Who will take on Obama in 2012?

[will.15]

I have no idea what Johnson believes. I thought he was like Ron Paul.

[Yoda]

He mostly is, yeah. I'm not sure of all the ins and outs but he was usually "the other libertarian."

He also kinda sounds like a pothead when he talks. To me, at least.

[DexterRiley]

Nope. You already said this a bunch of posts back, and I replied here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=835628). These costs, whether you find them good, bad, necessary, or downright stupid, don't come close to covering our unfunded liabilities. You have to look at the actual numbers. You can't just say "hey, we spent a lot of money on this one thing I don't like, so I'll just assume that's enough to pay for this other thing that I do."

I mean, by all means, let's talk about this. Let's get into the numbers. But it's kinda pointless to say something, get a response, and then just come back and say it over again as if the response never happened, yeah? That's not really a discussion.

I'm not sure why you posted that video, either; it's two liberal guys making fun of conservative talking points (badly, I'll add), but it doesn't actually dispute the idea that the program is in huge financial trouble.

ok lets get the numbers in line.

How much revenue was lost to government coffers with the Bush Tax Cuts?

Whats the tab for the expenditures over and above the DoD normal ridiculous budget?

[Yoda]

ok lets get the numbers in line.

How much revenue was lost to government coffers with the Bush Tax Cuts?

Whats the tab for the expenditures over and above the DoD normal ridiculous budget?
The answers differ somewhat depending on what assumptions you make, but here's the basic framework:

1. The Bush tax cuts. Are you talking the 2001 cuts for the lower/middle class, or the 2003 cuts? Are you talking about raising taxes across the board, or just on the top 5%? If it's all of them, then the cost seems to be around $2.2 trillion...over ten years. If it's just the top 5%, it's more like half that (roughly; if you want more specifics, say the word). I'll assume you just mean the top income earners.

So, let's be generous and round that up to more like $1.2 trillion (which is even higher than the number I got from a left-leaning advocacy group) for the higher income tax cuts. Even that raw cost is disputed, because one of the arguments for tax cuts is that they actually increase growth and make tax revenue go up. Which is exactly what happened: after the 2003 tax cuts, tax revenue went up $1.1 trillion. Most of the attempts to calculate the "cost" make absolutely no attempt to account for this.

2. The Cost of War. If you use the National Priorities Project (which runs CostOfWar.com), they say it's coming up on $1.4 trillion. That includes Afghanistan, which most people don't find especially needless, by the way.

So let's be insanely generous about the total. Let's use the $1.2 trillion overestimation AND completely ignore increased tax revenues or any of the effects that cause people to support tax cuts in the first place. Add that to the cost of the war and you get $2.6 trillion.

At last year's rate of spending, that's enough to run Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIPs for...drum roll...about three years. And that's without taking into account the fact that states have to match CHIP and Medicaid funds or the interest or rising healthcare costs.

[will.15]

I'm not sure why you posted that video, either; it's two liberal guys making fun of conservative talking points (badly, I'll add), but it doesn't actually dispute the idea that the program is in huge financial trouble.
Well, the point of the video wasn't it is in financial trouble. It was the person who first came up with the concept of premium support Paul Ryan now embraces, which is different than his first plan which was to end a government funded Medicare program altogether, has abandoned it because he has concluded based on later information it won't reduce medical costs and improve benefits.

[Yoda]

I think you're talking about the second video Dex posted; I was referring to the first.

[will.15]

My bad.

I didn't watch that one.

[Yoda]

Lucky.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Anyone see Clint Eastwood the other night?

https://p.twimg.com/A1n8LOUCEAABsSn.jpg

[Yoda]

Aye, but that's doctored. The original:

http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_assets/948917/oldman_yelling_at_cloud.jpg

[will.15]

They still let him make movies?

[AKA23]

Eastwood makes great movies. "Trouble with the Curve" looks like another great role for Eastwood. I think the people who are saying Eastwood is losing it because of this unfortunate speech are really overreacting. The guy has never been a great speaker, and it wasn't a good idea for him to go off unscripted in front of tens of millions of people, but I think the guy's mental faculties are fine. I saw him recently in October presenting an award, and he definitely had it together. He was very witty, and seemed like he was doing just fine.

[Flimmaker1473]

Eastwood was just doing what any actor does: stealing the spotlight. He certainly stole it from Mitt Romney that night. I didn't really see all of it. But it sounded rather bizarre. But it's politics so that fitted right in.

[DexterRiley]

Why is this thread still going? Don't we now know who Obama is going to "take on"?

You kids sure do love to argue about dem politics. Sure do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35OXo9SSj5I

the tl.dw version :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI0q7xZWXqo

[DexterRiley]

The answers differ somewhat depending on what assumptions you make, but here's the basic framework:

1. The Bush tax cuts. Are you talking the 2001 cuts for the lower/middle class, or the 2003 cuts? Are you talking about raising taxes across the board, or just on the top 5%? If it's all of them, then the cost seems to be around $2.2 trillion...over ten years. If it's just the top 5%, it's more like half that (roughly; if you want more specifics, say the word). I'll assume you just mean the top income earners.

So, let's be generous and round that up to more like $1.2 trillion (which is even higher than the number I got from a left-leaning advocacy group) for the higher income tax cuts. Even that raw cost is disputed, because one of the arguments for tax cuts is that they actually increase growth and make tax revenue go up. Which is exactly what happened: after the 2003 tax cuts, tax revenue went up $1.1 trillion. Most of the attempts to calculate the "cost" make absolutely no attempt to account for this.

2. The Cost of War. If you use the National Priorities Project (which runs CostOfWar.com), they say it's coming up on $1.4 trillion. That includes Afghanistan, which most people don't find especially needless, by the way.

So let's be insanely generous about the total. Let's use the $1.2 trillion overestimation AND completely ignore increased tax revenues or any of the effects that cause people to support tax cuts in the first place. Add that to the cost of the war and you get $2.6 trillion.

At last year's rate of spending, that's enough to run Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIPs for...drum roll...about three years. And that's without taking into account the fact that states have to match CHIP and Medicaid funds or the interest or rising healthcare costs.

ok. now during those 3 years, citizens continue to pay into the fund do they not?

Is it possible that rising healthcare costs can be attributed to...and im just throwing this out there..to the profit motive behind what the health and welfare delivery system actually costs and what folks are charged?

Neat vid here. I didnt realize that there are as many seniors in the USA than the entire population of Canada. That just blew me away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y51eT-1-BE8

[will.15]

Paul Ryan, you can believe what he says...not!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/01/paul-ryan-marathon-time_n_1848715.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[AKA23]

Will, you're not seriously trying to make this into an issue, are you? The notion that this kind of gaffe reveals anything at all about Paul Ryan's character, or his fitness to be Vice President, is ludicrous. The guy probably just forgot what his actual time was. I doubt he was deliberately trying to delude people into believing that he actually ran a 3 hour marathon, instead of a 4 hour one, to secretly siphon off votes for Mitt Romney. I mean, seriously, what demographic do you think he was trying to appeal to, high achieving but slightly dishonest fitness enthusiasts? I understand that you like Obama, and want to find any reason at all to talk badly about the Republican ticket, but Will, do you really think this is important?

[will.15]

It is not a super big deal, but he didn't forget his time. He knew exactly what his time was. He was trying to sound more impressive than he was, And it ties in to his speech, blaming Obama for shutting an auto plant that had already closed. The point being he is another glib politician and not the sincere straight shooting speaker of unvarnished truth as his supporters want you to believe.

[Yoda]

Oh, good Lord, will. Yeah, he's lying about marathon times--even though outlandish times can easily be called out by anyone who runs--to win over voters. That's a way, way more likely explanation than him accidentally saying 2 instead of 3.

Number of stories will has specifically come into this thread to post about Paul Ryan's marathon times: 1.

Number of stories will has specifically come into this thread to post about job losses, tepid GDP growth, or trillion-dollar deficits combined: 0.

Thank goodness we've got our priorities in order.

And it ties in to his speech, blaming Obama for shutting an auto plant that had already closed.
False (http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/315440/janesville-plant-ryans-not-lyin). First, they just stopped producing trucks. Second, you (and the people leveling accusations at Ryan) should actually, you know, read the text of the speech. In it, he even starts with "we were about to lose a major factory." He doesn't blame Obama for it closing. He blames Obama for making ridiculous promises about saving it, and then not following through. Which is exactly what happened. He mentioned Janesville by name multiple times as part of turning the industry around, and when administering the auto bailout had a direct say in which plans were kept open, and passed it over. There's no serious argument: Ryan was right.

This, by the way, is a good litmus test. The fact that you say the plant "had already closed" means you must have just heard it, accepted it, and then repeated it without checking anything. Because if you had, you'd have found all this easily. When you find a fact that fits your preexisting views and stop looking, that's called confirmation bias. And it's the difference between just having a point of view, and being a partisan.

[Yoda]

ok. now during those 3 years, citizens continue to pay into the fund do they not?
Sure, but obviously they're paying in less than it takes to run each year over the long term. And three years just enough to say that we can just tweak a few upper income tax rates and keep the program as-is. That's a band-aid, at best.

And that's also without getting into the lost growth and revenues from tax cuts. Tax cuts are not just cost; they are cost with attached economic benefit. People can (and do! :)) argue about what that benefit is and how best to maximize it, but it certainly can't just be ignored, or assumed to be nothing.

Is it possible that rising healthcare costs can be attributed to...and im just throwing this out there..to the profit motive behind what the health and welfare delivery system actually costs and what folks are charged?
I'm not sure I follow what you mean here. The profit motive is responsible for the high costs? In virtually every other industry the profit motive has the opposite effect. That is, when there's a clear connection for consumers between cost and product. When we implement half-measures (like our current system!) where people bear some of the cost but there are layers of abstraction between them and the providers, then yeah, I think that can definitely drive costs up. What we have now is neither socialized medicine nor a free market system. It's a convoluted half-measure.

Neat vid here. I didnt realize that there are as many seniors in the USA than the entire population of Canada. That just blew me away.
Well, we've got 10 times as many people! So our percentage of elderly needs only be around 10% of the population (and it's closer to 13%, I believe) for this to be true. The ratio is generally the thing, naturally.

[will.15]

Oh, good Lord, will. Yeah, he's lying about marathon times--even though outlandish times can easily be called out by anyone who runs--to win over voters. That's a way, way more likely explanation than him accidentally saying 2 instead of 3.

Number of stories will has specifically come into this thread to post about Paul Ryan's marathon times: 1.

Of course he was lying as Mario Rubio lied about why his parents came to the United States (for a better life, not to escape Castro because he wasn't in power yet) and Joe Biden also saying thins about his past that isn't true and I think there are some allegations about Obama maybe doing it. Politicians do it, and some keep doing it even though they keep getting caught at it, even when the facts can be easily traced. it is something just some people instinctively do. It never came up before in this thread because...Paul Ryan wasn't running for President. It wasn't news until the statement became controversial and he had to withdraw it.

Number of stories will has specifically come into this thread to post about job losses, tepid GDP growth, or trillion-dollar deficits combined: 0.

It has been in here a lot. But if you mean me bringing it up, well, it is about who will take on Obama.

This revelation comes just when Ryan's speech has been criticized for distorting the truth big time. So, yeah, it is relevant.

Thank goodness we've got our priorities in order.


False (http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/315440/janesville-plant-ryans-not-lyin). First, they just stopped producing trucks. Second, you (and the people leveling accusations at Ryan) should actually, you know, read the text of the speech. In it, he even starts with "we were about to lose a major factory." He doesn't blame Obama for it closing. He blames Obama for making ridiculous promises about saving it, and then not following through. Which is exactly what happened. He mentioned Janesville by name multiple times as part of turning the industry around, and when administering the auto bailout had a direct say in which plans were kept open, and passed it over. There's no serious argument: Ryan was right.



This, by the way, is a good litmus test. The fact that you say the plant "had already closed" means you must have just heard it, accepted it, and then repeated it without checking anything. Because if you had, you'd have found all this easily. When you find a fact that fits your preexisting views and stop looking, that's called confirmation bias. And it's the difference between just having a point of view, and being a partisan.
It was widely reported it was already closed. It didn't just come from one source. And one of the sources was a fact checker organization. So I will look into this again. But I am wondering at this point if you are not fact spinning again. In fact, in the original reaction from Romney's people they didn't dispute the plant had been shut down when Obama took power.

Alright I looked into it and you were spinning like crazy. The Obama comment came in February of 2008. long before he was President. The decision to close the plant came in December. And it didn't completely shut down until February because they had some truck orders to fill. So they were still making trucks, not cars. It took me a long time to find that because the vast majority of stories on the internet is Paul Ryan lied. Coming from traditional newspaper sources, not the political guys. So who in this case is really being the partisan?

You found out something easy that as reported by you ism't even true. And doesn't as far as I can tell be that easy to find.

But that seems rather typical from you. Blame me for being the partisan.

If Obama or Biden made a whopper like that, you would be yelling to beat the band.

[DexterRiley]

Chris is correct. Ryan didnt lie about the GM plant. He was just terribly misleading.

Surely that wasn't by design though.

It was bizarre to see Ryan work the bi-partisan debt commision.

United State of Amnesia.

Will McAvoy would not approve.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukkJYkANZ98

[Yoda]

Of course he was lying as Mario Rubio lied about why his parents came to the United States (for a better life, not to escape Castro because he wasn't in power yet) and Joe Biden also saying thins about his past that isn't true and I think there are some allegations about Obama maybe doing it. Politicians do it, and some keep doing it even though they keep getting caught at it, even when the facts can be easily traced. it is something just some people instinctively do. It never came up before in this thread because...Paul Ryan wasn't running for President. It wasn't news until the statement became controversial and he had to withdraw it.
Politicians definitely lie, and I wouldn't say any of them are incapable of it. But when the lie seems to serve almost no purpose (nobody's going to be more impressed with Ryan based on marathon time) and is very easily detectable (if he were telling a calculated lie, why wouldn't he have made it more plausible?), then I tend to think it's not really a lie. In those cases a mistake is the simpler solution. Yes, even when it's Joe Biden. I almost never care about his screwups, either.

I also don't really give a damn, anyway. I don't think Paul Ryan is as pure as the driven snow. I think he's smart, and right, and more willing to face reality than the overwhelming majority of politicians. I don't expect or need him to be perfect.

It has been in here a lot. But if you mean me bringing it up, well, it is about who will take on Obama.
Ha. It's been in this thread only when I force it to the surface; you've never once brought it up. I asked you before to produce a single example otherwise.

Re: the thread topic. You raise all sorts of issues in here that have nothing to do with the primaries. Shall I list a dozen examples? Please don't tell me you're actually trying to suggest you refrain from posting about the economy (or any bad news for the Democrats) out of respect for the purview of the topic.

