Republican says something stupid...
 

Just trying to level the playing field a bit...

I have a feeling this will only be reported by the Navy Times and right wing websites.

Damn you stock photo.com and stupid poly sci interns!!
:lol

Those are the only people who would notice. Most Americans cant tell a carrier from an LHD.

Since when does that matter.

I was wrong anyway, looks like Yahoo and ABC both picked it up to some degree.

I don't really see why this matters.

It's such a simple thing to get RIGHT. Just stupid really.

I could easily see some intern or convention volunteer googling "navy ships" and taking the first pretty picture he finds. I'm a former Sailor and Marine and I wouldn't have known, from that picture, that those were Soviet vessels. If anything, with F-5's in the shot (which I could have identified), I would have assumed it was a picture of US forces from the '60's or '70's.

more likely, they had a bunch of 20-somethings come up with a nice looking graphic, and not having any relative experience with the military, (nor anyone else in the media dept for that matter), it just kept going up the chain. See it all the time. Th sad thing, is there are enough veterans associated with the campaign to easily check that.

Thank you, Mitt, for making this thread title come true.

/rant ON

This kind of shit is EXACTLY what is wrong with this Country....one fucking distraction after another.

Who fucking CARES what picture was displayed while some numbnuts was talking? We're 16 TRILLION dollars in debt....and growing....our education system is a shambles GUARANTEEING our further economic decline into the future....our infrastructure is falling down around our heads...and we're STILL in bed with Third World Shit Lords who hook us up with cheap oil....rather than developing...and selling to OUR benefit...the power sources of the future.

Pictures.....fuck off with every bit of that and every other distraction (gay marriage, gays in the military...abortion...blah blah blah blah blah.)

Fix the REAL fucking problems in this Country or shut the fuck up.

The apology comment?

The problem is this kind of shit is easy and has no penalty. What you are talking about is 1) difficult or currently impossible and 2) effectively guarantees you lose the election.

Or this one:

http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-romn...-politics.html

Guess it's a good thing the republicans have already pledged to not "let their campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."

In other news,


http://www.theonion.com/video/tampa-...ef=recirc_auto

What's the problem with that? The Obama campaign has been calling Romney a liar for months. Two weeks ago they said Romney's "campaign is built on a tripod of lies". They also gave a nice choice a few months back that Romney was either a liar or a felon. Fact is both candidates are dishonest when it suits them and each calls out the other's dishonesty when they believe it to be to their benefit.

I would agree with you and leave it at that in most cases. But in this case, Paul Ryan gave a speech at the RNC that was counter to actual fact checking at every other word, and the republican response was essentially "Yeah, so?" In this case, Mitt Romney has completely "re-invented" himself from "moderate conservative" (most in the republican party these days would have called him a "vile baby-killing liberal," just a few short years back) to staunch far-right pro-life anti-universal-healthcare defender-of-all-that-is-Reagan. In this case, the republicans aren't even trying to hide their lies.

As a semi-self-respecting American voter, I expect a little reach around. At least try to pretend you're not lying to my face.

The response to the Ryan fact checking was "Yeah, so?" and they have generally decided to not "let their campaign be dictated by fact-checkers" because at least some of the fact checking has been bullshit. We can use the Janesville auto plant as an example because it was widely reported as a Ryan lie.

In his speech Ryan said:

"President Barack Obama came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two. Those were very tough days, and any fair measure of his record has to take that into account. My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory.

A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.” That’s what he said in 2008.

Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight."

Where is the lie, one so blatant the media had a conniption about it for a week or so?

I suppose some of the media had a week long conniption about as much as Fox News had a week of republican solidarity. All that crap evens out in the wash, at this point.

But the lie, in that one instance, is in the implied blame on President Obama for the closing of the GM plant. The plant actually closed while President Bush was still in office. But somehow, President Obama is to blame not only for the plant closing, but for it not opening its doors again? And yes, that blame was placed squarely at the president's feet, otherwise Ryan wouldn't have mentioned them both in the same breath.

Sure, they both play those games. And sure, President Obama has softened some positions and outright changed some others, but he hasn't completely redefined himself almost to the point of speciation the way Romney has. And like I said, while the democrats are most certainly lying to us, they aren't reveling in it the way the republicans seem to lately.

