Can anybody disprove this with fact (not UPinION)???




If this is the way it's going,why isn't this all over the MSM???



"The FACTS are always subject to CHANGE once the TRUTH is applied"
"In the entire history of man the only stupid questions are the ones that don't get asked"

Can you prove it to be fact? I mean Glen Beck said it so it must be 100% factual.

KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.

Yes it is. MSNBC was discussing something similar.

john317(AKA Gary the Old guy) wrote:If this is the way it's going,why isn't this all over the MSM???

MSM - Main Stream Media. And you posted a clip that was aired on FOX News - the highest rated cable news station(they aren't broadcast anywhere as far as I know). Doesn't that make FOX News an important part of the MSM?

The major difference being that their slant is to the right instead of to the left (and IMO are just plain more slanted period). Its not that you don't trust the MSM, its that you don't trust anyone who expresses a viewpoint not slanted in the same direction as your own.

None-the-less, do not get your news from any television/radio media.

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:Can you prove it to be fact? I mean Glen Beck said it so it must be 100% factual.

What a surprise that this is your only comment.

Glen Beck hasn't given any new information here, he has simply laid it out in a well-articulated explanation showing how the government just completely f&%ked us and gift-wrapped a company as a give-me for the UAW.

bk3k, your belief that Fox is more slanted could be dismissed with the same weak argument. However, the claim that MSNBC and CNN are slanted far to the left, and even more so, far in support of Obama, has been demonstrated by their choice to ignore many things that could damage his credibility, and their consistent refusal to ask him any hard questions, going all the way back to the primary season. They were far harder on Hillary than on him.

If anyone hasn't seen Media Malpractice, it's a good watch about this. While I don't necessarily agree with some of the explanations (he argues that during the primary season the media didn't properly vet Obama because they didn't think he had a chance), the evidence given is irrefutable.

Again, both of you have argued nothing on point, you have simply suggested a lack of credibility.

its kind of interesting that when a news story may slant a certain way it gets completly written off like its a make beleive bunny seen flying in the sky. people dont even bother to look into stories anymore, they just go. well that news company is slanted so it must be false.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

Yes a lot of things are not reported and things that are. It is easily to watch and see who leans left or right. Back to this story it is fairly easy to find the facts to back up the story given above. Seems people are to lazy anymore to do a search of their own and see the facts of the actual claim. All of the MSM's have discussed this to some degree yet left some thing out or did not state the entire process. Beck just put all the pieces together for the lazy or the people who like to ignore things.

sndsgood wrote:its kind of interesting that when a news story may slant a certain way it gets completly written off like its a make beleive bunny seen flying in the sky. people dont even bother to look into stories anymore, they just go. well that news company is slanted so it must be false.

sndsgood wrote:its kind of interesting that when a news story may slant a certain way it gets completly written off like its a make beleive bunny seen flying in the sky. people dont even bother to look into stories anymore, they just go. well that news company is slanted so it must be false.

Both of these are excellent points, and are right to the heart of the matter. The funny thing is that Fox actually reports on many things the others don't, but many people still dismiss it as simply rhetoric, because they believe the hype that Fox is so slanted. However, they report more facts than MSNBC or CNN. There is a very good reason their ratings are rising while the others are falling. More people are starting to see through it.

I had already done my research before I posted this so I knew he had gotten the facts down pretty well. I also realize their are some other fringe things that go into it. I was wondering if people could dismiss any of this with fact or if they would just attack and shrug off the truth because of who the messenger was.

Seems to me that if someone can cut through the BS and get straight to the truth of the matter and make it so crystal clear how we the taxpayer is getting screwed then why does the message still offend hundreds of thousands of people...

Maybe the Tea Party message is a little more then just a bunch of Racist Rednecks who hate Obama.







"The FACTS are always subject to CHANGE once the TRUTH is applied"
"In the entire history of man the only stupid questions are the ones that don't get asked"

john317(AKA Gary the Old guy) wrote:...I was wondering if people could dismiss any of this with fact or if they would just attack and shrug off the truth because of who the messenger was...

That's a little idealistic, don't you think?

The majority of these threads are being argued lately based on the messenger, not the message.

john317(AKA Gary the Old guy) wrote:

Maybe the Tea Party message is a little more then just a bunch of Racist Rednecks who hate Obama.

Naa, Ill admit, I hate islam....

Take a look why.