Alright I looked into it and you were spinning like crazy. The Obama comment came in February of 2008. long before he was President. The decision to close the plant came in December. And it didn't completely shut down until February because they had some truck orders to fill. So they were still making trucks, not cars.
Not quite; its closure was reported in February. It shut down completely in April. But I'm only mentioning that to point out how sloppy the so-called "fact checkers" have been when they say "it was already closed," because it wasn't. The real argument (which I said in the last post, and which I guess you're just skipping over) is that Ryan didn't say it was shut down because of Obama. He said Obama was wrong to promise to save it and not follow through. Read the speech. The "fact checkers" are contradicting statements he simply didn't make.

It took me a long time to find that because the vast majority of stories on the internet is Paul Ryan lied. Coming from traditional newspaper sources, not the political guys. So who in this case is really being the partisan?
Okay. If you're saying that you weren't being partisan because you had little reason to think that SO many different mainstream sources would do such a bad job, that's fair. But now you know: they are absolutely capable of doing a terrible job of this sort of thing. It's not hard to see how this could happen: often one newspaper is just referring to another report, not writing its own. So if a few come out in quick succession, we get thousands of newspapers writing about it, which makes it look like more people are saying it (rather than repeating it).

[will.15]

Politicians definitely lie, and I wouldn't say any of them are incapable of it. But when the lie seems to serve almost no purpose (nobody's going to be more impressed with Ryan based on marathon time) and is very easily detectable (if he were telling a calculated lie, why wouldn't he have made it more plausible?), then I tend to think it's not really a lie. In those cases a mistake is the simpler solution. Yes, even when it's Joe Biden. I almost never care about his screwups, either.

I can't believe you are even arguing about this. it is like someone lying about their golf score. If you run, you know what your time is. People do this, some people, lie about being a better athlete than they are, or a better student, or whatever, instinctively. He might have said that for years and never got caught at it because when you are running for vice president everything you say gets scrutinized. It wasn't an honest screwup, he lied. I don't know why you can't just admit it.

I also don't really give a damn, anyway. I don't think Paul Ryan is as pure as the driven snow. I think he's smart, and right, and more willing to face reality than the overwhelming majority of politicians. I don't expect or need him to be perfect.
He is beginning to come across like another politicain who will stretch the truth. That is not a straight shooter.


Ha. It's been in this thread only when I force it to the surface; you've never once brought it up. I asked you before to produce a single example otherwise.

I actually think I did early on, mentioning the economy being bad was a weakness and made him vulnerable. Have I been arguing he was a bad president that didn't deserve re-election? No.

Re: the thread topic. You raise all sorts of issues in here that have nothing to do with the primaries. Shall I list a dozen examples? Please don't tell me you're actually trying to suggest you refrain from posting about the economy (or any bad news for the Democrats) out of respect for the purview of the topic.

Have I started posts discussing that or was I reacting to something someone said?


Not quite; its closure was reported in February. It shut down completely in April. But I'm only mentioning that to point out how sloppy the so-called "fact checkers" have been when they say "it was already closed," because it wasn't. The real argument (which I said in the last post, and which I guess you're just skipping over) is that Ryan didn't say it was shut down because of Obama. He said Obama was wrong to promise to save it and not follow through. Read the speech. The "fact checkers" are contradicting statements he simply didn't make.

The closure was reported in December. And you are wrong, Ryan didn't say what you are saying. Some commentators have actually said that should have been the point he should have made. It isn't what he said at all. Apparently, your sources are GOP spin control ones. it isn't mainstream news sources. it has been a couple of days and the overwhelming information available is Ryan told a whopper to make his point, or at the very least a deliberate distortion. You won't find in his speech what you are claiming without political spin.


Okay. If you're saying that you weren't being partisan because you had little reason to think that SO many different mainstream sources would do such a bad job, that's fair. But now you know: they are absolutely capable of doing a terrible job of this sort of thing. It's not hard to see how this could happen: often one newspaper is just referring to another report, not writing its own. So if a few come out in quick succession, we get thousands of newspapers writing about it, which makes it look like more people are saying it (rather than repeating it).
Any way you look at it, was he a little deceptive or completely lying, he didn't present a completely accurate presentation of what happened.

[Yoda]

I want to really spell this out, because the "Ryan lied" Janesville stuff is so, so ridiculously, shamefully wrong, and getting repeated so often. This one needs to be pulled out by the root.

Here is the excerpt of Ryan's speech this is about:

“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 G.M. 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 100 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 where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.”
Very straightforward. Ryan doesn't say anywhere, at all, that Obama is responsible for the plant closing. To the contrary, the only thing he says on the topic of blame for the closure suggests the opposite; he says they were "about to lose a major factory" and even referred to him as a "candidate Obama." So there's nothing there even remotely suggesting that Obama is responsible for the plant's woes.

What he does do is quote Obama, saying that if the government supports them, the plant can stay open. That was in February of 2008.

Then, in October, just before the election, Obama mentioned Janesville again. This time, he was even more explicit in his promise (though there's really no way to interpret his original comment as anything other than a pledge to try to keep the factory open):

“As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.”
So, Obama first implied he would help save plants like the one in Janesville, and then stated it outright. That's inarguable: he said he would work to save Janesville. So what'd he do to save it? And the only argument I've heard in his defense is the ludicrous argument that he didn't literally promise because he said he would save plants "like" the ones in Janesville, which doesn't necessarily mean Janesville. Seriously. People with working brains actually say this.

You could even argue that he got a specific chance to intervene on Janesville's behalf, given that the U.S. Treasury owned major stakes in both GM and Chrysler after the auto bailout. The response to this is usually that the government didn't (not couldn't, but merely didn't, mind you) dictate which plants should and should not stay open. Leaving aside the rather naive view that they had no control or leverage in this situation, that would still leave the question: what was Obama promising, if not this? What did he think he was going to do, and why didn't he do it?

Ryan's accusation is clear if you actually bother to stick to what he says: Obama led people to believe he would (could?) save the Janesville plant, and then he didn't. It's mentioned because it's Ryan's hometown, and because it's emblematic of Obama's economic policies: promising more than he can actually deliver. That's why the last line in the quote above explicitly makes this connection.

[Yoda]

I can't believe you are even arguing about this. it is like someone lying about their golf score. If you run, you know what your time is.
Unless you're talking about it 22 years after it happened. Then you might not. Also, if it's like someone lying about their golf score, why on earth would you think that worth posting? What's your next breathless update going to be? ROMNEY SAYS HE CAUGHT A FISH "THIS" BIG.

People do this, some people, lie about being a better athlete than they are, or a better student, or whatever, instinctively. He might have said that for years and never got caught at it because when you are running for vice president everything you say gets scrutinized. It wasn't an honest screwup, he lied. I don't know why you can't just admit it.
Because there's almost no profit in the lie and it was so easily caught. I am quite willing to believe politicians can and will lie when it benefits them and/or when they have some reason to think it might actually work. This goes for Ryan, Biden, whoever.

He is beginning to come across like another politicain who will stretch the truth. That is not a straight shooter.
Let me save you the trouble: he is "another politician" in most ways. But he's right about some major issues and way more willing than most to put his neck out there to confront them. That's why I like him; not because I think, like so many did with Obama in 2008, that he's some sort of neo-politician who's going to transcend the hallmarks of the profession. I don't think he's pure or perfect or anything like that.

Have I started posts discussing that or was I reacting to something someone said?
Both. Like I said, I'll be glad to go back and collect examples, provided you'd actually own up to it once they were shown to you.

The closure was reported in December. And you are wrong, Ryan didn't say what you are saying. Some commentators have actually said that should have been the point he should have made. It isn't what he said at all. Apparently, your sources are GOP spin control ones. it isn't mainstream news sources. it has been a couple of days and the overwhelming information available is Ryan told a whopper to make his point, or at the very least a deliberate distortion. You won't find in his speech what you are claiming without political spin.
My "source" is the speech. I posted the text in the post before this one. Have a look.

Any way you look at it, was he a little deceptive or completely lying, he didn't present a completely accurate presentation of what happened.
He says Obama promised to help keep Janesville open, and then didn't. That's completely accurate. If Obama was unable to keep it open, then it means he was making cheap promises he couldn't keep. Where's the argument, exactly?

[will.15]

I want to really spell this out, because the "Ryan lied" Janesville stuff is so, so ridiculously, shamefully wrong, and getting repeated so often. This one needs to be pulled out by the root.

Here is the excerpt of Ryan's speech this is about:


Very straightforward. Ryan doesn't say anywhere, at all, that Obama is responsible for the plant closing. To the contrary, the only thing he says on the topic of blame for the closure suggests the opposite; he says they were "about to lose a major factory" and even referred to him as a "candidate Obama." So there's nothing there even remotely suggesting that Obama is responsible for the plant's woes.

What he does do is quote Obama, saying that if the government supports them, the plant can stay open. That was in February of 2008.

Then, in October, just before the election, Obama mentioned Janesville again. This time, he was even more explicit in his promise (though there's really no way to interpret his original comment as anything other than a pledge to try to keep the factory open):


So, Obama first implied he would help save plants like the one in Janesville, and then stated it outright. That's inarguable: he said he would work to save Janesville. So what'd he do to save it? And the only argument I've heard in his defense is the ludicrous argument that he didn't literally promise because he said he would save plants "like" the ones in Janesville, which doesn't necessarily mean Janesville. Seriously. People with working brains actually say this.

You could even argue that he got a specific chance to intervene on Janesville's behalf, given that the U.S. Treasury owned major stakes in both GM and Chrysler after the auto bailout. The response to this is usually that the government didn't (not couldn't, but merely didn't, mind you) dictate which plants should and should not stay open. Leaving aside the rather naive view that they had no control or leverage in this situation, that would still leave the question: what was Obama promising, if not this? What did he think he was going to do, and why didn't he do it?

Ryan's accusation is clear if you actually bother to stick to what he says: Obama led people to believe he would (could?) save the Janesville plant, and then he didn't. It's mentioned because it's Ryan's hometown, and because it's emblematic of Obama's economic policies: promising more than he can actually deliver. That's why the last line in the quote above explicitly makes this connection.
It sounds lihe spin what you are saying. And you call me partisan. He quoted Obama in February of 1908, which is long before the auto bailout, so the decison to shut the plant had nothing to do with the later auto crisis and bailout. What is the point of Ryan's criticism of Obama if not to say he is responsible for the closure or could have prevented it? If a Republican was elected the plant would have been saved?

[Yoda]

It sounds lihe spin what you are saying. And you call me partisan. He quoted Obama in February of 1908, which is long before the auto bailout, so the decison to shut the plant had nothing to do with the later auto crisis and bailout.
Huh? The quote is from 2008; Ryan's observation about all that followed was this week. He's not making the accusation in 2008.

What is the point of Ryan's criticism of Obama if not to say he is responsible for the closure or could have prevented it? If a Republican was elected the plant would have been saved?
Again, this is obvious: Obama said he would save the plant, then didn't. You can choose to take this as a criticism that he didn't save it, or as a criticism for promising far more than he could deliver (which, indeed, describes pretty much his entire campaign and Presidency so far). Either way, it's both a) completely accurate and b) fair to point out. And all the nonsense about Ryan lying has absolutely no basis in the text of the speech. It's just not there.

[DexterRiley]

I for one think its awesome that Evangelical Christians have embraced a Mormon as their guy. For the longest time, the Mormon Jesus was seen as blasphemous nonsense.

I mean when Romney says God Bless America, i think its great that the Moral Majority can be A-ok and comfy in the knowledge that his god isnt the same as theirs.

Pretty wild really that JFK a Catholic was a big deal way back when, not to mention just a scant 4 years ago some were legit concerned that Obama might be horror of horrors a muslim.

[will.15]

Huh? The quote is from 2008; Ryan's observation about all that followed was this week. He's not making the accusation in 2008.
Yeah, yeah

Again, this is obvious: Obama said he would save the plant, then didn't. You can choose to take this as a criticism that he didn't save it, or as a criticism for promising far more than he could deliver (which, indeed, describes pretty much his entire campaign and Presidency so far). Either way, it's both a) completely accurate and b) fair to point out. And all the nonsense about Ryan lying has absolutely no basis in the text of the speech. It's just not there.
Why did he distort the pledge? You don't think it is important Obama said it in early 2008 before the banking crisis in late 2008 under Bush when the situation became different and Ryan doesn't mention dates? Again, you are applying a partisan double standard. You would be foaming if their was a role reversal, and it was a Dem VP candidate criticizing a Republican President under similar circumstances.

Ryan either lied or was selectively using deliberate skewed distortion to make his point. He wasn't telling the straightforward truth. Man, it is not much difference than you claiming Obama was being so mean to Romney for criticizing him for what happened at Bain after he left. You want to say it is okay for Ryan to criticize Obama for what happened at that plant before he was elected and not point out when the promise in the quote was made? Obama has a crystal ball and is going to know the banking crisis is going to make things for the auto companies much worse? He could have made a legit criticism if he wanted to using the actual facts in a straightforward way. But Ryan likes to stretch the truth, like when he is giving an acceptance speech, or when he is bragging he runs like the Flash.

Look at the internet. The only people who accept your version of what Ryan said is GOP spin control.

[will.15]

Politi.fact.com reports today they rate the Ryan statement false, not a half-truth, an outright lie. So go ahead and spin from GOP Damage Control. He didn't tell the truth.

[Yoda]

Read. The. Speech. Ryan accuses Obama of making a promise and not delivering on it. That's it. Is that true, or false? If it's true, then what part is supposed to be a lie, or a distortion? I seriously don't know what argument you think you have here.

Regarding the date. First, he says "candidate Obama," which clearly places the quote before the election. Second, it doesn't even matter, because his complaint isn't that Obama is responsible for the closing, which means his complaint isn't changed by the timing, anyway.

[Yoda]

Look at the internet. The only people who accept your version of what Ryan said is GOP spin control.
Politi.fact.com reports today they rate the Ryan statement false, not a half-truth, an outright lie. So go ahead and spin from GOP Damage Control. He didn't tell the truth.
Exactly. This is your real argument. You don't care what's in Ryan's speech, and you sure can't show me where it has him blaming Obama for the closure. You've just heard this repeated ad nauseam and can't accept that something echoed that often could be wrong. It just has to be right. Who're you gonna trust; the endlessly repeated claims, or your own lyin' eyes?

The PolitiFact article is partially about a statement Ryan made on the campaign trail weeks ago (he modified it for his speech), and makes the same errors you do: namely, assuming Ryan makes a claim that he simply did not make. This is just another example in a trend that has made PolitFact an absolute joke in this election cycle (https://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/30/politifact-bias-does-the-gop-tell-nine-times-more-lies-than-left-really/). They are useful for raw information, just not the interpretation of that information.

[will.15]

Read. The. Speech. Ryan accuses Obama of making a promise and not delivering on it. That's it. Is that true, or false? If it's true, then what part is supposed to be a lie, or a distortion? I seriously don't know what argument you think you have here.

Regarding the date. First, he says "candidate Obama," which clearly places the quote before the election. Second, it doesn't even matter, because his complaint isn't that Obama is responsible for the closing, which means his complaint isn't changed by the timing, anyway.
Obama's campaign points out Bain Capitol bought companies and some of those companies they closed plants and people lost their jobs. True or false?