Minute as that distinction may be, it's all I have to distinguish the two since they seem to share common goals these days. Ask Governor Mitt Romney of Massachussetts...

The plant closed in April of 2009. I may be no calendar scholar but I'm pretty sure January of 2009 comes before April of 2009.

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee...9/daily16.html

Here's a chance to brush up on your calendar scholarliness:

If an article is written on December 29, 2008, and references a plant closing on December 23 in the past tense, what is the latest year to which that article can be referring?

There is no need to re-write the question in your answer.

"Oh, but 50 people stuck around until April to crank out a few Izuzu parts and decommission the plant! It's clearly Obama's fault!"

Bullshit.

http://media.gazettextra.com/img/pho...6b01a9d617b3e9

OFair enough, though they were still running and President Obama could of done something to bring it back. Not that it's the President's job to do that but if he said he'd promise then he should at least try. That asshole can funnel money into Chicago to repave roads that were just repaved (and tolled to death) you'd think he could try and do shit for them. Then again he put out a lot of promises.

Personally I say fuck those UAW assholes, I hope every single one of them starved their fat asses to near-death for the bullshit they turned out that cost me tons of money to fix because they put out absolute and complete shit. I'll never own an American company car again. I'll only buy Japanese company cars which are usually built in America but without Union assholes fucking everything up. My Honda sportbike can go 50k miles of bad oil changes and abuse but my old Chevy made POS needs repair more than it needed an oil change.

And also after having to work with those fucking pricks, my biggest regret is not grabbing a lawn chair with a 12 pack of imported beer, to camp out at the GM plant in Atlanta when it closed and watch those mentally retarded fucks walk out knowing they are too stupid to ever get another job above ditch digger, much less a $50-$100 an hour job, then laugh at them.

I don't think Ryan was blaming Obama for the plant closing no matter what the date was. What I believe he was blaming Obama for was making promises on the campaign trail to get elected he couldn't keep when he became President.

Unlike what you believe Ryan implied, he actually explicitly stated in his speech that the factory was already headed toward closure when candidate Obama visited. During his visit Obama stated his belief that the government could save that factory. Then Ryan explicitly stated (again, didn't imply) "And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight." Ryan isn't blaming Obama for closing the factory, he is blaming Obama for making promises he couldn't keep.

Either way we have entered the realm of mind reading, not facts. The facts are a factory was closing, Obama came in and said he believed the government could save the factory, the factory closed. Which one of those facts is a lie?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...mise-the-facts

Neither. A belief is not a promise. And no matter how hard a candidate believes something, until he's actually president he's not going to be able to use the authority of the president's office.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...gm-plant-open/

In most cases, the reason you had a bad experience with your car was due to sub-standard design, testing, and parts sourcing......Not because of assembly-line labor. IMO at least.

Agreed.

Bread and circuses, my friend. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

I worked at a machine shop doing what we called "union proofing" when we did stuff directly for GM. We normally worked with their sub-contracters becuase we could work with them easier. I have 100s of examples and reasons why the UAW is fucking over GM.

The design is a result of UAW demands on HOW they can assemble the car. We had to design (though GM never put it in use) a bracket to hold up the hoods of those ugly ass vans they use to make due to no support beucase the radiator wasn't in. With the radiator out the corners of the hood would bend up and some monkey would beat it down at QA. THey didn't put the radiator in due to demands on how a worker would have to move around. By the way, I've seen tons of hoods come down the line in the wrong color. It goes to the back yard where they switch the hoods.

Parts sourcing can be put on the UAW also. GM has to put in shitty parts to make a profit becuase contrary to popular belief, a company is suppose to make money. I remember at the GM plant in Atlanta (before it thankfully closed) there was a room full of old timers. The room was in hte middle of the building with no windows. When the shift started the lights went out and they went to sleep for their shift (gotta sleep off that hangover somehow). When they come into work they're usually making OT in the $100s an hour. They can't get fired becuase they get full benefits AND a $300,000 severance package when fired (it benefits them to get fired). There were usually about 12 guys in the room at one time every single day. Basically GM has to pay those assholes and can't put in the nice stuff because a Malibu would cost as much as a Mercedez when it was over.

The GM Corvette plant in Kentucky is hte exception to the rule. They get the good workers of other plants and bring them up there. People tour the Corvette plant and you can't have hte typical UAW worker in their. People would just be staring at a guy staring back at them all day.

