Maybe Former Chrysler Dealers are Now Mad Enough

[MaggieMae]

I don't care, but I'm betting they were white Republicans.

Oh I see, so now it's a conspiracy against white people combined with a conspiracy against Republicans.

LOL.

you think they were black demoncwats? welldoyahuh?

SAVE ME FROM BECOMING ONE OF WILLOW TWEE'S AVATARS!!!​

 

[WillowTree]

Oh I see, so now it's a conspiracy against white people combined with a conspiracy against Republicans.

LOL.

you think they were black demoncwats? welldoyahuh?

SAVE ME FROM BECOMING ONE OF WILLOW TWEE'S AVATARS!!!​

did you find any black democrats whose car dealships had been un voluntarily closed? yet?

 

[MaggieMae]

BTW, Bail outs are inefficient use of tax payers money. If Chrysler was so bad that it was unsustainable even after a restructure, why on earth would we want such an inefficient company to continue to limp on? It makes absolutely no sense.

Wouldn't it be much wiser to sell off what assets were left of the company to others who would use them more efficient and create greater productivity?

Millions of jobs from other businesses supporting the auto industry would have been lost. We weren't just talking about the dealers. The parts for all those vehicle assembly lines in Detroit are made all over the country. There are small businesses like glass manufacturers that depend on the industry, and a myriad others you probaby wouldn't even think of.

 

[David Duke La]

The purpose for why these Car Dealerships are doing this is to remove Obama from office through Quo-Warranto. That is why they chose these particular attorneys named Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon.

Here is Donofrios website: Read it.
Natural Born Citizen

 

[MaggieMae]

The only shame I saw in the shutdown was Chrysler and the government calling this necessary as a cost savings. Dealerships pay their own way, but the government needed the pain spread around more, so it looked better politically. I hope the dealers take a big chunk from the government.

So now you're hoping that wiinning multi-million dollar lawsuits against the government would be worthwhile? Just who do you think picks up THAT tab?

 

[saveliberty]

The only shame I saw in the shutdown was Chrysler and the government calling this necessary as a cost savings. Dealerships pay their own way, but the government needed the pain spread around more, so it looked better politically. I hope the dealers take a big chunk from the government.

So now you're hoping that wiinning multi-million dollar lawsuits against the government would be worthwhile? Just who do you think picks up THAT tab?

Just compensation for a wrong. You have a problem with that, get rid of the politicans that forced it to happen in the first place.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yes, this is all perfectly true. I agree with all of this.

When I said they would have "gone out of business" I meant "out of the business of being Chrysler dealers".

Of course they could find other lines of automobiles to sell.

As they can now, after Chrysler "shut them down".

And that's the thing. The govt. didn't shut down individual dealerships, Chrysler made those decisions.

After restructuring, the US Government has an 8% share--that's a HUGE share of Chrysler; Canada has 2%; and the UAW--you know those guys who are 100% in bed with the Obama administration or he with them, however you want to look at it--hold a whopping 55% of the stock. Emissaries appointed by Obama and answering only to him hire the CEO and say how much he will be paid.

Now tell me again how Chrysler made those decisions.

When Chrysler can pay back the TARP loan, it can do anything it wants. The US government LOANED the company money, and just as any private lender, there are obviously conditions until the money is repaid. Would a private investment bank require partial stock ownership as a condition? You bet they would.

 

[MaggieMae]

I can see some good grounds to challenge the Bailouts in the first place and the government control of it. Im not seeing how this creates any sorts of ground to challenge Obama's citizenship.

The basis of the lawsuit was the standing of the government to require a private business to close. I guess they thought the citizenship issue would just further throw the standing issue into question, but I wish they had left that part out of it.

I agree. I wish they left that part out. I feel it weakens their over all argument.

It only proves that, at least the lawyers filing the lawsuits, have political agendas. That's been my point all along in disputing the purpose of the suits, and also the purpose of posting the information on a message board. I mean who doesn't feel awful about people's livelihoods going down the tubes? Deal with the reality, not with the politics--the ******* blame game--and fix what's really WRONG, instead of (in this case) filing a stupid lawsuit which I can guarantee will go NOWHERE for the plaintiffs because any judge will see the political agenda on its face.