[will.15]

Oh, I finally found a fact checker organization who is reporting it the exact way you did.

Fox News.

[Yoda]

Obama's campaign points out Bain Capitol bought companies and some of those companies they closed plants and people lost their jobs. True or false?
True. But where did I accuse that ad of lying? In fact, I did not.

Face it, dude: Ryan told the truth. It's right there in the speech. Obama promised something and didn't deliver. To call it a "lie" is, well, a lie.

[will.15]

Then what were you complaining about when the ads mentioned job losses after Romney left?

Ryan still lied.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/30/obama-could-not-have-saved-janesville-gm-plant-it-closed-before-he-took-office/

[Upton]

Obama's exact quote

I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday, and I know how hard your governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant. But I also know how much progress you've made -- how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles you're churning out. 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

How is that a promise and what could he have done? In June 2008, GM announced they were drastically scaling back production at the plant and by December 2008 thousands were laid off; the vast majority of the workers there. It shut down for good in April 2009

[Upton]

I for one think its awesome that Evangelical Christians have embraced a Mormon as their guy. For the longest time, the Mormon Jesus was seen as blasphemous nonsense.

I mean when Romney says God Bless America, i think its great that the Moral Majority can be A-ok and comfy in the knowledge that his god isnt the same as theirs.

Pretty wild really that JFK a Catholic was a big deal way back when, not to mention just a scant 4 years ago some were legit concerned that Obama might be horror of horrors a muslim.

I'll be more impressed when we have an unmarried, atheist woman in office

With an Australian accent

[Yoda]

Then what were you complaining about when the ads mentioned job losses after Romney left?
That it wasn't a substantive critique. That private equity serves a necessary function and when you take over distressed companies for a living, it's not always going to work out.

I think I know how you'll reply, and we can argue that again if you like, but the point is already made: the complaint about the Bain ads is not that they "lied." They didn't. That was never the problem with them. Thus, the comparison is invalid. You didn't say you found Ryan's statement insubstantial or even unfair. You said it was wrong. A lie. And it simply isn't. Sorry.

Ryan still lied.
Where? Show me in the speech. Show me the part where he says Obama is responsible for closing the plant. All I see is a ding for making a promise he didn't (or couldn't) deliver on. Which is exactly what happened.

Do you have an actual argument based in the text of the speech, or are you just in total disbelief that people would repeat this error? Seems like the latter.

[Yoda]

Obama's exact quote

How is that a promise and what could he have done? In June 2008, GM announced they were drastically scaling back production at the plant and by December 2008 thousands were laid off; the vast majority of the workers there. It shut down for good in April 2009
Er, the part where he says "if our government is there to support you ... that this plant will be here for another hundred years"? Are you trying to make the argument that because he said "if," he wasn't actually saying he'd do it? He was just posing a conveniently leading hypothetical?

Obama said this, too, by the way:

“As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.”
Is this not a promise, either, because he says "like Janesville," and not literally "Janesville"?

[will.15]

Er, the part where he says "if our government is there to support you ... that this plant will be here for another hundred years"? Are you trying to make the argument that because he said "if," he wasn't actually saying he'd do it? He was just posing a conveniently leading hypothetical?

Obama said this, too, by the way:


Is this not a promise, either, because he says "like Janesville," and not literally "Janesville"?
So you want to be literal about Ryan and not be literal about Obama?

You is so partisan.

[Yoda]

My defense of Ryan does not require taking him in some overly literal fashion, it simply involves referring to what he said. There is no accusation that Obama is responsible for the closing, either literally or by implication. It. Isn't. There.

But let's be clear, because I think you've pretty much argued yourself into an impossible position: is your position that when Obama goes to Janesville, and talks about his manufacturing policies, and says his policies would save plants like Janesville, and then later says as President he will save plants like Janesville...that he isn't actually saying he'll save Janesville? Is that your position?

[Upton]

Er, the part where he says "if our government is there to support you ... that this plant will be here for another hundred years"? Are you trying to make the argument that because he said "if," he wasn't actually saying he'd do it? He was just posing a conveniently leading hypothetical?

But let's be clear, because I think you've pretty much argued yourself into an impossible position: is your position that when Obama goes to Janesville, and talks about his manufacturing policies, and says his policies would save plants like Janesville, and then later says as President he will save plants like Janesville...that he isn't actually saying he'll save Janesville? Is that your position?


This is arguing over silly semantics but, no, I don't consider it a broken promise to say "I believe if we do this then this will happen" and then not being able to do the thing later on because you run out of time due to forces outside your control. For the record, I do believe Obama's made solid steps in laying the foundation for future jobs through investing in new vehicle technologies

So you want to be literal about Ryan and not be literal about Obama?

You is so partisan.

I'm sort of inclined to agree. Yoda, you seem like a smart guy, why do you expend so much effort defending the GOP, of all god-forsaken, morally bankrupt, evil entities?

[Yoda]

This is arguing over silly semantics but, no, I don't consider it a broken promise to say "I believe if we do this then this will happen" and then not being able to do the thing later on because you run out of time due to forces outside your control.
So he made a promise he couldn't keep, then? That fits just as well. Ryan only says he didn't deliver; he didn't say whether or not it was because he failed to, or simply overpromised. Both are valid critiques.

I'm sort of inclined to agree. Yoda, you seem like a smart guy, why do you expend so much effort defending the GOP, of all god-forsaken, morally bankrupt, evil entities?
Is this supposed to be a serious question? I defend them because I don't think they're god-forsaken, morally bankrupt, or evil.

[Upton]

So he made a promise he couldn't keep, then? That fits just as well. Ryan only says he didn't deliver; he didn't say whether or not it was because he failed to, or simply overpromised. Both are valid critiques.

What in Obama's quote makes it a "promise"? Does every politician have to qualify every statement with an "I'll try to..." or something beforehand? It is semantics and, like I said, Obama HAS taken steps to foster the production of fuel-efficient vehicles in the US and therefore preserve and create those kinds of jobs

Is this supposed to be a serious question?

Yes

[will.15]

That it wasn't a substantive critique. That private equity serves a necessary function and when you take over distressed companies for a living, it's not always going to work out.

I think I know how you'll reply, and we can argue that again if you like, but the point is already made: the complaint about the Bain ads is not that they "lied." They didn't. That was never the problem with them. Thus, the comparison is invalid. You didn't say you found Ryan's statement insubstantial or even unfair. You said it was wrong. A lie. And it simply isn't. Sorry.

You did say they lied. You cited fact check organizations that pointed out some of the job losses occurred and plant closures happened after Romney left, even though they bought the companies when he was still there. You cited the fact checkers, the same fact checkers, several of them, that have determined the Ryan statement was false. The only exception I found, Fox News. Only GOP spinmeisters are arguing this the way you are. You had a little more company with the Bain criticism, but I never said they were being completely truthful, just that both sides do it. You always find differences that justifies when your team does it. My point is they all play in the same sandbox and do the same thing.


Where? Show me in the speech. Show me the part where he says Obama is responsible for closing the plant. All I see is a ding for making a promise he didn't (or couldn't) deliver on. Which is exactly what happened.

Do you have an actual argument based in the text of the speech, or are you just in total disbelief that people would repeat this error? Seems like the latter.
I already cited a news source.

Yes, he lied or distorted the truth in a major way. You can spin it all you want. The only news source that accepts your version is Fox News.

[Yoda]

What in Obama's quote makes it a "promise"? Does every politician have to qualify every statement with an "I'll try to..." or something beforehand? It is semantics and, like I said, Obama HAS taken steps to foster the production of fuel-efficient vehicles in the US and therefore preserve and create those kinds of jobs
When a politician says "I will do such and such" and they don't do such and such, they can be criticized for it. Whether or not you want to call this a "promise," well, that is semantics. When a politician does not do what they say they will--either because they refuse to, or because they exaggerated their ability to do things--they can and should be criticized for it. I find it hard to believe anyone disagrees with that general principle.

Yes
How? Your question presupposes that I have the same opinion of the party as you do. I don't. The fact that I defend it should tell you as much.

[will.15]

When a politician says "I will do such and such" and they don't do such and such, they can be criticized for it. Whether or not you want to call this a "promise," well, that is semantics. When a politician does not do what they say they will--either because they refuse to, or because they exaggerated their ability to do things--they can and should be criticized for it. I find it hard to believe anyone disagrees with that general principle.

Yeah, he should be criticized for not saving a plant that shut down before he took office and before the situation with the auto companies had become even worse they needed a bailout to survive. And wouldn't even exist today if no bailout happened. Yeah, that Obama sure is a bad guy who doesn't keep his promises.


How? Your question presupposes that I have the same opinion of the party as you do. I don't. The fact that I defend it should tell you as much.
Yeah, you defend it by applying a double standard for criticism of the other party.

[Yoda]

You did say they lied. You cited fact check organizations that pointed out some of the job losses occurred and plant closures happened after Romney left, even though they bought the companies when he was still there.
Those were different ads. The ones that suggested Romney was still making day to day decisions were certainly wrong. But that's not what you asked just now. You asked this:

"Obama's campaign points out Bain Capitol bought companies and some of those companies they closed plants and people lost their jobs. True or false?"
And the answer to that is that the ads that did merely that were not lying.

You cited the fact checkers, the same fact checkers, several of them, that have determined the Ryan statement was false.
We've had this particular discussion three times now: fact checkers are great for facts. Not for interpretation. Show me a fact check that substantiates the claim that Ryan said Obama was responsible for the plant's closing. None of them even try. They just assume it, and then argue with that assumption.

I already cited a news source.
A news source that says Obama couldn't have prevented the closing. Which means he made a promise he could not keep, right?

Yes, he lied or distorted the truth in a major way. You can spin it all you want.
Show me the part in the speech where he says Obama is responsible for the plant closing. You can't. Therefore, you're wrong. It's that simple man.

The only news source that accepts your version is Fox News.
Except for The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/assault-paul-ryan-ii_651387.html), National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/315486/gm-janesville-fact-checking-fact-checkers-henry-payne), etc.

All the sources do the same thing you do: they implant into the speech a claim that isn't there. You can produce 200 of them; they don't contradict what's actually in the speech.

[Yoda]

Note these simple questions, since you seem intent on kicking up a lot of dust around this issue:

1. Did Paul Ryan accuse Obama of being responsible for closing the plant in his speech? No.
2. Did Paul Ryan accuse Obama of promising he'd save the plant? Yes.
3. Did Obama save the plant? No.

Therefore, Ryan's statement is true. Where's your argument? Show it to me, because I can't find it.

[will.15]

Those were different ads. The ones that suggested Romney was still making day to day decisions were certainly wrong. But that's not what you asked just now. You asked this:
"Obama's campaign points out Bain Capitol bought companies and some of those companies they closed plants and people lost their jobs. True or false?"
And the answer to that is that the ads that did merely that were not lying.


We've had this particular discussion three times now: fact checkers are great for facts. Not for interpretation. Show me a fact check that substantiates the claim that Ryan said Obama was responsible for the plant's closing. None of them even try. They just assume it, and then argue with that assumption.

Well, I never saw any ad that said Romney explicitly made those decisions to shut down the plants. I don't think they exist. Where are they?

Admit it, you are using a double standard.

The ads were criticized by the fact checkers because Romney may not have been running the company when the losses occurred, not because the ad said Romney made the actual decision to shut the plants.


A news source that says Obama couldn't have prevented the closing. Which means he made a promise he could not keep, right?

You are using lawyer speak to justify Ryan's statement. i bet you didn't do that when Bill Clinton did that with it depends on what your definition of is is.




Show me the part in the speech where he says Obama is responsible for the plant closing. You can't. Therefore, you're wrong. It's that simple man.


Except for The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/assault-paul-ryan-ii_651387.html), National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/315486/gm-janesville-fact-checking-fact-checkers-henry-payne), etc.

Yeah! Exactly. My point. I am citing newspaper sources and fact checkers that criticize statements from both parties and you cite conservative, pro Republican opinion magazines. I gave you Fox News. I am not citing liberal opinion magazines. You accuse me of being partisan? I didn't bother to look up The New Republic or Mother Jones or whatever the hell else there is. I think you forgot to cite the Moonies' Washington Times.

Oh, and The Nation also for liberal magazine, if it is still around.



All the sources do the same thing you do: they implant into the speech a claim that isn't there. You can produce 200 of them; they don't contradict what's actually in the speech.
You keep spinning, fine. But this isn't a case of Dem spinning versus Republican spinning. This is accepted understanding by mainstream news sources of Ryan distorting the truth and GOP controlled sources countering with weak spin control.

[Yoda]

Well, I never saw any ad that said Romney explicitly made those decisions to shut down the plants. I don't think they exist. Where are they?
I think some of the other ones said "Under Romney" or "Romney's Bain" or some other claim that he was still running it. I'd have to check. But those are the only ones that are false. The earlier ones aren't.

Admit it, you are using a double standard.

The ads weer criticized by the fact checkers because Romney may not have been running the company when the losses occurred, not because the ad said Romney made the actual decision to shut the plants.
Right, and those ones were false, or at least, they were accusations without sufficient evidence. The earlier ones--the ones that just showed people who had lost their jobs--were not lies. I have other problems with those, but they were literally true.

You are using lawyer speak to justify Ryan's statement. i bet you didn't do that when Bill Clinton did that with it depends on what your definition of is is.
Well, I was 14 at the time; I'm not sure I had much of an opinion either way.

Funny that you'd mention lawyer speak, though, because you sidestepped the question: the news source you posted said that Obama could not have saved the plant, which means he was promising things he couldn't deliver, right? Because that's precisely what Ryan accuses him of.

It's plain English (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=840452): he repeats Obama's own words and ends the anecdote with "And that’s how it is in so many towns where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight." You don't need to bend or spin anything to show this. You have to bend and spin to avoid it.

Yeah! Exactly. My point. I am citing newspaper sources and fact checkers that criticize statements from both parties and you cite conservative, pro Republican opinion magazines. I gave you Fox News. I am not citing liberal opinion magazines. You accuse me of being partisan? I didn't bother to look up The New Republic or Mother Jones or whatever the hell else there is. I think you forgot to cite the Moonies' Washington Times.
The Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/fact-check-obama-promised-and-failed-to-keep-janesville-gm-plant-open/article/2506462), if you'd rather. Though playing "count the sources" instead of explaining why they're right or wrong is completely insipid.

But even this misses the point: you're citing newspaper sources that criticize a claim that isn't in the text of the speech. A million articles written by Walter-freakin'-Kronkite condemning Ryan cannot override the question of what he actually said. And when you look, you see that he didn't say Obama is responsible for its closure. Therefore, any fact check that is fact checking that statement is irrelevant. It's really not that complicated.

