Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!







Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 5th, 2009, 07:36 AM   #41
dreezy
Haggard Fab
 
dreezy's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-28-08
Location: Holland Mi
Posts: 9,738
iTrader: (7)
Send a message via AIM to dreezy Send a message via MSN to dreezy
Quote:
Originally Posted by greygoose View Post
Its not free.
Unfortunatly, everybody I have talked to about cfc calls it "free" money.
__________________
"you think you're precious, I think you're shit."
dreezy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 07:41 AM   #42
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 41,969
iTrader: (39)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreezy View Post
Unfortunatly, everybody I have talked to about cfc calls it "free" money.
pretty sad, isn't it?
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 07:45 AM   #43
greygoose
I'm the dude
 
greygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-18-08
Location: New Baltimore / Presque Isle
Posts: 6,079
iTrader: (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
pretty sad, isn't it?
Its fucking insane is what it is. Those same people who call it "free money" will be the ones who bitch the loudest about taxes going up and not understanding why. I fucking hate what my country has become.
greygoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 07:49 AM   #44
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 41,969
iTrader: (39)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Quote:
Originally Posted by greygoose View Post
Its fucking insane is what it is. Those same people who call it "free money" will be the ones who bitch the loudest about taxes going up and not understanding why. I fucking hate what my country has become.
The only thing that tops that is the fact that we're spending OUR TAX DOLLARS to destroy WORKING VEHICLES to feed the private sector with government money.

Where are all the poor people (I'm sorry, "less fortunate") who are complaining that used car prices are going up because of this program? This is basically fucking all the people who can't buy a new car by artificially inflating the price of used cars.
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 07:58 AM   #45
greygoose
I'm the dude
 
greygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-18-08
Location: New Baltimore / Presque Isle
Posts: 6,079
iTrader: (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
The only thing that tops that is the fact that we're spending OUR TAX DOLLARS to destroy WORKING VEHICLES to feed the private sector with government money.

Where are all the poor people (I'm sorry, "less fortunate") who are complaining that used car prices are going up because of this program? This is basically fucking all the people who can't buy a new car by artificially inflating the price of used cars.
This whole ordeal makes me sick. I hate this regime and all that it stands for.
greygoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 08:22 AM   #46
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,555
iTrader: (3)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
Well that settles it then. Thanks for your input.

Despite Aber61 having witnessed this for himself, it isn't true that it existed because Pete didn't see it himself.
So, I should believe Aber61 over my own experience? I did not call him a liar, however, I do doubt his story. He has a track record on this site of opposing anything this current administration does. If he sees an opportunity to discredit the let, he will take it. Personal observation based on reading his posts.


Quote:
Scottie said so, it must be true.

Pete-

It doesn't matter where what site or where on that site, this privacy agreement appeared on, or that since it's exposure it was removed and reworded. The fact that it existed at all and someone thought it was ok at the time, was an affront to the constitution of this country.
I agree with most of what you say here. However, things are a little different when you are talking about a business agreement, and this is what this is all about. Between the dealers and the government.


Quote:
You are big on facts. The fact is that you have a first hand eyewitness to the evidence that supports this story. Unless you think that Aber61 is a liar.

Let's face it, you are ignoring the facts when they don't support what you want to believe. You should take your own advice and put the pieces together yourself.
OK, let us look at facts.

Glenn Beck shows part of the cars.gov website used by DEALERS (indicated by the blue color of the page he showed) to enter information pertinent to qualifying a transaction for a voucher.
Glenn Beck claims this is what the consumer would have to navigate through to take part in the program. Warns the population, on his cable talk show, that the government is going to have legal access to all of your personal informatio, you meaning the generl public (car buyers) not the dealers.
He "claims" there is a privacy agreement, but can not produce it.
He "claims" to quote it "verbatim", even though he has no evidence to back up this claim.
Greasemonkey believes it because Beck "pulled off the website and read it verbatim". I am sure there are others who feel this way.
I am supposed to believe Aber61's eyewitness account over my own.

Quote:
Instead the left demonize the messenger, call those who believe the story tin foil hatters, and maintain their world view that Pres. Obama is not a marxist. It's a common tactic and it's wearing pretty thin.
The messenger is spouting false information, spinning the facts and twisting the proof to discredit a program support by the left. Yes, I demonize people who do this. I also question a persons intelligence when they blindly accept what the messenger spouts.

I disagree that Obama is a marxist, but that is another topic.
I do not agree blindly with everything Obama does.
The constant BS coming from the right is wearing pretty thin.

Now, back to the cars.gov website and the story at hand.

I firmly believe that Beck did see a privacy agreement and that it read the way he said, but, before you right wingers start breathing heavy thinking I am about to admit I am wrong, I also believe that what he saw was on the DEALERS part of the site.