But regardless of who's fault, I wont' own an American Company car because the American workers they staff suck and I hope they all lose their jobs.

I'm going to go out on a limb and speak from a position of ignorance (I'm pretty good at that you know)

In any mass produced design, don't you have to take into account the manufacturing process? So if you design something and the folks who will do the actual assembly come up to you and say "Aint gonna happen in this plant with these tools" wouldn't it be a good idea rethink the design?
Designing an elegant solution doesn't amount to much if its going to be a pain in the ass to manufacturer (hence cost more to build).

I worked in manufacturing for 7 years but that was back in the 90's.
Before online porn changed everything

The way the a UAW worker assembles a car vs a non-union worker for Kia, Toyota, and even BMW is much different.

GM can't go by the same standards as foreign car manufactures do because of union demands. Basically engineer designs process, process is put into practice and as expected changes need to be done, ground engineers say this is what needs to be done but while that happens you have a UAW representative standing there usually saying "We're not doing that" without even looking at a single blueprint or concept. Seen it happen first hand and why American car manufactures are doomed to fail. Then put this arrogent prick back in office and unions will know they run the auto-industry. Oh, and don't think the UAW will be gunning to unionize the foreign car companies if President Obama is reelected.

Why would they start taking that into account now? It's not like they considered that someone with hands bigger than a 3 year old would ever have to change a headlight bulb.

The UAW has been doing that for as long as there have been foreign car companies manufacturing in the States. They gunned for unionization under President Bush, they gunned for unionization during President Obama's first term, and they'll continue to gun for unionization even if Romney is elected.

I have no idea how a President Romney would react to UAW unionization efforts. But I have a pretty good idea of how Governor Romney of Massachussetts would react...

The UAW has a tough row to hoe where companies like Toyota are concerned, as they not only match the UAW deals, they go even further on a more personal level.

Mandatory Card Check would be a huge start. Let the Unions who have a long history of thug tactics that would make the KKK jealous get a sheet stating where every person stands. I'd sign it if I had union thugs... representatives coming to my home and asking me to vote yes on forming a union. Which would coincide with the dismanteling of "right to work" (I hate that name) so that an employer can't fire someone for voting yes.

Obama bought off the unions this go round by changing bankruptcy laws for his own liking. That proved to the unions that hte president is in their pocket. Now that they know Card Check will be next on the list.

I believe the new term is "at will employment". At least it is here.

Still don't like it. I feel it implies that the employee has a right to a job. Such as you get employment at will. Not that hte owner of the company has the right to exercise his actual right to be free in their belongings including their company and they can fire you from their company for whatever reason.

Oh, by the way, I do not believe unions should be banned. It should be between the company and their employees if they want to form a union or if the company is going to allow a union. The government's only role is to enforce the contract that they both agree to.

So rather than fact check the actual statement Ryan used at the RNC Politifact instead fact checked a statement Ryan made in a speech 2 weeks before, declared that a lie, then painted the RNC statement with the same brush despite the language at issue having been removed.

By your claim above (RNC speech didn't call it a promise), which is different from the claim you made in your earlier post, was Ryan's RNC statement a lie?

If we're quibbling over the presence or absence of the word "promise," there it is. But regardless, his point was the same: that President Obama somehow failed to keep the plant open after saying he would keep the plant open. That point was disingenuous at best. In my opinion, it was an outright lie because I don't think Ryan is stupid enough to believe that President Obama was actually promising to keep that plant open.

How have my claims changed from earlier posts?

Ryan claiming Obama promised to keep it open (your last two claims) and Ryan blaming him for it closing (your original claim) are two different things. Even using the earlier speech Ryan never blamed Obama for the plant closing.

Saying that Obama didn't promise a recovery (Ryan's RNC speech) is a stretch.

I've been over my posts backwards and forwards and I still don't see this change.


The best I can come up with is this quote:
But that was a response to this question by you:

And none of those facts is a lie. The lie is in the implication that Ryan made, that President Obama was to blame because he "promised" to keep the plant open. Dismiss is as "mind reading" if you want, but that implication is present, and intentional. The promise and the "blame" go hand-in-hand, because if the president had promised to keep the plant open, he would have been taking responsibility for whether or not the plant remained open.