You keep spinning, fine. But this isn't a case of Dem spinning versus Republican spinning. This is accepted understanding by mainstream news sources of Ryan distorting the truth and GOP controlled sources countering with weak spin control.
This is your whole argument, right? Just that people are saying it, so therefore it doesn't matter if you can find it in the speech.

[will.15]

I think some of the other ones said "Under Romney" or "Romney's Bain" or some other claim that he was still running it. I'd have to check. But those are the only ones that are false. The earlier ones aren't.
Romney Bain is ambiguous. He started the company. So it can still be called Romney Bain even if he leaves (and many of those decisions were made while he was still there, just not running the company, and you were arguing about those claims as well. I had no idea you were being that literal. I suspect you didn't either until now.

Right, and those ones were false, or at least, they were accusations without sufficient evidence. The earlier ones--the ones that just showed people who had lost their jobs--were not lies. I have other problems with those, but they were literally true.

They weren't false by your new criteria with defending Ryan for blaming Obama for not saving an auto plant that closed before he took office.


Well, I was 14 at the time; I'm not sure I had much of an opinion either way.

You probably do now.

Funny that you'd mention lawyer speak, though, because you sidestepped the question: the news source you posted said that Obama could not have saved the plant, which means he was promising things he couldn't deliver, right? Because that's precisely what Ryan accuses him of.

Well, you are spinning again. He couldn't save the plant once it shut down. When he spoke, it was early in the year. When it shut down the company was on the ropes. Maybe if the banking crisis didn't make their situation much worse, the closure would not have happened then. Companies have been known to reverse course depending on circumstances. If you just narrow focus on Obama said he would like or try or would keep the plant open, and it didn't stay open, what is the point Ryan is making? Obama didn't or couldn't keep it open? In the context that the auto industry is still here and wouldn't exist (well, two of them) if he didn't intervene? He should have kept all the plants open? All politicians pledge things that don't come to pass. All of them. There are no exceptions. If his speech is isn't in the context he could have prevented it and didn't, then he is not saying anything that matters. And of course he went further than that by manipulating the truth. As the Bain ads did. But that was bad you say, and Ryan did a fine thing.

It's plain English (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=840452): he repeats Obama's own words and ends the anecdote with "And that’s how it is in so many towns where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight." You don't need to bend or spin anything to show this. You have to bend and spin to avoid it.

Except it isn't true explicitly for the auto industry, which today is in better shape than before Obama took office. Oh, selectively presenting the truth? Like those Bain ads that emphasized the bad things Bain did and not the good and which you criticized for that? Double standard again.


The Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/fact-check-obama-promised-and-failed-to-keep-janesville-gm-plant-open/article/2506462), if you'd rather. Though playing "count the sources" instead of explaining why they're right or wrong is completely insipid.

But even this misses the point: you're citing newspaper sources that criticize a claim that isn't in the text of the speech. A million articles written by Walter-freakin'-Cronkite condemning Ryan cannot override the question of what he actually said. And when you look, you see that he didn't say Obama is responsible for its closure. Therefore, any fact check that is fact checking that statement is irrelevant. It's really not that complicated.

They keep citng what he said and find a lie. And you and the GOP spin machine do revisionist history on it. Like all those Republican hacks defending Nixon when the edited Watergate sppeches were released, ("Well, Nixon said we could pay hush money. He didn't actually order it")


This is your whole argument, right? Just that people are saying it, so therefore it doesn't matter if you can find it in the speech.
Yeah, that's me entire argument. The only people who accept your lawyer speak interpetation are Republicans.

[will.15]

Political views
When Anschutz started the Examiner in its current format, he envisioned creating a conservative (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Conservative) competitor to The Washington Post (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/The_Washington_Post). According to Politico (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Politico), "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz’s instructions were explicit — he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee." The Examiner's conservative writers include Byron York (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Byron_York) (National Review), Michael Barone (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/Michael_Barone_(pundit)) (American Enterprise Institute, Fox News), and David Freddoso (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/David_Freddoso) (National Review, author of The Case Against Barack Obama (http://www.movieforums.com/wiki/The_Case_Against_Barack_Obama)).

[ManOf1000Faces]

All I'm Saying Is That Romney & Paul are a bad duo just like the downfall of McCain & Palin.

It Wont Work.

[will.15]

After Labor Day we will get a better idea who will probably win.

These conventions have become marginal in shaping public opinion and creating momentum.

[Yoda]

Romney Bain is ambiguous. He started the company. So it can still be called Romney Bain even if he leaves (and many of those decisions were made while he was still there, just not running the company, and you were arguing about those claims as well. I had no idea you were being that literal. I suspect you didn't either until now.
That'd kind of be like damning George Washington for something America did yesterday by saying "George Washington's America." Or accusing Hearst of libel for something his newspaper printed after his death.

They weren't false by your new criteria with defending Ryan for blaming Obama for not saving an auto plant that closed before he took office.
Nope. Ryan doesn't even insinuate Obama is responsible. He says Obama is responsible for making a promise and not delivering. I'm just going to keep saying this until it gets through.

Well, you are spinning again. He couldn't save the plant once it shut down. When he spoke, it was early in the year. When it shut down the company was on the ropes. Maybe if the banking crisis didn't make their situation much worse, the closure would not have happened then. Companies have been known to reverse course depending on circumstances. If you just narrow focus on Obama said he would like or try or would keep the plant open, and it didn't stay open, what is the point Ryan is making? Obama didn't or couldn't keep it open? In the context that the auto industry is still here and wouldn't exist (well, two of them) if he didn't intervene? He should have kept all the plants open? All politicians pledge things that don't come to pass. All of them. There are no exceptions.
They sure do. And when they do, it's okay to criticize them for it, isn't it?

Notice, by the way, that you're not even arguing that Ryan was lying now. Suddenly you're just arguing that he's criticizing Obama for something all politicians do.

Except it isn't true explicitly for the auto industry, which today is in better shape than before Obama took office. Oh, selectively presenting the truth? Like those Bain ads that emphasized the bad things Bain did and not the good and which you criticized for that? Double standard again.
Criticizing is fine; saying it's a "lie" when it's actually true is not. Simple.

I will gladly also argue that it's a fair claim, but I never denied that the initial Bain ads were literally true. Of course they are: people lost their jobs after Bain took over sometimes.

They keep citng what he said and find a lie.
See? I keep defying you to show me where they produce Ryan saying that Obama is to blame. Show me where. All I see is them debunking a claim that isn't in the speech. I'm going to keep saying this, too, until it gets through.

[Yoda]

By the by, I refer you back to these three simple questions (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=840574) again. Try to answer them, please. If you can't, or can't answer them differently, then the argument's over.

Generally speaking, by the way, you avoid spin by referring to primary source materials. In this case, that's the speech, that I keep referring you back to. You enable spin by steering clear of primary sources and referring to interpretation and opinions. In this case, that's everything you're saying and pointing to.

[will.15]

I did answer it. He blamed Obama for a plant closing down that closed before he took office.

You want to ignore you have double standards for Republicans and Dems, that is fine. That is the real point. You are literal about what Ryan says, but not when it comes from Obama's campaign.

[ManOf1000Faces]

Yoda, I don't want to Intrude but isn't this conversation going nowhere. You both guys have different mindsets and getting two different people to agree to one thing...It's difficult. I hate being Mr.Reality but I'm just annoyed. This world will be in the shambles because we can never see eye to eye. I respect will's opinion and I respect Yoda's but this is going nowhere. Alright That's it.

[will.15]

Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=840581#post840581)
They weren't false by your new criteria with defending Ryan for blaming Obama for not saving an auto plant that closed before he took office.
Nope. Ryan doesn't even insinuate Obama is responsible. He says Obama is responsible for making a promise and not delivering. I'm just going to keep saying this until it gets through

He couldn't possibly keep a plant open when it closed before he took office.

And he never said when the pledge was made or when the plant closed down, important information. He was distorting the truth or borderline lying, or making a false statement, or being deliberately deceptive, take your pick. He wasn't making a straight forward point of fact. And there you go again, criticizing Romney Bain ads, but defending Ryan when they are both going around the same merry go round. Amazing.

[AKA23]

It is not a super big deal, but he didn't forget his time. He knew exactly what his time was. He was trying to sound more impressive than he was, And it ties in to his speech, blaming Obama for shutting an auto plant that had already closed. The point being he is another glib politician and not the sincere straight shooting speaker of unvarnished truth as his supporters want you to believe.

How do you know that this is true? I understand that you think he's lying, and he might be, I don't know, but why do you think this is a virtual certainty? Are you a runner? Have other runners assured you that they think Ryan is a closet liar? If I ran a race 22 years ago, I might not remember what my exact time was. I have a hard time understanding why you have absolute confidence that Ryan must be lying. Why is that, Will?

[mark f]

Yoda, I don't want to Intrude but isn't this conversation going nowhere. You both guys have different mindsets and getting two different people to agree to one thing...It's difficult. I hate being Mr.Reality but I'm just annoyed. This world will be in the shambles because we can never see eye to eye. I respect will's opinion and I respect Yoda's but this is going nowhere. Alright That's it.
It's been going on for 17 months now.

[will.15]

How do you know that this is true? I understand that you think he's lying, and he might be, I don't know, but why do you think this is a virtual certainty? Are you a runner? Have other runners assured you that they think Ryan is a closet liar? If I ran a race 22 years ago, I might not remember what my exact time was. I have a hard time understanding why you have absolute confidence that Ryan must be lying. Why is that, Will?
It's like lying about your golf score. He knows what time he ran. Or to be more accurate, he know what time he definitely didn't run. It is not something you don't know if you are publicly mentioning it. He says he ran what is a good running time for people who follow the sport or run. It is like me saying i once hit a home run when I know I never did.

[will.15]

Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=840581#post840581)
Romney Bain is ambiguous. He started the company. So it can still be called Romney Bain even if he leaves (and many of those decisions were made while he was still there, just not running the company, and you were arguing about those claims as well. I had no idea you were being that literal. I suspect you didn't either until now.


That's kind of be like damning George Washington for something America did yesterday by saying "George Washington's America." Or accusing Hearst of libel for something his newspaper printed after his death

No. Again you are applying double standards. They were referring to what happened not long after Romney no longer was running the company at companies bought when he was still there. It can be fairly argued that Romney Bain is an accurate way to describe the company immediately after Romney left still following his policies, but it can also be argued the ad is misleading and leaving out crucial information. The fact checkers determined it was inaccurate because Romney was not running the company and you cited them to make your outrage valid. But when they don't back you, then you cite the GOP partisan groups because they are the only ones who accept your interpretation this time. Ryan was doing what the Bain ads were doing, omitting and thus being deliberately deceptive. Ryan by deliberately not using dates was implying Bain made a promise about the Wisconsin plants after the auto bailout. But it came early in the year and the plant was shut down before he took office and was in no position to stop the closure. That makes the statement false.

[Yoda]

I did answer it. He blamed Obama for a plant closing down that closed before he took office.
No, he didn't. This is what I keep saying: he never says this. He blames Obama for promising to save it and then failing to do so. That's it.

You want to ignore you have double standards for Republicans and Dems, that is fine. That is the real point. You are literal about what Ryan says, but not when it comes from Obama's campaign.
Sure I am. Obama's initial ads about Bain are literally true. The others ones aren't because they involve unsubstantiated claims about when his tenure ended. Pretty simple.

He couldn't possibly keep a plant open when it closed before he took office.
Oh, so he said he'd do something he couldn't deliver on, right? Would that be part of the "recovery that was promised" that Ryan was talking about? And is it valid to criticize a politician for saying they'll do something they can't actually do?

And he never said when the pledge was made or when the plant closed down, important information.
Oh? What part of the idea that Obama said he'd save it and then didn't changes or becomes false based on these dates? Please explain, because you seem to think this is significant, even though it doesn't alter the criticism at all. Also, nothing in Ryan's quote even remotely mentions the bailout, so you're completely fabricating that implication.

[Yoda]

The thing you don't seem to get about the fact-checkers is that it's damning to them that only conservatives are willing to actually call them out for what they're doing on this issue. They're right about this, so it's all the more shame on the other organizations. Simply referring to their ideological leaning is lazy. Tell me why they're wrong. If you can't, then pointing out that they're conservative is nothing more than a cheap attempt to avoid having to make an argument.

It works both ways, too. PolitiFact changed hands awhile back; it's now owned by the Tampa Bay Times. I could try to dismiss everything it says based on the paper's liberal bias. I could just link you to some more examples where it takes literally true statements from conservatives and calls them false! Or considers context in some cases but not in others. But an assault on their general leanings would not be an assault on any one actual claim. So I'm telling you specifically what's wrong with the reasoning and why. Because if you can't do that, then you don't have an argument. And so far, it seems you can't do that.

As I've said a few times already, fact checkers are great for research. Even the really biased ones generally do great research. But they are increasingly terrible for interpreting that research. Some of their topline verdicts are downright bizarre. I've linked you to a few, and there are plenty more where that came from, where they do good research but then inject their own opinion into the verdict in ridiculous and often inconsistent ways. Shall we explore this? How many do I need to produce to convince you of this bias, and since you think ideological bent apparently absolves you of making arguments, what then?

The fact checkers in this case have been doing the same thing: they do great research about the plant closure timeline (generally). They just never actually produce any portion of Ryan's speech that says Obama is responsible for it. And then the conclusions from a handful of organizations get repeated and re-repeated and suddenly it looks like everyone is saying it, even though most are just repeating what someone else said. This happens all the time.

So, if you want to argue this, then make an argument based on the text of the speech. You talk about spin, but which of the two of us keeps trying to make the conversation about the primary source? And which keeps trying to make the conversation about the interpretation and opinions responding to that source? Which of us keeps trying to talk about what Ryan actually said, and which of us keeps trying to talk about everything but that? Think about why that is.

[will.15]

You made the point of citing them to verify your claim the Obama Bain ads lied.

The Ryan speech and the ads do the same thing.

They omit facts and make statements that can be argued as being technically true.

Either both make false statements or both are truthful.

You can't have it both ways.

[Yoda]

Nope. The Ryan speech is true. The Bain ads make unsubstantiated claims. I know you really want these to be the same, but they aren't.

Also, did I just hear you say that Ryan's statements can be argued as being technically true? Is it your custom to call technically true things "lies" now?

[wintertriangles]

Found a lovely interview with John Cusack and law professor John Turley. Mostly things I already knew but I like to spread the wealth, and the best part about this is how, in a time where truths have become speculations, this interview deals strictly with facts. I almost want to email this to every Obama fan I know but they don't like to hear facts (funny how that's what they say about anyone on the right).

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11264-john-cusack-and-jonathan-turley-on-obamas-constitution

[Yoda]

I'll hop on that train. Here's a nice little roundup (http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-sleight-of-hand-goes-to-convention/article/2506713?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UETbqNZlSP4) of random things Obama's said that simply weren't true. Anyone remember some kind of frenzy of media "fact-checking" surrounding these? Yeah, me neither.

[will.15]

No, he didn't. This is what I keep saying: he never says this. He blames Obama for promising to save it and then failing to do so. That's it.