 

[MaggieMae]

The only ones talking about a conspiracy against Republicans are Maggie, you, and a couple of other parrots. In my opinion, had most of the dealerships been owned by generously contributing Democrats, there would have been no closure of dealerships, but that is beside the point in this case.

The point made--you know, the one that seems to keep escaping most of the leftsts here--is whether the government should be in the auto business at all and certainly whether it should be involved of ordering perfectly good dealerships to go out of business. Especially when it does nothing to stop other dealerships from opening right up.

I don't want the government to have authority or ability to order honest, ethical, and legal businesses to close down or give up their franchises or anything else.

Do you want the government to have authority to do that?

Did the dealerships seek the bailout $$? If they're getting bailed out by the taxpayers, then the taxpayer's representatives get to set terms. I'd rather have seen them fall flat, along with the banking industry, and all their stockholders and ceos and boards of directors who either made or allowed top-heavy compensation for stupid decisions. When hard working Americans are being told to tough it out, I see no reason for the entitled class to get taxpayer funding for incompetence.

Well we're sorta arguing on the same side of the fence here I think.

The dealerships had no say one way or the other in the bailouts. I would guess some of those that got the gravy thought it was fine and dandy, and those forced to give up their franchises did not.

There should have been no government bailout. There is no constitutional authority for the government putting taxpayer money at that kind of risk. Had there been no bailout, there would have been no reason to take over the industry, no ability for the government to protect the union and give them everything they wanted, no excuse for the government telling anybody whether they could stay in business or what kind of business they could aspire to, and we wouldn't be one step closer to a Socialist government instead of the Republic that protects a free people as decreed by the Constitution.

Somebody should have thought of that when Chrysler was bailed out in the 80's and the savings and loans were bailed out around that time too. Did anyone think to challenge Reagan's constitutional authority? Where were the tea parties then?

 

[MaggieMae]

I think it's intriguing that these closed dealers, presumably suffering serious financial loss already, have enough money to hire lawyers to fight a losing cause. There is so much factual information defense attorneys will have right at their fingertips and the x-dealers will ultimately have legal fees piled on top of their losses.

Stupid.

Wouldn't this be more along the lines of the personal injury kind of law suit in which the lawyer works for free and gets a huge % of the payoff if a win occurs?

Well sure, if that actually happened with any frequency. Pro bono selections are determined by the parters and/or top management of a law firm and are usually done to expose the firm to free publicity. So, yeah, now I'm thinking if these lawyers are working for nothing, there's definitely an underlying agenda. PI cases where people can't afford an attorney are usually handled by Legal Aid, or, if a person injured has a rock solid case, a PI attorney will eagerly take it on for nothing until a settlement is reached. Then s/he gets a cut (usually around a third of the award).

 

[David Duke La]

The basis of the lawsuit was the standing of the government to require a private business to close. I guess they thought the citizenship issue would just further throw the standing issue into question, but I wish they had left that part out of it.

I agree. I wish they left that part out. I feel it weakens their over all argument.

It only proves that, at least the lawyers filing the lawsuits, have political agendas. That's been my point all along in disputing the purpose of the suits, and also the purpose of posting the information on a message board. I mean who doesn't feel awful about people's livelihoods going down the tubes? Deal with the reality, not with the politics--the ******* blame game--and fix what's really WRONG, instead of (in this case) filing a stupid lawsuit which I can guarantee will go NOWHERE for the plaintiffs because any judge will see the political agenda on its face.

What do you think the agenda is for these attorneys?

 

[MaggieMae]

What you people are forgetting about this suit is that Quo-Warranto will be used against Obama filed in a DC Court which is in the jurisdiction in which Obama resides. This is bad news for Obama. This is a brilliant strategy because Obama will have to defend himself on two fronts.

And, once again, the ignorant GET OBAMA BRIGADE will come out looking like the fools they are. The laughing stock of the rest of the country.

 

[Foxfyre]

What you people are forgetting about this suit is that Quo-Warranto will be used against Obama filed in a DC Court which is in the jurisdiction in which Obama resides. This is bad news for Obama. This is a brilliant strategy because Obama will have to defend himself on two fronts.

And, once again, the ignorant GET OBAMA BRIGADE will come out looking like the fools they are. The laughing stock of the rest of the country.

