Posted on 10/25/2010 7:20:29 AM PDT by babygene
Here is part of it:
"Political interference in this process, or any process so dominated by the government, is of course always a concern. In this case, however, claims that the method by which dealers were selected was biased appear to be unfounded, with no correlation between political contributions and terminations."
“If this was true, I think we would have heard more about it since the article was originally published over a year ago.”
I have no more insight into the truthfulness of the article than anyone else, however I think you are expecting too much from the media.
It also occurs to me that if it were demonstratively false it would be actionable. Why was the author not sued? You would think he would be...
This is your argument???
“Since the author was not sued, and since the media did not cover this, the story must be true.”
Never mind the fact that Fox and the Heritage Foundation both have researched this and debunked this myth.
OK, I read the entire article.
And I repeat: This article does not take into consideration the success ratios of the closed dealerships.
It really is a narrow article. It simply looks ar the break-down of closed dealerships from a leftwing vs. rightwing perspective.
But....
If you looked at all Dodge and Chrysler dealerships, you will have to wonder why many lower volume dealerships were allowed to stay open, while higher volume successful dealerships were closed.
If the Heritage Foundation had taken a survery of the ALL dealers from the most successful to the least, and then factored in the ratios of republican vs. democrat dealerships that were axed, you would see vastly different numbers.
Numbers that prove right-wing discrimination.
Get a reputable source not a nutcase Ron Paul site.
All you have done is to repeat your suspicions.
How about you prove YOUR point? (And this blog article doesn’t do it btw)
This is not new. And there is not a credible source to back up the claims.
Here is the Free Republic posting of this article thirteen months ago.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2337513/posts?page=52
“This is your argument??? Since the author was not sued, and since the media did not cover this, the story must be true.”
First of all, I don’t need an argument. I just posted an email that I got. Secondly I don’t care that much if it’s 100% true or not. This is about politics not accuracy in reporting. When have you ever seen the truth come out of the left-wing politicians or left-wing media?
If your having a debate with an opponent and he is allowed to lie and you are restricted to the truth, guess who’s going to win?
As I said, I got this in an email. It was addressed to over 100 people. With that kind of circulation it will go around the world 3 times. And I think that’s good if it hurts the damocrats.
“Get a reputable source not a nutcase Ron Paul site.”
I posted it as an email I got this morning. The moderator found the source.
I understand that you received this in your email today and wanted to post it.
But a quick google search shows that this rumor has been copy-and-pasted on blogs for the the last year and a half.
And credible sources on our side have disproven it. I believe that if this was true, Heritage Foundation and Fox News would not have researched it and stated that it was untrue.
It looks like the original source for this story is “keywestwebcam.com”
Is that source more reliable than Heritage or Fox News?
“And credible sources on our side have disproven it.”
So who cares... it’s still well written and just as truthful as anything else that comes out of the drive by media.
You should have stated in your original post that you did not care if it was true or not.
Sorry for wasting my time with you.
Bye.
I said in my original post “At least some of it is true and has been discussed on this forum.”
SOME of it obviously is... Does it sound like I’m vouching for the truthfulness of the article in toto?
And yes, your wasting your time...
All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. - O’Sullivan’s First LawMy proof of O’Sullivan’s First Law is to appeal to the fact that
All claims of objectivity are false.This is patently true because the only way to even attempt to be objective is to start out with the humility to admit the possibility that your interests affect your judgement.
And arrogance inheres in leftism because leftism is simply the effort to hijack the credit which belongs to those who are "actually in the arena" and risking failure, by people who assume away risks when they are borne by other people.
BTTT!
Thanks for the criminal activity ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.