Sure I am. Obama's initial ads about Bain are literally true. The others ones aren't because they involve unsubstantiated claims about when his tenure ended. Pretty simple.

No. You show me the ad that says he was still there running the company. If the ads says under Romney, well, you are right. Romney Bain means the company Romney started and practically all the things reported in the ads occurred while he was still listed as being with the company. So if the ads are all saying Romney Bain then with this interpretation they are not being untruthful. And you were arguing they were still lying because he wasn't running the company. See what you do? You are literal defending Ryan and broadly interpret to criticize the ads. This is not being impartial. This shows incredible bias. Believe me. if I was in your shoes I wouldn't be arguing this. And I think you gave it up, but at one point you were even arguing it was right for Romney to take credit for the jobs Bain created after he stopped running it, which the fact checkers said was false because he was counting jobs long after he left. So it is real clear what you are doing.

Oh, so he said he'd do something he couldn't deliver on, right? Would that be part of the "recovery that was promised" that Ryan was talking about? And is it valid to criticize a politician for saying they'll do something they can't actually do?

He certainly helped the auto companies in general, his record there is a lot better than the economy in general, and Ryan is omitting the plant he didn't save closed before Obama took office and implying the promise was made when the auto bailout was being discussed. This is being deceptive. The claim Ryan is making isn't very damning if he commented by making the facts clear. in other words, he was being deceptive and arguably lying. It was certainly a false statement.


Oh? What part of the idea that Obama said he'd save it and then didn't changes or becomes false based on these dates? Please explain, because you seem to think this is significant, even though it doesn't alter the criticism at all. Also, nothing in Ryan's quote even remotely mentions the bailout, so you're completely fabricating that implication.

Look you want to keep arguing this go ahead, but if the situation was Biden making a similar comment, you would be going nuts. And you know it. He s lying or distorting, take your pick, by omitting. You are really creating a low arguing like this.

[will.15]

Nope. The Ryan speech is true. The Bain ads make unsubstantiated claims. I know you really want these to be the same, but they aren't.

Also, did I just hear you say that Ryan's statements can be argued as being technically true? Is it your custom to call technically true things "lies" now?
The ads don't lie with your logic if they say Romney Bain.

[wintertriangles]

I'll hop on that train. Here's a nice little roundup (http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-sleight-of-hand-goes-to-convention/article/2506713?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UETbqNZlSP4) of random things Obama's said that simply weren't true. Anyone remember some kind of frenzy of media "fact-checking" surrounding these? Yeah, me neither.As far as fact-checking goes, I've been consistently pointed in the direction of politifact.com, yet they tend to stick to mundane quotes and pick more on the right. How does a fact-checker become skewed? EDIT: You covered that a few posts up and I just read it.

Another random question, why is there even a Democratic convention with an incumbent?

[will.15]

I'll hop on that train. Here's a nice little roundup (http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-sleight-of-hand-goes-to-convention/article/2506713?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UETbqNZlSP4) of random things Obama's said that simply weren't true. Anyone remember some kind of frenzy of media "fact-checking" surrounding these? Yeah, me neither.
I am not even going to look at it because, oh, Romney never does that either? What we are talking about with the Ryan speech is a major false accusation against the president in an acceptance speech.

[Yoda]

No. You show me the ad that says he was still there running the company. If the ads says under Romney, well, you are right. Romney Bain means the company Romney started and practically all the things reported in the ads occurred while he was still listed as being with the company. So if the ads are all saying Romney Bain then with this interpretation they are not being untruthful.
Great, then I guess I'm right. One of the ads says "As a corporate raider, he shipped jobs to China and Mexico." Those claims are specifically based off of the assumption that he was still controlling the company in 2002. QED.

And I think you gave it up, but at one point you were even arguing it was right for Romney to take credit for the jobs Bain created after he stopped running it, which the fact checkers said was false because he was counting jobs long after he left. So it is real clear what you are doing.
Nope. You said this before--that I defended the net jobs claim number--and it's wrong. I didn't. Romney definitely exaggerated his total. It's not really clear what total would be correct, but it's clear it would be less than 100,000.

Sometimes I think you mix up what you think conservatives would say with things I actually have. This is hardly the first time you've misremembered this sort of thing. Heck, it's not even the first time you've misremembered this specific claim.

He certainly helped the auto companies in general, his record there is a lot better than the economy in general, and Ryan is omitting the plant he didn't save closed before Obama took office and implying the promise was made when the auto bailout was being discussed. This is being deceptive. The claim Ryan is making isn't very damning if he commented by making the facts clear. in other words, he was being deceptive and arguably lying. It was certainly a false statement.
And again, you dodge the direct questions. Please try again:

"Oh, so he said he'd do something he couldn't deliver on, right? Would that be part of the "recovery that was promised" that Ryan was talking about? And is it valid to criticize a politician for saying they'll do something they can't actually do?"

And let's throw this one in there for good measure:

"Also, did I just hear you say that Ryan's statements can be argued as being technically true? Is it your custom to call technically true things "lies" now?"

[Yoda]

I am not even going to look at it because, oh, Romney never does that either?
:laugh: So this should just be my answer whenever you post something about Romney, right? I should just say "I am not even going to look at this because, oh, Obama never does that either?" Heh. Awesome. Just pretend I said that every time you post something, then.

What we are talking about with the Ryan speech is a major false accusation against the president in an acceptance speech.
This would be an interesting statement if I were not continually asking you to show me what part of the speech is false, and you were not continually not doing that.

[will.15]

:laugh: So this should just be my answer whenever you post something about Romney, right? I should just say "I am not even going to look at this because, oh, Obama never does that either?" Heh. Awesome. Just pretend I said that every time you post something, then.

Because there is no point to it. We all know all of them have said untruthful things. To examine the quotes, so what? We are talking about a well publicized and outrageously distorted statement in an acceptance speech. so Obama said something false, and Ryan did and they all have also, ho-hum.

This would be an interesting statement if I were not continually asking you to show me what part of the speech is false, and you were not continually not doing that.

It accuses Obama of not saving a plant that closed before he took office and again, I will say it, by your new logic those Bain ads are not lying either you were so worked up about if they said Romney/Bain and the events occurred while Romney was still legally with the company. That makes them technically true, the same way the Ryan claim would be true, but is still false because it doesn't mention when he took office the plant had closed. He didn't save it because it already died.

[Yoda]

Because there is no point to it. We all know all of them have said untruthful things. To examine the quotes, so what? We are talking about a well publicized and outrageously distorted statement in an acceptance speech. so Obama said something false, and Ryan did and they all have also, ho-hum.
So by this logic, there's no point in you posting examples of Romney prevaricating either, right?

It accuses Obama of not saving a plant that closed before he took office and again
And the accusation shifts. Suddenly Ryan's not accusing Obama of being responsible for the closing--which is the idea that all the fact checks are actually contradicting--suddenly he's accusing Obama of not saving a plant which he said he'd save. Which is, you know, completely true.

I will say it, by your new logic those Bain ads are not lying either you were so worked up about if they said Romney/Bain and the events occurred while Romney was still legally with the company. That makes them technically true, the same way the Ryan claim would be true, but is still false because it doesn't mention when he took office the plant had closed. He didn't save it because it already died.
But he said he would. More than once. And in fact, he even had a chance to later on (Janesville was one of several plants considered for reopening under the bailout). Which means he made a promise he couldn't deliver. Which is exactly what Ryan accuses him of. That's what the speech says. How is this not getting through?

[will.15]

Great, then I guess I'm right. One of the ads says "As a corporate raider, he shipped jobs to China and Mexico." Those claims are specifically based off of the assumption that he was still controlling the company in 2002. QED.

Okay, you found one ad, but most of them don't do that, and so you still are using different criteria. And that was a later ad. You were screaming to beat the band with ads that by your new rules are true before that one came out.


Nope. You said this before--that I defended the net jobs claim number--and it's wrong. I didn't. Romney definitely exaggerated his total. It's not really clear what total would be correct, but it's clear it would be less than 100,000.

No, you are wrong. I am not talking about the exact number. You said he could take credit for creating jobs after he left the company at the same time you criticized the ads for blaming him for job losses after he stepped down as CEO.

Sometimes I think you mix up what you think conservatives would say with things I actually have. This is hardly the first time you've misremembered this sort of thing. Heck, it's not even the first time you've misremembered this specific claim.


And again, you dodge the direct questions. Please try again:
"Oh, so he said he'd do something he couldn't deliver on, right? Would that be part of the "recovery that was promised" that Ryan was talking about? And is it valid to criticize a politician for saying they'll do something they can't actually do?"

He didn't prevent a plant from closing before he took office. Do you think if Ryan actually said in the speech when the plant closed anybody would have thought he was saying something that mattered?
And let's throw this one in there for good measure:
"Also, did I just hear you say that Ryan's statements can be argued as being technically true? Is it your custom to call technically true things "lies" now?"

I am saying you are claiming one thing is true and the other is false. They both do the same thing. One accuses Romney of job losses at Bain after he stepped down as CEO. The other accuses Obama of job losses before he was president. They are both either false or technically true, You can't argue one is false and the other is true. They are either both tecnically true statement or both false statements.

[Yoda]

Okay, you found one ad, but most of them don't do that, and so you still are using different criteria. And that was a later ad. You were screaming to beat the band with ads that by your new rules are true before that one came out.
I'd like to see this substantiated. You have a habit of just sort of lumping this stuff together.

Preemptively, though, one of the early ads also says "Mitt Romney's companies." They say that after saying "What a President believes matters." Thus, they're claiming that what "Mitt Romney's companies" do reflects on what he believes. There is literally no connection between the two statements unless you presuppose that Romney made those decisions.

Obama's campaign even admits this! They concede that their ad is predicated on the assumption argue (badly, but they try) that he was still controlling Bain as late as 2002, because when the ad is challenged, they also argue that he still was. I've never heard them suggest that it's true either way, because of some mealy-mouthed distinction.

And, as I keep saying, the analogy fails on even the most basic of levels. I'm not asking you to take Ryan's speech in some overly literal way. I'm not asking you to ignore a big, glowing implication because of some weasely question mark or ass-covering "if." I'm asking you to just straight-up read the thing. He doesn't imply what you're saying but hide behind some word that makes it literally true. He just flat-out doesn't say it at all. He makes a different accusation entirely. This is why I keep referring you back to the speech, and it's (presumably) why you keep avoiding it like the plague.

No, you are wrong. I am not talking about the exact number. You said he could take credit for creating jobs after he left the company at the same time you criticized the ads for blaming him for job losses after he stepped down as CEO.
Where? Show me my actual words, not your interpretation or memory of them, please.

He didn't prevent a plant from closing before he took office. Do you think if Ryan actually said in the speech when the plant closed anybody would have thought he was saying something that mattered?
Yes! Because his complaint was that Obama made a promise he couldn't deliver on! That's what he actually says, in plain English.

I am saying you are claiming one thing is true and the other is false. They both do the same thing. One accuses Romney of job losses at Bain after he stepped down as CEO. The other accuses Obama of job losses before he was president. They are both either false or technically true, You can't argue one is false and the other is true. They are either both tecnically true statement or both false statements.
Except that Ryan's speech does not accuse Obama of job losses before he was President. Ryan's speech accuses him of making a promise and failing to deliver. I keep asking you to show me the part of the speech that supports your interpretation, and you keep failing to do it. Because it isn't there.

[Yoda]

Here's the quote again. This is literally the only thing you need to determine what Ryan said, because it's a transcript of, ya' know, what Ryan said. Normally I wouldn't have to post it twice, but you seem borderline allergic to it:

“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 G.M. 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 100 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 where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.”
Things to note:

1. Ryan never says Obama is responsible for the closure. At all. The only way he alludes to any initial blame in any direction points the opposite way, in saying that they were already "about to lose" the factory when Obama came. Why would he say this if he were blaming Obama for the closure? Makes no sense.

2. Ryan doesn't mention dates, because dates are immaterial to the point. But insofar as he references the timeline at all, he makes it clear this is before the election by calling him "candidate Obama" and specifically saying "that's what he said in 2008." Why would he say this if he were trying to make people believe Obama was already President? Makes no sense.

3. There's no reference to the bailout out at all. Ryan even puts the Obama quote in 2008, explicitly. The second auto bailout loan (the one under Obama) happened in 2009. How exactly is this supposed to fit with the idea that Ryan was implying the quote took place after the bailout? Makes. No. Sense.

4. The only accusation Ryan levels--as I've said like a dozen times now--is that Obama made a promise he couldn't deliver on. And that claim is inarguable. Either Obama promised and didn't follow-through, or he promised something he couldn't deliver to begin with. Either way, that's something politicians can and should be called out for. I've asked you about this three or four times, and every time you refuse to answer.
There's no serious argument here. Ryan doesn't say what you say he does, and the thing he does say is completely true. You may not like it, and you may want him to put Obama's failing in some better light (as Obama tries to), but that's not his obligation, nor is it even misleading when he fails to bend over backwards to make excuses for his opponent's failures. He references a clear failure of his opponent and he describes it accurately.

[will.15]

He is still lying and the announcement the plant would close did not occur months later after Obama spoke.


http://i.huffpost.com/gen/751246/thumbs/s-PAUL-RYAN-GM-PLANT-large.jpg

TAMPA, Fla. -- In his prime-time speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday evening, vice presidential hopeful Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) illustrated economic failure under President Barack Obama with an anecdote about a factory that closed before Obama took office.

Ryan said, "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," Ryan continued. "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."
It's an attack Ryan has used before, and one that the Detroit News (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120816/AUTO0103/208160480#ixzz24zfeB5ZG) has called inaccurate: "In fact, Obama made no such promise and the plant halted production in December 2008, when President George W. Bush was in office," Detroit News reporter David Sherpardson wrote earlier this month. "Obama did speak at the plant in February 2008, and suggested that a government partnership with automakers could keep the plant open, but made no promises as Ryan suggested."
Senior Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod pounced on the claim in a tweet (https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/241001410974588928): "Again, Ryan blames Obama for a GM plant that closed under Bush. But then, they did say they wouldn't "let fact checkers get in the way."
On Monday, Romney pollster Neil Newhouse, defending the campaign's blatantly false ads claiming President Obama removed work requirements from welfare, said (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/mitt-romney-_n_1836139.html), "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."
UPDATE: 8/30 -- For more on the closure process, which was announced in mid-2008, see the local Gazette Xtra (http://gazettextra.com/photos/galleries/last-day-gm/). More than 2,000 Janesville GM workers were laid off immediately; another 57 stayed on (http://gazettextra.com/news/2009/apr/21/thursday-last-day-production-isuzu-line-comes-end/) until April 2009 as production wound down.