But back to the original point that the republicans are so far out of touch with facts as to be essentially running against a fictional opponent:

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-ob...-politics.html

This is, what, 3 weeks after running an entire convention with the theme "We built that," based on an out-of-context quote from the president, insinuating that the president said business owners didn't build their own businesses.

With this latest quote, Romney has described himself to the letter. So I guess he isn't so much running against a fictional opponent as he is running against himself. Considering his record in Massachussetts, I suppose that has always been the case with his presidential campaigns...

I misunderstood your point in the post I was responding to. I thought you were adopting the logic that is was a lie because Obama never used the word "promise" rather than just responding to my post.

We see this differently. I don't see Ryan placing the blame on Obama for the plant closing, implied or otherwise. In my view the much stronger argument is that their was an implied promise by Obama to keep the plant open, but obviously opinions differ about that as well.. As (I believe) I said before Obama can be responsible for making "promises" he couldn't keep while still being absolved from fault for the factory closing.

That is how campaigns have worked for the last 3 decades anyway. It wasn't the Obama campaign directly but their minions (just like the swiftboat crew were Bush's minions) who put out a video of a Ryan lookalike literally pushing an old woman off a cliff in a wheelchair for his proposed Medicare cuts. Clinton forgot to mention that in his DNC speech when he said Ryan and Obama's cuts were exactly the same amount. The Obama campaign also hammers Romney for writing an Op-Ed saying that GM and Chrysler should go bankrupt. They present the only possible result of this would have put a million people out of work. They fail to mention that under Obama GM and Chrysler went bankrupt.

Each candidate creates a caricature of their opponent and runs against that. The bad part about the debates is there is no where near enough time to actually discuss anything, it just ends up being sound bites.

They should hold an open discussion that lasts for hours and hours. They could have breaks every so often where each can fact check the other's stats/claims, check sources, and respond. Have open topics running concurrently for hours on end. Most people wouldn't watch it (they like their reality TV scripted and wouldn't be willing to fuck up a weekend) but I would watch the shit out of it.

I thought GM/Chrysler never went technically bankrupt becuase President Obama went some old skool Chi-town politics and changed the bankruptcy laws so that GM/Ch couldn't go into bankruptcy where they could then renegotiate union contracts.

Fair enough. As usual, I definitely could have worded my response better.

Granted. And as we've covered, both sides lie straight out of their asses at least as often as they defecate out of those same asses.

It just seems to me, lately, that the republicans have had a special brand of lying. I couldn't support Senator McCain in the last election because his would-be-heartbeat-away replacement is a vapid bimbo, but I respected the hell out of him for taking the microphone away from his supporters when they started bleating the really stupid shit. I get the distinct impression that Romney would have taken the "Obama is an Arab" soundbite and made it a campaign platform. Then converted to Islam himself, just because he seems to revel in hypocrisy. But I digress...

I do think that sometimes I judge republican behavior more harshly because I want to be able to support them. But their all-star lineups these days don't give me much to support. I mean, for shit's sake, Michelle Bachmann was a front-runner for a short time.

I could get behind that.

Did anyone watch "60 Minutes" on the weekend? At least Obama's evasions were a touch more polished and less transparent than Romney's were.

I've wanted that for years. They put them both in a room with only them in it. No audience, moderators, or even SS. They check guns, knives, and brass knuckles at the door. I'd even argue that there shouldn't be cameras

Funniest thing I've read all day. :lol:

JC

They went through managed bankruptcies. In the case of GM anyway as I understand it they messed with the law so that bondholders got screwed instead of being the first to get paid. They also allowed all the bad stuff to get dumped on the bankrupt entity and all the good stuff transferred to the new company. They gave a nice chunk of that new company to the UAW (in the 17% range I believe) and while I don't know if they weren't allowed or just chose not to I don't believe they tried to vacate their union contracts. In exchange for a buttload of cash the government got majority stake in the new company (~60%, part of which was sold off in the IPO).

Romney, on the other hand, advocated for managed bankruptcies. Sounds strangely familiar doesn't it? Yet the Obama admin has continually hammered Romney for it and stated they saved more than 1 million jobs Romney would have eliminated.

You're right. Though to a degree they went into a bankruptcy that never existed until then. The union contracts weren't allowed to be touched which is a major part of bankruptcy and why President Obama really saved the UAW and not GM.

"Two men enter, one man leaves!"