Do you want the President of the United States or anybody else in government, no matter who he or she is, to be able to tell an American citizen what kind of legal business he/she is allowed to have or what kind of legal franchise he/she is allowed to hold?

 

[MaggieMae]

Every article I have seen on the cost to GM and Chrysler of dealerships was a pack of lies. They would cite training costs of mechanics, advertising, distribution, floor plan and other support. The dealers pay for all of that.

If they can...

 

[MaggieMae]

You people do know why the dealerships hired these attorneys don't you? It far more greater than just the bankruptsy. If Quo-Warranto is granted then this would be the biggest event since Americas conception.

That's nothing new. The Birthers have taken Obama all the way to the USSC on constitutional grounds, but of course they just laughed and used the voluminous complaints for toilet paper. But, yes, it has cost Obama a great deal in legal fees because the process of denying those idiotic claims is required or the suits would have been won by default. The same will happen here. I hope you're enjoying being dumbed down.

 

[MaggieMae]

You people do know why the dealerships hired these attorneys don't you? It far more greater than just the bankruptsy. If Quo-Warranto is granted then this would be the biggest event since Americas conception.

In your little mind. Stop laying turds all over the board please.

I also disagree with the member.

Quo warranto is applied every time we challenge a police officer's right to search our person or search or enter our automobile, our house, our place of business. If done outside the authority of the law, we have right of redress.

Quo warranto has been applied in cases such as Kelo in which government entities condemned private property in a way that benefitted other private citizens. Some of these cases have been I think decided wrongly. I accept the principle of eminent domain within the scope of the general welfare and the necessity of government to fulfill the authorized social contract. I think Kelo for instance far overstepped such authority and was rightfully challenged even though the plaintiffs lost. Kelo was such an blatant violation of individual rights that I look for it to be overturned when the next such case comes up--at least if we keep a majority of constitutional scholars on the Supreme Court.

Quo warranto was applied vigorously in the wake of 9/11 as our law enforcement and military scrambled to protect our persons and possessions from further attack, and their authority to do so, especially within the Patriot Act, was questioned, challenged, and lawsuits did fly. That was a good thing and once the dust settled, those policies and procedures that overstepped constitutional authority were eliminated and the remaining policy and procedures are reasonable and within the scope and intent of constitutional authority.

And now we have government leaders who presume authority to order who can and cannot have a franchise to operate an auto dealership.

Let's hope and pray that quo warranto will rein in what is increasingly a dangerously rogue government and restore some sanity to the system.

Except it wasn't the government that made that decision; it was Chrysler. I see this lawsuit, if it ever reaches even one day in court before being thrown out as frivolous, to backfire big time.

 

[MaggieMae]

so how do you explain them closing a dealership and turning around and opening another one? huh?

The ones closed down were UNPROFITABLE!!! A new dealership probably had the creds to prove its worth and thus the risk. Hello?

MaggieMae, I can assure you there are very few profitable new car dealerships at the time this happened or even today. The ones that are, make their money from used car operations or very aggressive add-on sales of finance and after-market products.

A moot point. If a dealership was already proving to be unprofitable (for WHATEVER reason), and if a new dealership at least has the reputation and a proven track record for operating a business, why shouldn't the latter be given the franchise even if it was going to sell more used cars than new ones?

 

[MaggieMae]

You should go back and review the Senate hearings.

Since you first brought it up, the ball's in your court to prove your statements. Just posting an article reflecting what some REPUBLICAN Senator said doesn't cut it. You can probably find a full transcript on the Thomas's website. Enjoy your research.

 

[MaggieMae]

you think they were black demoncwats? welldoyahuh?

SAVE ME FROM BECOMING ONE OF WILLOW TWEE'S AVATARS!!!​

did you find any black democrats whose car dealships had been un voluntarily closed? yet?

You're a ******* bigot on top of being the most stupid person on this message board. You're never worth my time, so I don't know why I even bother reading your junk.

 

[MaggieMae]

The purpose for why these Car Dealerships are doing this is to remove Obama from office through Quo-Warranto. That is why they chose these particular attorneys named Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon.

Here is Donofrios website: Read it.
Natural Born Citizen

You're gonna get this whole thread dumped into the Flame Zone, moron. And that means your contributions are worthless. Birther's usually do wind up there.