[will.15]

And he sure was lying here:

Sep 1, 2012 2:30pm


Paul Ryan Trips Over Marathon Question

[/URL][URL="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/paul-ryan-trips-over-marathon-question/#"] (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/paul-ryan-trips-over-marathon-question/#)
(http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/paul-ryan-trips-over-marathon-question/#) http://a.abcnews.com/blogs/politics/wp-content/themes/abc/img/transparent.gifEmail (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/paul-ryan-trips-over-marathon-question/#) http://a.abcnews.com/blogs/politics/wp-content/themes/abc/img/transparent.gif (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/paul-ryan-trips-over-marathon-question/#) 473 (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/paul-ryan-trips-over-marathon-question/#comments) Smaller Font (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/paul-ryan-trips-over-marathon-question/#) Text (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/paul-ryan-trips-over-marathon-question/#) Larger Text (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/paul-ryan-trips-over-marathon-question/#) | Print (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/paul-ryan-trips-over-marathon-question/#)


COLUMBUS — Paul Ryan is an athlete, no question about it — we know he does the rigorous P90X exercise regime daily. But is he a marathoner?
On Hugh Hewitt’s radio show Aug. 22, it sure sounded like he was, at least in his youth.
Hewitt asked the vice presidential candidate whether he is “still running.”
Ryan answered that he “hurt a disc” in his back,” so he doesn’t “run marathons anymore.” Instead, he said. he just runs 10 miles or less.
The conservative radio host then asked him what his personal best time is. For a marathoner this is a badge of honor, but Ryan couldn’t recall exactly.
“Under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something,” Ryan said.
Hewitt was surprised, saying, “Holy smokes.”
Ryan replied: “I was fast when I was younger, yeah.”
But it turns out, he’s only run one and it wasn’t under three hours or even under four hours.
The Ryan campaign told Runner’s World magazine that the House Budget Chairman ran one marathon in 1990 when he was 20 years old. That was the Grandma’s Marathon in Duluth, Minnesota. The running magazine reports he finished in 4 hours, 1 minute, and 25 seconds.
Ryan spokesman Brendan Buck provided ABC News with this statement from the Republican vice presidential candidate:
“The race was more than 20 years ago, but my brother Tobin — who ran Boston last year — reminds me that he is the owner of the fastest marathon in the family and has never himself ran a sub-three. If I were to do any rounding, it would certainly be to four hours, not three. He gave me a good ribbing over this at dinner tonight.”
ABC News asked Buck why the Wisconsin congressman made it sound as if he had run more than one marathon, but Buck only responded to confirm it was just a single race.
Runner’s World has some great statistics on other national candidates that have faster times than Ryan, including the last GOP vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, who has a best time of 3:59
John Edwards has run 3:30 and George W. Bush has run 3:44, while Al Gore is slower than Ryan with a 4:58.

[DexterRiley]

its ironic because closing plants is bain's go-to manoeuver.

[will.15]

Yoda, explain this:

But to fairly evaluate Obama's statement, at least two pieces of context -- missing from Ryan's account -- would be useful: First, that Obama wasn't telling this plant that he'd save it from a pending closure. He wasn't addressing a plant that he knew to be closing, because the closure announcement didn't come until four months after his speech. Second, although the plant's last bit of production stopped early in Obama's presidency and the plant remains closed, the closure was planned before Obama became president.


And I took this from a longer article that shows Ryan did blame Obama directly for the plant closure just a few days earlier and was called out for it, but cleaned it up somewhat for his acceptamce speech. Obama was talking about GM plants in general, not that one specifically, because GM had announced massive losses recently. The actual decison to close that plant did not occur until four monts later. They were not, as Ryan says, about to lose that plant when Obama made the speech.

So he had lied earler, tried to fix it for the acceptance sppech, and still was deceptive. He is beginning to sound like a bad guy according to your definition of political bad guys when they are Democrats.

[Yoda]

He is still lying
:laugh: Uh, is this your response to me showing you the quote, and then going through what it says bit by bit above? To completely ignore all that, refuse to show what part of the quote has him saying what you say he said, and just repeat that he's lying? Because if so, I think this argument has basically ended.

and the announcement the plant would close did not occur months later after Obama spoke.
You might want to get your story straight on this point. Sometimes you argue that it was already doomed, and he couldn't save it. Now you argue that there was no such announcement until later.

And neither has any relevance, because the accusation is--say it with me--that Obama made a promise he didn't deliver on. That's what the speech says, and that's what happened. Them's the facts, whether you like 'em or not.

[will.15]

Where did i say the plant was already doomed when he spoke? And even if i dd,somewhere say that, then i was just under the general misconception, led by Ryan's comment, that was the case.

Your double speak on this is amazing. He actually said Obama promised to save the plant earlier and broke his promise, and then played word games in his acceptance speech, but still was deceptive.

And i will repeat it, you would be attacking Biden if he had done the same thing.


CNN) -- Paul Ryan on Wednesday night told a story about then-presidential candidate Barack Obama telling automotive workers that government can help keep their plant going -- an account that Ryan reportedly got wrong previously.
Did the Wisconsin congressman get it right as he accepted the GOP nomination for vice president at the Republican National Convention?
Ryan discussed Obama's February 2008 speech at the General Motors plant in Janesville, Wisconsin -- a plant that eventually closed. According to Ryan, Obama had said that "if our government is there to support you ... this plant will be here for another hundred years."
Fact Check: Rand Paul, Obama and debt (http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/politics/fact-check-rand-paul-debt/index.html)
The statement:
"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."
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/img/3.0/mosaic/bttn_close.gif
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120830010215-exp-point-fehrnstrom-ryan-00002001-story-body.jpg
(http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/politics/pol-fact-check-ryan-gm/index.html#)



http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120830010215-exp-point-fehrnstrom-ryan-00002001-story-body.jpgAdviser: Ryan right on GM plant claim
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/img/3.0/mosaic/bttn_close.gif
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120830103520-rnc-tsr-sot-ryan-defends-gm-plant-comment-00010114-story-body.jpg
(http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/politics/pol-fact-check-ryan-gm/index.html#)



http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120830103520-rnc-tsr-sot-ryan-defends-gm-plant-comment-00010114-story-body.jpgRyan doubles down on GM plant comment
The facts:
First, some context. Ryan reportedly recalled this event incorrectly just days ago, during an August 16 speech in Ohio.
Ryan reportedly alleged that Obama said he'd "keep that plant open," and therefore broke his promise because the plant closed.
"That plant was shut down in 2009. I remember President Obama visiting it when he was first running, saying he'll keep that plant open," Ryan said, according to the Janesville Gazette (http://gazettextra.com/news/2012/aug/28/gm-plant-becomes-political-football/). "One more broken promise."
The Detroit News pointed out (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120816/AUTO0103/208160480#ixzz24zejOi4V) that Obama made no such promise in the February 13, 2008, speech, and indeed, we've seen no account suggesting that Obama did. Here is the quote at issue, according to an account kept by the Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2008/obamas-speech-janesville-wisconsin/p15492):
"I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday, and I know how hard your governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant. But I also know how much progress you've made -- how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles you're churning out," Obama said. "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."
By "bad news," Obama apparently was referring to GM's February 12, 2008, announcement that it had a $38.7 billion adjusted net loss for 2007 (http://archives.media.gm.com/archive/documents/domain_3/docId_43296_pr.html).
So, back on August 16 of this year, it does appear Ryan was wrong for saying Obama promised to keep it open.
The News and the Gazette went further, reporting that the plant halted production in December 2008, and saying that Ryan essentially was criticizing Obama for failing to save a plant that closed before Obama took office.
However, while December 2008 saw the end of the vast majority of the plant's work, the Gazette itself has reported that the plant didn't close fully until April 2009. Here's a timeline:
June 2008: GM announces (http://archives.media.gm.com/archive/documents/domain_3/docId_46161_pr.html) that the Janesville plant will stop production of medium-duty trucks by the end of 2009, and stop production of large SUVs such as the Chevy Tahoe and Suburban and the GMC Yukon in 2010 or sooner, depending on market demand.
December 23, 2008: SUV production ends, and more than 2,000 GM workers are laid off, according to the Gazette (http://gazettextra.com/photos/galleries/last-day-gm/). Medium truck production continues.
April 23, 2009: The plant's medium-duty assembly line, which produced an Isuzu line, closes, ending vehicle production at the plant and resulting in the loss of 57 production jobs, according to the Gazette (http://gazettextra.com/news/2009/apr/21/thursday-last-day-production-isuzu-line-comes-end/).
GM then put the plant on standby, meaning it could reactivate the facility if it decides it needs to ramp up production.
Now, compare Ryan's Wednesday night statement with the one he gave on August 16. On Wednesday, Ryan said nothing of Obama making a promise, but rather quoted him.
The quote is truncated (in Ryan's prepared remarks released to the media, an ellipsis replaces the missing words, "give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition") but essentially is correct.
The only thing Ryan appears to have gotten technically wrong in Wednesday's version was saying that the plant didn't last another year. It did last another year -- more like 14 months -- if the Isuzu line and its 57 workers count.
So, though Ryan might have been incorrect in the August 16 telling, he cleaned it up for Wednesday's convention. Obama said what Ryan said he said.
But to fairly evaluate Obama's statement, at least two pieces of context -- missing from Ryan's account -- would be useful: First, that Obama wasn't telling this plant that he'd save it from a pending closure. He wasn't addressing a plant that he knew to be closing, because the closure announcement didn't come until four months after his speech. Second, although the plant's last bit of production stopped early in Obama's presidency and the plant remains closed, the closure was planned before Obama became president.
Verdict: True, but incomplete.
Fact Check: Paul Ryan misleads on debt panel's spending cut plan (http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/politics/fact-check-ryan-debt-commission/index.html)

[Yoda]

Yoda, explain this:
Gladly. Can you answer the questions I've posed to you three or four times? Can you finally show me the portion of the speech that says what you keep insisting it does? Or does this only work in one direction?

But to fairly evaluate Obama's statement, at least two pieces of context -- missing from Ryan's account -- would be useful: First, that Obama wasn't telling this plant that he'd save it from a pending closure. He wasn't addressing a plant that he knew to be closing, because the closure announcement didn't come until four months after his speech. Second, although the plant's last bit of production stopped early in Obama's presidency and the plant remains closed, the closure was planned before Obama became president.
Two ways this doesn't work as an excuse.

1) He says his energy policy, helping plants retool, would keep plants like Janesville open. It didn't. Whether or not closure was imminent doesn't change this. None of the things you keep introducing change it.

2) He mentioned it again by name later, more explicitly promising what he'd already said in February. Whoops.


And I took this from a longer article that shows Ryan did blame Obama directly for the plant closure just a few days earlier and was called out for it, but cleaned it up somewhat for his acceptamce speech.
Yup. He definitely overstated the accusation once on the campaign trail and got called on it. Totally fair. So he changed the accusation for the speech. And as a result, the speech is completely accurate.

Obama was talking about GM plants in general, not that one specifically, because GM had announced massive losses recently. The actual decison to close that plant did not occur until four monts later. [B]They were not, as Ryan says, about to lose that plant when Obama made the speech.
Man, you're all twisted up on this. They were about to lose it, because they did shortly after. It's the equivalent of saying, on September 10th, we were "about to be attacked." It's a statement made with hindsight. It does not imply that Obama knew this. It doesn't matter that he didn't. The criticism isn't about that. He pledged to save and preserve Janesville, and then he said it again, and it didn't happen. Tell me, specifically, what part of the previous sentence is false. Seriously. No evasions. The sentence in bold. Tell me what part is wrong, please.

[Yoda]

Show me where in the speech Paul Ryan said Obama was responsible for the plant closing. You can't.

Show me anything about Janesville in the speech which is a lie. You can't.

Show me anything that contradicts the speech's claim that Obama promised to save Janesville and then did not. You can't.

Try to get around these facts. You can't.

[will.15]

I have shown he was deceptive. All the fact checkers not connected to the republican party have either concluded the statement was eithr false or true with omitted facts, meaning it was deceptive. you can go aHEAD AND USE YOUR DOUBLE STANDARD FOR DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS BECAUSE YOU CERTAINLY HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THAT.

[Yoda]

See? Just like I said. There's no argument, there's just "these people say the same thing!" You can't point to anything in the speech, just bullsh*t "fact checks" that debunk a claim that wasn't in the speech. This is the whole argument, right here: me asking you where it is, and you just sputtering about what other people say, unable to answer.

I responded to your accusations of hypocriscy (which don't actually defend your position on Ryan at all. You know that, right?) here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=840751) and here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=840769). It's based on the silly claim that I'm asking you to take Ryan's words in some overly literal fashion. I'm not; he isn't hiding behind faux literalness with question marks or the word "if." He's just saying something, and it's true. And for all your spittle, you don't seem to have a response to that.

[will.15]

Show me where in the speech Paul Ryan said Obama was responsible for the plant closing. You can't.

He said it erlier, and instead of apologizing for it, he plays word games.

Show me anything about Janesville in the speech which is a lie. You can't.

He lied Obama promised to save that plant. Obama was talking about GN in general. No announcement had been made that plant would be closed when he spoke. he lied when Obama spoke they were about to lose that plant. they were not. But it was known GM was losing money big time and would be closing some plants. The decision to close that one came four months later.

Show me anything that contradicts the speech's claim that Obama promised to save Janesville and then did not. You can't.

Try to get around these facts. You can't.
Ryan said when obama spoke they were about to lose the plant. They were not. He did not promise to save Janesville. See CNN fact check. So I just did.

[will.15]

Janesville Auto Workers Slam Paul Ryan on The Ed Schultz Show! (w/Video) (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/31/1126591/-Janesville-Auto-Workers-Slam-Paul-Ryan-on-Ed-Show)

by hungrycoyote (http://www.dailykos.com/user/hungrycoyote)Follow (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/31/1126591/-Janesville-Auto-Workers-Slam-Paul-Ryan-on-Ed-Show#?friend_id=68733&is_stream=1)
http://w.sharethis.com/images/check-big.png405
permalink (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/31/1126591/-Janesville-Auto-Workers-Slam-Paul-Ryan-on-Ed-Show?detail=hide)97 Comments (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/31/1126591/-Janesville-Auto-Workers-Slam-Paul-Ryan-on-Ed-Show#comments)
Wow! No video available yet because it just happened, but on The Ed Schultz Show just now, Ed interviewed two men who were among those who lost their jobs at the GM Auto Plant in Janesville, Wisconsin. One of them flat out said that he was in the room when President Obama, then candidate Obama, visited the plant and he never promised them that he would keep their plant open.
The two men interviewed sat in front of a room full of people at the UAW Local 95 Hall.

