Why should the white male hating divider-in-chief get to appoint his henchmen with zero practical experience to oversee and make decisions on behalf of private companies?
 

Gavik

Registered Member
Oh, I just threw that in for fun. And no, the tea party doesn't wonder why race baiters use race to divide Americans. They know it is typical behavior by leftists to demonize, discredit, and marginalize those with whom they disagree so as to avoid any real debate. You know, similar to trying to change the topic of a conversation by focusing on and picking apart a tangental comment instead of the crux of the argument.

But really, what business is it of the government to determine how many dealerships there should be, where they should be located, and the race and gender of the owner? Why should the white male hating divider-in-chief get to appoint his henchmen with zero practical experience to oversee and make decisions on behalf of private companies?
I was trolling.

And they did get government money. Investors have a say in business affairs.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
I was trolling.

And they did get government money. Investors have a say in business affairs.
Well, it's not an investment, it's money to hopefully keep businesses open, thus people employed.

But let's accept that argument, that it is an investment. So because the government "invested" they can use race as a criteria? They can pick and choose car dealers based on race, gender, religion, whatever, if they wish? Title VII doesn't apply to them?
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
I was trolling.
:lol: I'm really starting to like you G! You sure liven things up in MD.

And they did get government money. Investors have a say in business affairs.
They got taxpayer money and I didn't get a say ;^)
I think CO makes a good point though. What right do they have to redistribute dealership opportunity?
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
A more complete first fact would be "dealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, key wholesale parts dealer, minority- or women-owned dealerships.

Now I can understand why key wholesale parts dealers should get preferential treatment, but why any of the other three? Recently appointed? Last hired is usually first fired. Why should race or gender have any bearing? This should be a business decision, not one of re-apportionment.
Okay so what's your point? As I already stated, these were GM's decisions, not the Obama administration whom you've blamed here.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
Okay so what's your point? As I already stated, these were GM's decisions, not the Obama administration whom you've blamed here.
From the article:

Decisions on which 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 Speacial Inspector General Neal M. Barofsky.
I disagree with the suggestion that an "investment" automatically permits one to have a say-so in the day to day running of the business. I don't have a say-so in most of my investments. You either invest or you don't.
 
Top