One very simple fact causes me to believe this.
The page he showed was blue instead of green.
If you go to the site yourself and look around, you will see that every page for the consumers is green. Every page that the dealers access is blue. This is where Beck found the agreement, on the DEALERS part of the site, but he claimed it was what any and every consumer would see and have to agree to and that is where I believe he is simply wrong. The agreeemnt may have been removed, or maybe not since I do not have the needed login information to get to that point, do you?

If the agreement is written exactly the way he said it was, well, that is a problem. I will not argue that. But to say it is unconstitutional is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. It is an agreement the dealres can chooses to accept or reject if they want to participate in the program. Does it suck for them? YES. Does it go to far for the normal course of business? IMO, YES.
Is it a way for the government to get into your own personal comuter? NO
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 08:39 AM   #47
mideerslayer
NEVER GIVE UP!
 
mideerslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-27-06
Location: Clinton Township
Posts: 3,794
iTrader: (28)
The biggest problem they (the dealers ) are going to have is when the money run's out for good, the sales are going to drop like a rock.

It is good right now (not really because i dont agree with it) but it's like a energy drink high and when they run out of money they are gong to crash.

Then what, who is going to start buying new car's?? Not alot of people because they are afraid they might not have a job next week.

All the left is doing right now is throwing money out because people are blinded when it comes to "free stuff", but when the smoke clears it will be ugly.

The left is trying to buy there way out of mistakes and it is going to put the USA in a big hole that we will never get out of.

It is not Just the chosen one, it is Nancy, Harry and barney. The have been there alot longer then obama,bush,clinton and you can see the trail of destruction that they left behind.

We need to put term limits on the senate and the house and get fresh voices in there, because what we are hearing is the same stuff just worded differently
mideerslayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 08:40 AM   #48
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 5,984
iTrader: (3)
i am not sure what site you were on, but my wife told me wha she was reading and told her to not go to the site. If you cannot find it, it may be gone.
And yes I wiil tell my side of the story as it is a free country for awhile. It is the right thing to do, inform others of the sneeky tactics the left uses to get thier agenda through. as you tell your side of what you understand to be correct and true I do the same. The only difference is I am right and most americans tend to lean my way.
And yes obama is a marxist, he has admitted it in the past, those are his idols. I believe he also wrote a book about socilizm, stailn can't remember exactly but something on those lines
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 08:40 AM   #49
GreaseMonkey
Senior Member
 
GreaseMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Washington, MI
Posts: 17,873
iTrader: (22)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
So, I should believe Aber61 over my own experience? I did not call him a liar, however, I do doubt his story. He has a track record on this site of opposing anything this current administration does. If he sees an opportunity to discredit the let, he will take it. Personal observation based on reading his posts.




I agree with most of what you say here. However, things are a little different when you are talking about a business agreement, and this is what this is all about. Between the dealers and the government.




OK, let us look at facts.

Glenn Beck shows part of the cars.gov website used by DEALERS (indicated by the blue color of the page he showed) to enter information pertinent to qualifying a transaction for a voucher.
Glenn Beck claims this is what the consumer would have to navigate through to take part in the program. Warns the population, on his cable talk show, that the government is going to have legal access to all of your personal informatio, you meaning the generl public (car buyers) not the dealers.
He "claims" there is a privacy agreement, but can not produce it.
He "claims" to quote it "verbatim", even though he has no evidence to back up this claim.
Greasemonkey believes it because Beck "pulled off the website and read it verbatim". I am sure there are others who feel this way.
I am supposed to believe Aber61's eyewitness account over my own.



The messenger is spouting false information, spinning the facts and twisting the proof to discredit a program support by the left. Yes, I demonize people who do this. I also question a persons intelligence when they blindly accept what the messenger spouts.

I disagree that Obama is a marxist, but that is another topic.
I do not agree blindly with everything Obama does.
The constant BS coming from the right is wearing pretty thin.

Now, back to the cars.gov website and the story at hand.

I firmly believe that Beck did see a privacy agreement and that it read the way he said, but, before you right wingers start breathing heavy thinking I am about to admit I am wrong, I also believe that what he saw was on the DEALERS part of the site.

One very simple fact causes me to believe this.
The page he showed was blue instead of green.
If you go to the site yourself and look around, you will see that every page for the consumers is green. Every page that the dealers access is blue. This is where Beck found the agreement, on the DEALERS part of the site, but he claimed it was what any and every consumer would see and have to agree to and that is where I believe he is simply wrong. The agreeemnt may have been removed, or maybe not since I do not have the needed login information to get to that point, do you?

If the agreement is written exactly the way he said it was, well, that is a problem. I will not argue that. But to say it is unconstitutional is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. It is an agreement the dealres can chooses to accept or reject if they want to participate in the program. Does it suck for them? YES. Does it go to far for the normal course of business? IMO, YES.
Is it a way for the government to get into your own personal comuter? NO
So you think if you do business with someone, your property should be theirs, and that's not unconstitutional?