Q: Was Paul Ryan lying when he blamed President Obama for your plant's closure? Brad Dutcher: Absolutely. Absolutely, President Obama, then Senator Obama, had nothing to do with the decision to close our factory. That was an outright lie.
Q: Did Paul Ryan fail to help you at all, Ron. What about that?
Ron McInroy: Let me correct you first, Ed. I really didn't work at the plant but I am the Director of the Region in which the plant is located. So I just want to correct that little. Where we believe Paul Ryan lied and where he failed at is his inconsistencies. Early on if you look, he voted for stimulus package in the early 2000s, and at that time that was under George Bush, which again was a party line vote. If you look again 2008 just like you said earlier, it's really about the timeline and how things happened. When this plant closed in 2008, George Bush was still in office and their party line politics were in effect at that time.
When Barack Obama was elected, and in 2009 the plant had already closed. But what's really important here is, once the plant had closed, where we needed Mr. Ryan to step up was simply when people needed TA grants to retool, reeducate themselves to get back into other jobs; he failed to do that. He did not want to reach out and do those grants. As far as where he's inconsistent on the unemployment, again, early on in the 2000 he was all for extended unemployment, but in 2009 when these workers here really needed that, when their plant was closed, he again failed to do that.
Q: All right, Brad, I want to ask you. Are you under the impression, and do you think President Obama left the impression, that if he were elected president that that Janesville plant was going to remain open?
Brad: Absolutely not. I was in that meeting when President Obama spoke inside our plant. There was never a promise made by then Senator Obama to keep our plant open. Absolutely not. That is completely false. And you know again ...
[Cross-talk]
Brad: Where Congressman Ryan failed us, is when these employees needed it most, and to pull a stunt that he did at the Republican National Convention, and use the closing of this plant and to disgrace the plight of these workers when even today four years after the closing of this plant we have families separated. We have moms and dads that drive four or five states away to come home on the weekends to see their families. [Cheering from people in room.] And to use that and to turn this plant closing and into a political football is shameful and he ought to be ashamed of himself and we ought to be ashamed of him. [Cheering from people in room.]

[Yoda]

He said it erlier, and instead of apologizing for it, he plays word games.
If by "word games" you mean "correcting the claim so that it's totally accurate."

Also, are you admitting that he doesn't, in fact, claim this in his speech? Because that completely contradicts a ton of the stuff you've been saying this whole time.

He lied Obama promised to save that plant. Obama was talking about GN in general. No announcement had been made that plant would be closed when he spoke. he lied when Obama spoke they were about to lose that plant. they were not. But it was known GM was losing money big time and would be closing some plants. The decision to close that one came four months later.
Let me get this straight. Your position is that when Obama says "plants like Janesville," and then said it again in October ("I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville"), that he wasn't necessarily talking about Janesville? That's your argument?

Ryan said when obama spoke they were about to lose the plant. They were not.
Nope. He said they were about to lose the plant. That's a statement made from hindsight, not a suggestion that Obama knew. It doesn't even matter if Obama knew; he was speaking about preserving plants like Janesville in general, as you keep pointing out. Whether or not it was already in trouble or became so shortly afterwards does not change the substance of that pledge.

[will.15]

If by "word games" you mean "correcting the claim so that it's totally accurate."

Also, are you admitting that he doesn't, in fact, claim this in his speech? Because that completely contradicts a ton of the stuff you've been saying this whole time.

If he was honest, he wouldn't be trying to repackage the same argument aFTER GETTING CAUGHT. iT IS LIKE, OH, i GOT CAUGHT AT A LIE, BUT, HEY, I LIKE THAT, SO LET'S SEE IF I CAN TELL THE LIE A LITTLE BETTER AND MAKE IT LESS A LIE. IF oBAMA TOLD A LIE AND DIDN'T APOLGIZE, THEN rephrased it and TOLD it A LITTLE BETTER SO IT WAS A LITTLES LESS FALSE, YOU WOULDN'T LET HIM GET AWAY WITH IT.


Let me get this straight. Your position is that when Obama says "plants like Janesville," and then said it again in October ("I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville"), that he wasn't necessarily talking about Janesville? That's your argument?

Of course. You want to literally interpret Ryan and not use the same standard for Obama. He was being a politician and giving himself wiggle room, and Ryan plays the same game.

You can argue this until you are blue in the face, but just as Obama's campaign got media beaten for some of the Bain arguments, Ryan is getting creamed here by the same media. The overwhelming impression is he was being deceptive. You want to argue whit is black, against what the public perception has become, go ahead.

Nope. He said they were about to lose the plant. That's a statement made from hindsight, not a suggestion that Obama knew. It doesn't even matter if Obama knew; he was speaking about preserving plants like Janesville in general, as you keep pointing out. Whether or not it was already in trouble or became so shortly afterwards does not change the substance of that pledge.
Well, that is your interpretation. I thought until I discovered otherwise, the decision had been made based on what Ryan literally said, they were about to lose the plant. So when Obama says something open to interpretation you always look at it in a damning context and when Ryan does it you always see it in the most flattering way.

[AKA23]

I'd have to examine Ryan's remarks more closely to know to what extent he may have been being less than truthful about the plant closure, but there can be no doubt that Ryan is clearly painting a picture of himself that is not entirely consistent with his record. He chastised Obama for doing little to nothing with the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles debt commission. Yet Ryan was a member of that commission, and voted against its proposals. It's pretty disingenuous to accuse Obama of throwing the debt commission under the bus, and implying that he should have done more to champion it, when you yourself were a member of that commission, and not only failed to support it, but actively voted against the reforms it sought to implement. It's also inconsistent with his record that he is a huge deficit hawk. He's trying to paint himself as one in this campaign, but when he was actually in Congress, he supported much of the big spending, deficit-increasing government largesse which he is now decrying. He voted for huge tax cuts, he voted for the wars, he voted for the expansion of Medicare Part D. Paul Ryan was just like everyone else, a person who claimed to be conservative who nevertheless saw nothing wrong with putting everything on the credit card. He also is painting himself as serious about the deficit, and willing to tackle our long-term fiscal challenges, but his own proposal again pushes through huge tax cuts, and doesn't balance the budget for a few decades. Obama's budget doesn't balance the budget at all, so that is an improvement on that measure, but to say that Ryan's proposals are pushing through hard choices or that it really does cut the deficit, is not really all that persuasive when it takes him thirty years to even approach fiscal sustainability. He may or may not have been lying about this plant closure, but what is not debatable is that the man he is painting himself as is not consistent with his role as a legislator in Congress. When he had the chance to embody these values, he didn't do so, and now he wants us to elect him Vice-President.

[Yoda]

I'd have to examine Ryan's remarks more closely to know to what extent he may have been being less than truthful about the plant closure, but there can be no doubt that Ryan is clearly painting a picture of himself that is not entirely consistent with his record. He chastised Obama for doing little to nothing with the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles debt commission. Yet Ryan was a member of that commission, and voted against its proposals. It's pretty disingenuous to accuse Obama of throwing the debt commission under the bus, and implying that he should have done more to champion it, when you yourself were a member of that commission, and not only failed to support it, but actively voted against the reforms it sought to implement.
This one's been around the block a few times. Ryan has explained repeatedly--both at the time and since his speech--that he voted against it and then offered his own alternative, which took some of the ideas the debt commission recommended and built on them. Here's a video of Wolf Blitzer questioning him about it at the convention (http://www.therightscoop.com/paul-ryan-defends-debt-commission-janesville-plant-comments-with-wolf-blitzer/). Amusingly, I happened to see this live, too. You'll like the part where he admits the Bush administration spent too much, too.

EDIT: here's the explanation he gave at the time (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2010/1202/Why-Paul-Ryan-will-vote-no-on-deficit-commission-report), as well. He said (I was going to mention this before but couldn't find the source right away) that he voted against it because it didn't address health care, but made it worse." So he voted against it and proposed an alternative.

It's also inconsistent with his record that he is a huge deficit hawk. He's trying to paint himself as one in this campaign, but when he was actually in Congress, he supported much of the big spending, deficit-increasing government largesse which he is now decrying. He voted for huge tax cuts, he voted for the wars, he voted for the expansion of Medicare Part D.
I'm pretty sure we already talked about this, specifically. But maybe I'm thinking of someone else, so I'll reiterate: Ryan says it's because Congress had two options on the table, and he simply chose the more market-oriented one, because one of them was going to pass with or without him.

Some people want him to be Ron Paul and vote no for ideology, but he's pretty pragmatic at his core. I don't know if I prefer that or not. There's not really a right answer. Do you vote no to every bad idea, or do you vote yes because you at least want the better one to win out? Ryan seems to think you vote for the better alternative most of the time. Seems reasonable to me.

Paul Ryan was just like everyone else, a person who claimed to be conservative who nevertheless saw nothing wrong with putting everything on the credit card. He also is painting himself as serious about the deficit, and willing to tackle our long-term fiscal challenges, but his own proposal again pushes through huge tax cuts, and doesn't balance the budget for a few decades. Obama's budget doesn't balance the budget at all, so that is an improvement on that measure, but to say that Ryan's proposals are pushing through hard choices or that it really does cut the deficit, is not really all that persuasive when it takes him thirty years to even approach fiscal sustainability. He may or may not have been lying about this plant closure, but what is not debatable is that the man he is painting himself as is not consistent with his role as a legislator in Congress. When he had the chance to embody these values, he didn't do so, and now he wants us to elect him Vice-President.
Seems like there's a pretty clear way it all ties together smoothly: on moderate spending issues he's part idealist but mostly a pragmatist. On the really huge long-term spending issues, he's firmer, because that matters a lot more and has more long-term implications. It's a pretty solid posture, because pretty much everyone agrees that, while spending matters in general, the entitlements are what make or break our budget. It's a good place to draw a line in the sand.

And frankly, every example of him voting for this spending undercuts the picture people are painting of him as some heartless spending cutter or mindless ideologue, too. So you have to pick which criticism you want to paint him with there, too. Is he a heartless budget cutter, or is he misrepresenting himself because he's secretly willing to bend and compromise, and therefore isn't as extreme as Democrats portray him to be?

[Yoda]

If he was honest, he wouldn't be trying to repackage the same argument aFTER GETTING CAUGHT. iT IS LIKE, OH, i GOT CAUGHT AT A LIE, BUT, HEY, I LIKE THAT, SO LET'S SEE IF I CAN TELL THE LIE A LITTLE BETTER AND MAKE IT LESS A LIE. IF oBAMA TOLD A LIE AND DIDN'T APOLGIZE, THEN rephrased it and TOLD it A LITTLE BETTER SO IT WAS A LITTLES LESS FALSE, YOU WOULDN'T LET HIM GET AWAY WITH IT.
You didn't answer the question: are you now admitting that the claim in his speech is accurate? That seems to be what you're saying.

Of course. You want to literally interpret Ryan and not use the same standard for Obama. He was being a politician and giving himself wiggle room, and Ryan plays the same game.
I didn't ask you if you thought I was being a hypocrite. I've explained the difference and I'm long past caring if you think that, and my alleged hypocrisy does nothing to defend your position. I asked you if you actually believe that when Obama says he'll preserve plants "like Janesville," you can turn around later and say he wasn't actually talking about Janesville. Yes or no? By YOUR standards, not what you claim mine are.

The overwhelming impression is he was being deceptive. You want to argue whit is black, against what the public perception has become, go ahead.
Thanks for the permission, but I've already been arguing against what the "public perception has become." And people (and apparently, you're among them) who believe it because it's the public perception, and can't seem to fathom the possibility that the public perception could be wrong, are one of the reasons it becomes a wide public perception in the first place.

Well, that is your interpretation. I thought until I discovered otherwise, the decision had been made based on what Ryan literally said, they were about to lose the plant. So when Obama says something open to interpretation you always look at it in a damning context and when Ryan does it you always see it in the most flattering way.
I'm not sure what part of this you think is open to interpretation. Does Ryan's speech ding Obama for saying he'd preserve the Janesville plant? Yes. Did he preserve the Janesville plant? No. Now please explain how this criticism changes depending on whether or not its imminent closure was known or not. I don't see how it's remotely contingent on that.

By the way, here's Ryan being asked about the Janesville issue by Wolf Blitzer, and giving the exact explanation I have (http://www.therightscoop.com/paul-ryan-defends-debt-commission-janesville-plant-comments-with-wolf-blitzer/). He says he was criticizing Obama for making "empty promises that become broken promises." Which is completely consistent with the speech.

[DexterRiley]

A video released this weekend by action movie hero Chuck Norris claims that America faces “1,000 years of darkness” if President Barack Obama is reelected.

“If we look to history, our great country and freedom are under attack,” Norris warns, standing next to his wife. “We’re at a tipping point and, quite possibly, our country as we know it may be lost forever if we don’t change the course in which our country is headed.”

The pair go on to explain that Obama won in 2008 because more than 30 million evangelical Christians stayed home on Election Day. “We know you love your family and your freedom as much as Gena and I do, and it is because of that we can no longer sit quietly or stand on the sidelines and watch our country go the way of socialism or something much worse,” Norris explains.


Quoting President Ronald Reagan, Norris’s wife Gina adds that defeating Obama “will preserve for our children this last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into 1,000 years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

Norris has been an outspoken critic of Obama’s since even prior to the 2008 election. He’s claimed in recent years that the Christian savior character Jesus would have been aborted by his mother if “Obamacare” were available 2,000 years ago, claimed that American progressives want to enshrine Islamic moral codes into U.S. law, and accused the Obama administration of trying to force the Boy Scouts to adopt a “pro-gay” position.

He also warned in 2008 that if Mitt Romney won the Republican presidential nomination, he’d “buy the White House.” Norris hasn’t repeated that particular criticism this election cycle.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/03/chuck-norris-threatens-1000-years-of-darkness-if-obama-wins/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ud3pK5Wa90

Chucks wife has a sexy ass voice. otherwise, a whole lotta nuttiness imo.

[will.15]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fast-fact-check-did-paul-ryan-blame-president-obama-for-shutting-down-a-gm-plant-in-2008/2012/08/30/b85df8ea-f2cb-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_video.html


Keep, spinning. Nobody believes you except Fox News and the Moonies, and the parrot right wing journals

[will.15]

A video released this weekend by action movie hero Chuck Norris claims that America faces “1,000 years of darkness” if President Barack Obama is reelected.

“If we look to history, our great country and freedom are under attack,” Norris warns, standing next to his wife. “We’re at a tipping point and, quite possibly, our country as we know it may be lost forever if we don’t change the course in which our country is headed.”

The pair go on to explain that Obama won in 2008 because more than 30 million evangelical Christians stayed home on Election Day. “We know you love your family and your freedom as much as Gena and I do, and it is because of that we can no longer sit quietly or stand on the sidelines and watch our country go the way of socialism or something much worse,” Norris explains.


Quoting President Ronald Reagan, Norris’s wife Gina adds that defeating Obama “will preserve for our children this last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into 1,000 years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

Norris has been an outspoken critic of Obama’s since even prior to the 2008 election. He’s claimed in recent years that the Christian savior character Jesus would have been aborted by his mother if “Obamacare” were available 2,000 years ago, claimed that American progressives want to enshrine Islamic moral codes into U.S. law, and accused the Obama administration of trying to force the Boy Scouts to adopt a “pro-gay” position.