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

Unions were once a great asset for America when the top were treating their workers unfair, that was then. Today, it's hard to find unions doing the "protection" job today. One union I remember was UAW for Saturn in Spring hill, Tenn in the 90's, that did a tremendous job collaborating management/workers to work in harmony. That's history now.
Mr Glen Beck has twisted some points so his platform could look stronger, big no-no, but always good to bring things to the table. For starters, Chrysler received $200 million not $600 million from Daimler to cover Chrysler’s pension plan.
As for the Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA) will own 55 percent of the new company and the U.S. and Canadian governments will own proportionate shares of a 10 percent stake. Fiat will initially hold a 20 percent ownership stake in Chrysler. Fiat will have the right to increase its ownership stake an additional 15 percent in three increments as it meets the following criteria: 5 percent for bringing a 40 mpg vehicle platform to Chrysler to be produced in the U.S.; 5 percent for providing a fuel-efficient engine family to be produced in the U.S. for use in Chrysler vehicles; and 5 percent for providing Chrysler access to its vast global distribution network to facilitate the export of Chrysler vehicles. Fiat cannot become a majority owner until after all U.S. government loans have been completely repaid.
Glen Beck opine on government "running the business to the ground." He should research on what Carter did in 1980 with Chrysler, it's 2009 Chrysler is still exists. It did not "run the business to the ground."
Mr. Glen Beck talks with a weird voice on that "we (Chrysler) are going to make so much money" that never happened. Chrysler basically begged. We got zero simply because every car manufacturer sales has plummeted, therefore, the little money earned, needs to go to stay afloat, in 7 months vehicles sales can't shoot up 400% to repay, blame the market.
Glenn Beck talks on we will give them $3.2 Billion, thats to provide sufficient debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing to allow "continuation of business." The company will seamlessly honor warranty claims, pay suppliers and keep dealer body operating to continue to serve our valued customers. The $4.7 Billion is false, there is no extra when they go through bankruptcy again, atleast for now. The 8% is also false, the VEBA act does not call for that.
Glen Beck talks as if government helped businesses is a bad thing, well that all depends on how optimistic you are. VW group, Renault group, Fiat group, Daimler group will all say the contrary to Glen Beck, rightfully so as this lousy world market has barely affected them. But that's Blasphemy for him.
One thing I will say is true, Chrysler (since Daimler took over) IS a crap company, when Cerberus took over just like every other chain store in that company, it is/will be on their death bed. It's like Kevorkian, only a slower death.

The last time Chrysler was doing good, showed viability, and only going up was when this commercial airing:


One can only wish Chrysler pulls out of the rut, as I like to see competition in the car market.




THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

"The company will seamlessly honor warranty claims, pay suppliers and keep dealer body operating to continue to serve our valued customers."

Just so you know, the government has already made a list of what Chrysler dealers will be allowed to keep their franchises and what ones wont. Chrysler does not have much say in it. This information came from a friend that works in a Chrysler dealer.

Quote:

Mr. Glen Beck talks with a weird voice on that "we (Chrysler) are going to make so much money" that never happened.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the way the Government/Talking Heads were trying to sell this to the American Tax Payers. We (the taxpayers) not Chrysler, could end up make so much money from this bailout...

Quote:

The 8% is also false, the VEBA act does not call for that.

So you saying that we (the taxpayer) will have 0% ownership in Chrysler?

Quote:

The $4.7 Billion is false, there is no extra when they go through bankruptcy again, atleast for now.

That money is still on the table as future TARP money. Dependent on how Chyrsler performs in the near future.





"The FACTS are always subject to CHANGE once the TRUTH is applied"
"In the entire history of man the only stupid questions are the ones that don't get asked"

john317(AKA Gary the Old guy) wrote:

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the way the Government/Talking Heads were trying to sell this to the American Tax Payers. We (the taxpayers) not Chrysler, could end up make so much money from this bailout...

And again the talking heads/ government did not say that "it's going to be raining money" it was more in line that "we need to save the comapany in order to control a huge job loss." His melodramatic act was there to emphasize on his argument, not needed.

Quote:

So you saying that we (the taxpayer) will have 0% ownership in Chrysler?

No, I said the 8% is false, read up on the percentage and how it going to be split up on my last post.

Quote:

That money is still on the table as future TARP money. Dependent on how Chyrsler performs in the near future.

As of last week, there is none. If there is or will be; one thing is to say that the tax payer gave it to them, another is to say, it's on a reserve. Lets hope Chrysler progresses and does not use the latter.



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.