WTF is wrong with you?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryann View Post
I am not a lesbian but if I was I would do her.
GreaseMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 08:50 AM   #50
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,555
iTrader: (3)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreaseMonkey View Post
So you think if you do business with someone, your property should be theirs, and that's not unconstitutional?

WTF is wrong with you?
If you bother to actually read what I posted you will see, in the last paragraph, that I do not agree with that. I never said that, and never will.



A security agreement between 2 business partners is often filled with things that would not hold up to constitutional scrutiny. Since it is a private agreement, it does not have to.

You do have the choice to agree to the business partnership or opt out.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 09:01 AM   #51
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,555
iTrader: (3)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
i am not sure what site you were on, but my wife told me wha she was reading and told her to not go to the site. If you cannot find it, it may be gone.
So, you never actually saw it? Just your wife? Just clarifying, since earlier you said you had seen it as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
My wife began to log onto the site to look about the rebate and she read to me the info about how the computer you are on and all the files in the computer is now going to be the property of the us govenment. It was there saw it myself, hope that is proof enough for you pete
Hey 3-Foot, maybe Aber61 was not quite as good of an eye witness as you thought.


Quote:
And yes I wiil tell my side of the story as it is a free country for awhile. It is the right thing to do, inform others of the sneeky tactics the left uses to get thier agenda through. as you tell your side of what you understand to be correct and true I do the same. The only difference is I am right and most americans tend to lean my way.
Yes, we do have the right of free speech. But, in my opinion, we also have a responsibilty to make sure we know what we are taling about if we are talking in the public light.
That last line is arguable.

Quote:
And yes obama is a marxist, he has admitted it in the past, those are his idols. I believe he also wrote a book about socilizm, stailn can't remember exactly but something on those lines

Please, show me a quote where he admits he is a marxist.
He has shown that he agrees with some things that people who have been labelled socialist and marxist have said. Let us not forget, there are those who would have you believe and labor law or welfare program is socialist or marxist.

He has written 2 books. An autobiography and a boko about his ideas about America. I have not read either one and I am sure you have not either.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 09:15 AM   #52
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,298
iTrader: (9)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreaseMonkey View Post
So you think if you do business with someone, your property should be theirs, and that's not unconstitutional?

WTF is wrong with you?
So it's OK to require a person who wants to take advantge of a government hand out program to give up all thier rights (http://www.greatlakes4x4.com/showpos...62&postcount=7) but it's not OK for businesses to be required to do this?
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 09:38 AM   #53
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,555
iTrader: (3)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
So it's OK to require a person who wants to take advantge of a government hand out program to give up all thier rights (http://www.greatlakes4x4.com/showpos...62&postcount=7) but it's not OK for businesses to be required to do this?


Good point
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 09:50 AM   #54
Broncoholic
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
[QUOTE=mideerslayer;1794884]The biggest problem they (the dealers ) are going to have is when the money run's out for good, the sales are going to drop like a rock.

It is good right now (not really because i dont agree with it) but it's like a energy drink high and when they run out of money they are gong to crash.

Then what, who is going to start buying new car's?? Not alot of people because they are afraid they might not have a job next week.

All the left is doing right now is throwing money out because people are blinded when it comes to "free stuff", but when the smoke clears it will be ugly.

The left is trying to buy there way out of mistakes and it is going to put the USA in a big hole that we will never get out of.




I should never run out as long as they are owned by the Govt.
& the lefties. The brown shirts have to drive new cars to drive on the way to the voter beatings, the ballot boxes they stuff & all the other back door goings on in a Marxist administration.
I it kinda like a perpetual motion machine, once it starts it is hard to stop. Kinda like a freight train on a downhill grade.

They protect there investment till they get paid back. Even if they have to create a temp stimulus out of our kids future...
  Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 10:55 AM   #55
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,108
iTrader: (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
I firmly believe that Beck did see a privacy agreement and that it read the way he said, but, before you right wingers start breathing heavy thinking I am about to admit I am wrong, I also believe that what he saw was on the DEALERS part of the site.

One very simple fact causes me to believe this.
The page he showed was blue instead of green.
If you go to the site yourself and look around, you will see that every page for the consumers is green. Every page that the dealers access is blue. This is where Beck found the agreement, on the DEALERS part of the site, but he claimed it was what any and every consumer would see and have to agree to and that is where I believe he is simply wrong. The agreeemnt may have been removed, or maybe not since I do not have the needed login information to get to that point, do you?

If the agreement is written exactly the way he said it was, well, that is a problem. I will not argue that. But to say it is unconstitutional is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. It is an agreement the dealres can chooses to accept or reject if they want to participate in the program. Does it suck for them? YES. Does it go to far for the normal course of business? IMO, YES.
Is it a way for the government to get into your own personal comuter? NO
So in essence we agree... it goes too far. I'd say WAAAYYYYY to far.

