Republican says something stupid... [Archive]

udman

09-11-2012, 10:43 PM

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

Russian ships displayed at DNC tribute to vets

By Sam Fellman - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Sep 11, 2012 17:16:10 EDT

On the last night of the Democratic National Convention, a retired Navy four-star took the stage to pay tribute to veterans. Behind him, on a giant screen, the image of four hulking warships reinforced his patriotic message.

But there was a big mistake in the stirring backdrop: those are Russian warships.

While retired Adm. John Nathman, a former commander of Fleet Forces Command, honored vets as America’s best, the ships from the Russian Federation Navy were arrayed like sentinels on the big screen above.

These were the very Soviet-era combatants that Nathman and Cold Warriors like him had once squared off against.

“The ships are definitely Russian,” said noted naval author Norman Polmar after reviewing hi-resolution photos from the event. “There’s no question of that in my mind.”

Naval experts concluded the background was a photo composite of Russian ships that were overflown by what appear to be U.S. trainer jets. It remains unclear how or why the Democratic Party used what’s believed to be images of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at their convention.

A spokesman for the Democratic National Convention Committee was not able to immediately comment Tuesday, saying he had to track down personnel to find out what had happened.

The veteran who spotted the error and notified Navy Times said he was immediately taken aback.

“I was kind of in shock,” said Rob Barker, 38, a former electronics warfare technician who left the Navy in 2006. Having learned to visually identify foreign ships by their radars, Barker recognized the closest ship as the Kara-class cruiser Kerch.

“An immediate apology [from the committee] would be very nice,” Barker said. “Maybe acknowledge the fact that yes, they screwed up.”

The background — featured in the carefully choreographed hour leading up to the president’s Sept. 6 speech accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination — showed four ships with radar designs not used in the U.S. fleet.

For example, the ship in the foreground, on the far right, has a square radar antenna at the top of its masthead. That is the MR-700 Podberezovik 3-D early warning radar, commonly identified as “Flat Screen” for its appearance, a three-dimensional early warning radar mounted on the Kerch, said Eric Wertheim, editor of “Combat Fleets of the World.”

Similarly, the third ship has a MR-310 “Head Net” air search radar, shaped like two off-set bananas, at its masthead and is mostly likely the guided missile destroyer Smetlivyy. The first two ships seem to be Krivak-class frigates, but it’s hard to discern from the silhouette, experts said.

But the fact they are Russian ships is not in doubt. In addition to the ship’s radar arrays and hulls, which are dissimilar from U.S. warships, the photo features one more give-away: a large white flag with a blue ‘X’ at the ships’ sterns.

Polmar, who authored “The Naval Institute Guide to the Soviet Navy,” recognized the blue ‘X’-mark: “The X is the Cross of St. Andrew’s, which is a Russian Navy symbol,” Polmar said. (An anchored U.S. warship, by contrast, flies the American flag on its stern.)

Based on this specific group of these ship types, one naval expert concluded that this was most likely a photo of the Black Sea Fleet.

“Ships are all Black Sea Fleet,” A. D. Baker III, a retired Office of Naval Intelligence analyst, told Navy Times after looking at the image. “These four ships, at the time the photo was taken, constituted the entire major surface combatant component of the Black Sea Fleet,” Baker said, noting the photo was likely to be six years old or older. (The Kerch is now on the list to be scrapped, Baker said.)

Barker, the former sailor who first spotted the errors, believes the seven aircraft streaking by are F-5 jets, a trainer used by the U.S. Navy. Asked to explain how he reached that conclusion, the former airplane spotter ticked off a list: “Twin engine, single rudder, with hard points on the wingtips, with that silhouette is going to make them F-5s.”

goof2

09-12-2012, 01:25 AM

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

pauldun170

09-12-2012, 09:17 AM

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

EpyonXero

09-12-2012, 10:24 PM

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

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

goof2

09-13-2012, 01:14 AM

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.

G-Rex

09-13-2012, 06:59 AM

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

I don't really see why this matters.

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

fatbuckRTO

09-13-2012, 08:57 AM

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.

derf

09-13-2012, 09:26 AM

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.

azoomm

09-13-2012, 10:27 AM

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

KSGregman

09-13-2012, 10:45 AM

/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.

goof2

09-13-2012, 09:32 PM

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

The apology comment?

goof2

09-13-2012, 09:35 PM

fatbuckRTO

09-14-2012, 09:34 AM

The apology comment?