Was it senationalized by Beck? yes.

Was it wrong by simply existing? yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
A security agreement between 2 business partners is often filled with things that would not hold up to constitutional scrutiny. Since it is a private agreement, it does not have to.
When one of those partners is the federal government, it is not a private agreement.

I stand by my statement that it is an afront to the constitution....

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


"Shall not be violated" seems pretty clear to me.

We can talk about Marxism another day.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 11:10 AM   #56
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,555
iTrader: (3)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
So in essence we agree... it goes too far. I'd say WAAAYYYYY to far.

Was it senationalized by Beck? yes.
I agree it went to far. I agree Beck sensationalized it. But I also maintain he twisted it into a lie to support his own agenda.

Quote:
Was it wrong by simply existing? yes.
As a security agreement for the dealers to access the site, no.

Quote:

When one of those partners is the federal government, it is not a private agreement.
Are you saying that all agreements the federal government signs onto shall be public and available for anyone to see? After all, if they are not private agreements, they must be public and open for view.

I say private agreement in the sense it is a busniess agreement.

Quote:
I stand by my statement that it is an afront to the constitution....

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


"Shall not be violated" seems pretty clear to me.

We can talk about Marxism another day.

I do not feel Amendment IV was intended to apply to business agreements. But rather to an individuals right to privacy and due process. (yes, businesses are considered individuals in this context, but contracts and agreements are not)
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 11:34 AM   #57
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,108
iTrader: (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
Are you saying that all agreements the federal government signs onto shall be public and available for anyone to see? After all, if they are not private agreements, they must be public and open for view.
What I am saying is that the gov't only has the power granted to it by the people, through the constitution and that taking information from the computers of dealers or citizens is a violation of those powers under the 4th amendment, even if the dealers/citizens agreed to it.

example:
If I (the dealers) agree to let you shoot me in the head, are you (the gov't) still guilty of murder after the shooting?

Answer: Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
I do not feel Amendment IV was intended to apply to business agreements. But rather to an individuals right to privacy and due process. (yes, businesses are considered individuals in this context, but contracts and agreements are not)
The 4th amendment applies to everything the gov't does. That's what "shall not be violated" means. There is no difference between a private deal and a business deal, they are the same.

None of this would be an issue if the gov't would stay out of the market manipulation game.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 11:48 AM   #58
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,555
iTrader: (3)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
What I am saying is that the gov't only has the power granted to it by the people, through the constitution and that taking information from the computers of dealers or citizens is a violation of those powers under the 4th amendment, even if the dealers/citizens agreed to it.

example:
If I (the dealers) agree to let you shoot me in the head, are you (the gov't) still guilty of murder after the shooting?

Answer: Yes.
An example beneath you. We both know that murder is illegal no matter how you slice it. (no pun intended)



Quote:
The 4th amendment applies to everything the gov't does. That's what "shall not be violated" means. There is no difference between a private deal and a business deal, they are the same.
In the eyes of the law, I believe you are correct (since I do not have a law degree), there is no difference between a private deal and a business deal.
I am talking about individual rights as opposed to a legal binding contract.
My e-mail is mine. Unless I use company assets to transmit or recieve it. Then it is no longer mine, it is the property of the company and they can access it any time they want. That is the contract I agree to everytime I sign in at work. Does it violate the intent of Article IV? Yes it does in your estimation. But I have a choice, I can agree, or not use the company asset. It is a legal binding agreement that has stood up in the court of law.
The company does not have any right to that e-mail if I do not use any company assets to access it. In that case, Article IV does apply.
Example based on personal knowledge and can be applied to government assets as well.

What the government is doing in this case is essentially the same thing, albeit poorly thought out and worded. You agree to monitoring if you access thier system.



Quote:
None of this would be an issue if the gov't would stay out of the market manipulation game.
True, and we both know this is not anything new.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 03:25 PM   #59
joe peres
jesus ( THE ONE )
 
Join Date: 08-05-09
Location: warren
Posts: 2
iTrader: (0)
glenn beck = moron
joe peres is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2009, 10:00 AM   #60
GreaseMonkey
Senior Member
 
GreaseMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Washington, MI
Posts: 17,873
iTrader: (22)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
So it's OK to require a person who wants to take advantge of a government hand out program to give up all thier rights (http://www.greatlakes4x4.com/showpos...62&postcount=7) but it's not OK for businesses to be required to do this?
I guess that is a bit hypocritical, but I do see it as two different types of transactions.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryann View Post
I am not a lesbian but if I was I would do her.
GreaseMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:55 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Cracker Enterprises - Powered by Linux
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Page generated in 0.35521 seconds with 50 queries