Or this one:

"I think the challenge that I'll have in the debate is that the president tends to, how shall I say it, to say things that aren't true," Romney said.

http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-romney-debates-obama-things-arent-true-105805916--abc-news-politics.html

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

Apoc

09-14-2012, 11:12 AM

In other news,

http://www.theonion.com/video/tampa-bay-gay-prostitutes-gearing-up-for-flood-of,29263/?ref=recirc_auto

goof2

09-15-2012, 12:50 AM

Or this one:

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

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.

fatbuckRTO

09-15-2012, 03:06 AM

What's the problem with that? ... 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.

goof2

09-15-2012, 12:48 PM

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?

fatbuckRTO

09-17-2012, 09:57 AM

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...

Smittie61984

09-17-2012, 11:56 AM

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....

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.

fatbuckRTO

09-17-2012, 01:35 PM

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/stories/2008/12/29/daily16.html

GM’s Janesville assembly plant closed Dec. 23, putting the plant's remaining 1,200 workers out of a job. 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/photos/2008/12/24/LastGMBannerLine_t715.jpg?529764a1de2bdd0f74a9fb4f 856b01a9d617b3e9

Smittie61984

09-17-2012, 09:00 PM

Ohttp://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2008/12/29/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/photos/2008/12/24/LastGMBannerLine_t715.jpg?529764a1de2bdd0f74a9fb4f 856b01a9d617b3e9

Fair 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.

goof2

09-17-2012, 09:48 PM

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...

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?

fatbuckRTO

09-18-2012, 08:38 AM

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.

But Adair tells us — and PolitiFact's post makes clear — that Ryan got the "false" rating not only because of what he said Wednesday night but for what he said at a campaign rally on Aug. 16: "I remember President Obama visiting it when he was first running, saying he'll keep that plant open. One more broken promise."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/08/30/160320776/janesville-debate-dissecting-ryans-claim-obamas-promise-the-facts

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?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.

"And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your president."

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/aug/29/paul-ryan/did-barack-obama-break-promise-keep-gm-plant-open/

Homeslice

09-18-2012, 01:43 PM

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.

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.

pauldun170

09-18-2012, 05:30 PM

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.

Papa_Complex

09-18-2012, 05:31 PM

Smittie61984

09-18-2012, 06:26 PM

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.

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.

pauldun170

09-18-2012, 06:56 PM

The design is a result of UAW demands on HOW they can assemble the car.

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

Smittie61984

09-18-2012, 08:04 PM

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.

Papa_Complex

09-18-2012, 08:13 PM

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

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.

fatbuckRTO

09-19-2012, 08:39 AM

Oh, and don't think the UAW will be gunning to unionize the foreign car companies if President Obama is reelected.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...

Papa_Complex

09-19-2012, 08:57 AM

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.

Smittie61984

09-19-2012, 06:13 PM

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.

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.

defector

09-19-2012, 09:49 PM

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.

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

Smittie61984

09-19-2012, 10:01 PM

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.

goof2

09-19-2012, 10:27 PM

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/08/30/160320776/janesville-debate-dissecting-ryans-claim-obamas-promise-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/statements/2012/aug/29/paul-ryan/did-barack-obama-break-promise-keep-gm-plant-open/

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?

fatbuckRTO

09-19-2012, 11:00 PM

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?"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." 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?

goof2

09-21-2012, 12:15 AM

fatbuckRTO

09-24-2012, 09:18 AM

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

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.

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.

The best I can come up with is this quote:
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.

But that was a response to this question by you:

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? 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.

fatbuckRTO

09-24-2012, 09:27 AM

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:

"I'm not going to try to fool people into thinking he believes things he doesn't," Romney said. "He's trying to fool people into thinking that I think things that I don't. And that ends at the debates."

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-obama-trying-fool-voters-inaccurate-attacks-013006702--abc-news-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...

goof2

09-26-2012, 12:17 AM

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:

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.

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.

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.

goof2

09-26-2012, 12:31 AM

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-obama-trying-fool-voters-inaccurate-attacks-013006702--abc-news-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...

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.

Smittie61984

09-26-2012, 12:38 AM

They fail to mention that under Obama GM and Chrysler went bankrupt.

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.

fatbuckRTO

09-26-2012, 08:44 AM

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

That is how campaigns have worked for the last 3 decades anyway. 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.

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 could get behind that.

Papa_Complex

09-26-2012, 10:26 AM

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.

Smittie61984

09-26-2012, 10:32 AM

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'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

askmrjesus

09-26-2012, 03:58 PM

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...

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

JC

goof2

09-26-2012, 11:45 PM

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.

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.