He also warned in 2008 that if Mitt Romney won the Republican presidential nomination, he’d “buy the White House.” Norris hasn’t repeated that particular criticism this election cycle.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/03/chuck-norris-threatens-1000-years-of-darkness-if-obama-wins/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ud3pK5Wa90

Chucks wife has a sexy ass voice. otherwise, a whole lotta nuttiness imo.
When I see a guy talking with the American flag behind him I know it is going to be Loony Toons time.

Chuck is lucky to have a young wife who is so disinterested in spending money on clothes. I have seen bag ladies better dressed.

[Yoda]

Keep, spinning. Nobody believes you except Fox News and the Moonies, and the parrot right wing journals
If you're actually so twisted up that you think what people say about a speech somehow supersedes what's actually in the speech (http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2506831#.UEYvadZlQUo), then we're definitely done here. I sure can't crack any echo chamber with that kind of reinforcement.

Enjoy believing whatever you want. I'm sure it's lovely.

[will.15]

To sum up, you apply different standards to Democrats and Republicans. At best, the speech is deceptive, by leaving out important facts it may technically be true, but is deliberately misleading. The same is true for many of the things you have been criticizing Democrats for. Ads accusing Romney/Bain of job losses after Romney left are by your criteria for Ryan also technically true because Romney in the vast majority of the ads, the ones you first criticized, was still legally associated with the company, The company was still legally Romney/Bain. Like Ryan, they picked their words carefully, but like Ryan, it didn't stop the fact checkers from criticizing them. And Obama in the speech Ryan cites was not directly promising to save the Janesville plant, so Ryan is not accurately reporting what he said.Is this a narrow definition of what Obama said? Yes, but you are using narrow definitions for Ryan so the same standards should apply.

[will.15]

Now Paul Ryan is lying about lying.

"What they are trying to suggest is that I said Barack Obama was responsible for the plant shutdown in Janesville. That is not what I was saying, read the speech," he told NBC's "Today." "What I was saying is the president ought to be held to account for his broken promises. After the plant was shut down he said he would lead efforts to restore the plant. It’s still idle."

He didn't say that in the speech. He quoted Obama before the plant closed down. Obama told the workers in February he thought with government help the plant could stay open, but four months later the decision was made to shut the plant and it closed in December. Ryan is still not telling the truth!

[Yoda]

Alright, I was going to leave you to your inanity, but you've really buried yourself with the last few replies, so I'm just gonna nail 'em, instead:

1. You've all but admitted that your initial accusations about Ryan were bunk (which is why you ignored the questions here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=840824)), and you've been reduced to trying to argue that I'm a hypocrite without ever admitting you were wrong about the entire premise of the argument. Nice try, but this quote (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/33-men-occasionally-stumble-over-the-truth-but-most-of-them) comes to mind. You were wrong about the speech. Deal with it.

2. Ryan doesn't say, in that second quote, that he's referring to anything in the speech. He's giving another example. He says "After the plant shut down." And guess what? Obama made a second pledge to save Janesville, which came in October. I quoted it a dozen posts ago. So, the "lying about lying" accusation is based on something Ryan never said. Boy, that sure sounds familiar.

I'm sure your next response will be a level-headed apology and a full retraction of the confused claim in post 2606, right? And definitely not some convoluted rationalization which segues into ad hominem attacks. :suspicious:

[Yoda]

Everyone place your bets. What's it gonna be in the next reply? I'm betting the response to point #1 is just repetition: no admission that Ryan's speech is accurate, and just another forced equation between his claims and the Bain ads. In other words, a total dodge that continues to skip over his initial claims that Ryan was lying.

For point #2, I'm less sure. Maybe something weasely about how Ryan's statement is ambiguous, and makes peple think it refers to February? Dunno. Lots of room for him to squirm around there. But he won't be able to squirm around enough to call it a "lie" if he has to immediately backtrack and just point out that Ryan doesn't explicitly say it's from October. Of course, he still won't admit that was wrong, either, but he might just say it's ambiguous and pretend that's enough to distract from the "lying about lies" whopper.

Give anyone 2-1 odds on both.

[will.15]

Alright, I was going to leave you to your inanity, but you've really buried yourself with the last few replies, so I'm just gonna nail 'em, instead:

1. You've all but admitted that your initial accusations about Ryan were bunk (which is why you ignored the questions here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=840824)), and you've been reduced to trying to argue that I'm a hypocrite without ever admitting you were wrong about the entire premise of the argument. Nice try, but this quote (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/33-men-occasionally-stumble-over-the-truth-but-most-of-them) comes to mind. You were wrong about the speech. Deal with it.

Well, everyone, but republicans believe the speech as written was implying the plant closed after Obama took office, which would have meant the president could take some of the blame because of the auto bailout. Lauer on Today told Ryan he had read the speech and believed he was blaming the president for the plant closure. if you examine it word by word he isn't exactly saying that, but implying it. Outright lying or being deliberately deceptive, that is what he was doing.

I haven't been ignoring any questions. you want to apply strict legalese to Ryan, but not to the Romney/Bain ads, yeah, that is hypocrisy. big time.

2. Ryan doesn't say, in that second quote, that he's referring to anything in the speech. He's giving another example. He says "After the plant shut down." And guess what? Obama made a second pledge to save Janesville, which came in October. I quoted it a dozen posts ago. So, the "lying about lying" accusation is based on something Ryan never said. Boy, that sure sounds familiar.

Yeah, I thought you would say that, but, no, that is not what he actually said. He didn't say in the speech he was criticizing Obama for later promising to open the plant, So he is lying, flat out lying. If that was the point he wanted to make in the speech, he didn't make it. He should be a man and just say he should have been clearer about what his point was. But it is becoming clear Paul Ryan isn't what he has been advertised to be, a straight talker. And look what he says in that reply to Lauer. He said the president said he would lead efforts to get the plant reopened. He didn't say he would reopen the plant. That is not a broken promise unless Obama did not actually try to get the plant open. These are the standards you apply to Ryan and the same should apply to Obama. Unless you are a hypocrite.

I'm sure your next response will be a level-headed apology and a full retraction of the confused claim in post 2606, right? And definitely not some convoluted rationalization which segues into ad hominem attacks. :suspicious:
And you never responded to your double standards for Dems and Repubs and what do I have to apologize for, that he implied Obama was responsible for the plant closure and didn't actually say it? That he is a half-liar there and not a total liar? But he was lying in his response to Lauer when he said he was criticizing the president for a broken promise to save the plant when he didn't do that in the speech. Okay, in that one instance he is only a half-liaR, hE WAS DISTORTING THE TRUTH, NOT COMPLETELY LYING. aND HE WAS STILL LYING ABOUT THAT MArathon. It is clear in the Hewett interview he was lying and not making an honest mistake when you read it. I am amazed the media got wind of that. Who listens to Hugh Hewitt? He is one of the more genial (and dull) right wing radio hosts and doesn't have much of an audience.

[Yoda]

if you examine it word by word he isn't exactly saying that, but implying it. Outright lying or being deliberately deceptive, that is what he was doing.
Where does he imply it? This is the part where your argument hits a wall. First you say it was false/a lie. I ask you what part is false, and you can't produce it, because there is no such part. So you backtrack without ever acknowledging your were wrong in the first place. You try to save face by saying it's merely misleading because it implies Obama is the reason the plant closed. So I ask you where it even implies that...and where is it? Where's the phantom implication? I see nothing more than a criticism for an empty, broken promise.

This is usually where you stop answering questions and just link me to some article that agrees with you. Which is just a stubborn way of admitting you were wrong, anyway.

Yeah, I thought you would say that, but, no, that is not what he actually said. He didn't say in the speech he was criticizing Obama for later promising to open the plant, So he is lying, flat out lying. If that was the point he wanted to make in the speech, he didn't make it.
No, he's making two different claims. See below, and try to keep up.

And you never responded to your double standards for Dems and Repubs
Sure did: here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=840751) and here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=840769). The explanation, in summary, is that I'm not asking you to be awkwardly literal with Ryan. You need only read what he said; he's not turning an accusation into a question with some faux question mark. He simply does not say it or imply at all. Sorry, it ain't there.

The Bain ads, on the other hand, did say Romney was running the companies. Flat-out said it. And even the earlier ads only make sense if you interpret them the same way (explained here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=840769), received no reply), and the Obama campaign has conceded as much by arguing the point when challenged. Boom.

But he was lying in his response to Lauer when he said he was criticizing the president for a broken promise to save the plant when he didn't do that in the speech.
Aaaaand you've just refuted yourself. Observe: Ryan said the President ought "to be held to account for his broken promises." And he adds "After the plant was shut down he said he would lead efforts to restore the plant." Which is true. He did say that. The first statement is about the speech, the second statement is about what Obama said in October.

You know how we know? Because Ryan tells us by specifically saying the second comment came "After the plant closed down," which, guess what, completely contradicts your entire premise that he's trying to make it sound like it was beforehand. It also completely contradicts your premise that his criticism doesn't matter because Obama didn't knew it was closing, because he made the exact same statement after the closure was announced.

So congratulations, you just shot yourself in the foot with rocket launcher.

[will.15]

You are wrong again. The ads you were having a problem with do not say Romney was running the company, They say Romney/Bain, which is legally true, as he was still listed on the official letterhead and legal documents as still with the company.

All the non partisan fact checkers and Lauer in that interview believe Ryan was implying the plant closed under Ryan. Ryan even directly blamed Obama for the plant closure in a speech a week or so earlier and never apologized for it or clarified his remarks. Why are you even wasting time arguing this?

[will.15]

The earlier speech was worse than I thought. Ryan blamed the plant closing down on obama's energy policy. But he wasn't even in office yet!

In a speech in Canton, Ohio on Thursday, Ryan blamed Obama’s energy policies for the closure of the GM plant in his hometown, but the plant closure was announced in June of 2008. The last car rolled off the Janesville line on December 23, 2008. Obviously, President Obama was then a Senator, and not the President.

http://themoderatevoice.com/158572/paul-ryan-shakes-etch-a-sketch-now-says-obama-did-not-close-gm-plant/

[Yoda]

You are wrong again. The ads you were having a problem with do not say Romney was running the company, They say Romney/Bain, which is legally true, as he was still listed on the official letterhead and legal documents as still with the company.
"Legally true," huh? This might be a meaningful distinction if the ads were just pointing it out, but they use that to claim that Romney made certain decisions. And for those claims, they have no evidence. And when you don't have evidence for a claim, then reasonable people call it false. Whether or not you want to legally parse the establishing statement for literal truth, the conclusions drawn from it (which are the point of the ad) remain unsubstantiated, and therefore are false. Simple.

Also, I don't trust your memory on this, so I started going back and looking, and so far I'm only seeing complaints about the second ad. I asked you to substantiate this already (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=840769), and I'm asking again now.

And even this is giving the hypocrisy argument way too much credit, by the way, because I'm not proposing a weirdly literal interpretation of Ryan's speech. He doesn't blame Obama for the closure in any way, shape, or form, whether you read it literally or just normally. He blames him for making empty promises.

You say there's an implication. I keep asking: where? I even asked again in the very last post. You're just skipping over any question you don't have an answer to.

All the non partisan fact checkers and Lauer in that interview believe Ryan was implying the plant closed under Ryan. Ryan even directly blamed Obama for the plant closure in a speech a week or so earlier and never apologized for it or clarified his remarks. Why are you even wasting time arguing this?
Exactly. I don't usually bother to argue the everyday media spin. I'm bothering to argue this one because it's a really, really egregious example of it. The media doesn't usually screw up this badly. They don't usually repeat unfounded arguments so carelessly.

[Yoda]

The earlier speech was worse than I thought. Ryan blamed the plant closing down on obama's energy policy. But he wasn't even in office yet!

In a speech in Canton, Ohio on Thursday, Ryan blamed Obama’s energy policies for the closure of the GM plant in his hometown, but the plant closure was announced in June of 2008. The last car rolled off the Janesville line on December 23, 2008. Obviously, President Obama was then a Senator, and not the President.

http://themoderatevoice.com/158572/paul-ryan-shakes-etch-a-sketch-now-says-obama-did-not-close-gm-plant/
Except, whoops: Janesville was one of several plants being considered for reopening (http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/315456/truth-about-gm-janesville-gm-plant-greg-pollowitz) in the auto bailtout. And apparently it lost out because "community impact" and "carbon footprint" were the considerations given priority in determining which ones got to open. Both right along the party line and the administration's priorities. Isn't that interesting? Not only because it supports what Ryan's saying here, but because it undercuts the idea that Obama had absolutely no way to save the plant.

I can only assume you're confused because, for some bizarre reason, you think Paul Ryan saying "this energy policy is costing us jobs" at the end of his anecdote must mean (why?!) that he's still talking about the February 2008 speech. But he isn't. He's saying plants like the Janesville one get shut down because of gas prices. And then he's saying that the President's policies contribute to rising gas prices and cost us jobs. Agree or disagree, he's not saying the President's energy policy shut that specific plant down. He's saying it's going to shut others down, because it exacerbates the problems that shut Janesville down.

This is the exact same error you made a few posts ago with the "lying about lying" nonsense (and I'm still waiting for you explanation about how that fits with all your other claims given that he starts it with "After the plant closed"). In both cases you just arbitrarily assume that one sentence must share the same source and rationale as another one and then call the result a "lie," even though in both cases there are much simpler, less bizarrely interpretive readings that are completely supported by the facts.

[Yoda]

By the way: if you hate how long and intricate these arguments become, then you should stick to the helpful pallette-cleanser posts I regularly toss up, like this (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=840574), this (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=840773) and this (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=840797). I post these not just because I think simple clarity usually hurts your arguments, but because nobody wants to sink hours into this. So you might want to consider taking advantage of them.

Strangely, you usually don't. In these cases you ignored the first two, and the third you replied to once or twice by largely answering questions I didn't actually ask and then ducking the really obvious follow-ups. I assume, by the way, this is how you end up believing that you did reply to something while I insist you didn't. Because you'll reply once or twice and then let it drop, ultimately leaving the line of questioning unaddressed.

I'm giving you every opportunity to simplify the discussion and make your case in plain terms. Every time you make a reference to some accusation or implication in the speech, I ask you to show me where it is. That's probably happened a dozen times now, yeah? Can you show me a single case in which you actually responded by simply producing a quote from the speech and explaining why it means what you think it does? I've asked a ton, and I think you've done this literally zero times.

[will.15]

You keep rewriting what he is saying. But his comments doesn't make your point. Now when exactly have you done this for a Democrat? Reinterpret a speech and add information not in the speech so it makes better sense? You make a valid argument, but it isn't' Ryan's argument as presented. And, again, his defense of the acceptance speech is making a different argument than he gave in the speech and bringing up comments made by Obama at a different time. If he wanted to comment on what he claims is a broken promise made at a later time, why does he bring up an earlier speech in the acceptance speech? If he wanted to complain about the criteria about opening the plant, why doesn't he actually talk about that? He needs you to write for him because on his own or his current writer is incompetent. And you are still using different criteria for Obama than Ryan. You never give Obama the benefit of the doubt to the extent you rewrite what he says, except when you go the other way and try to make his statement worse than what he said word for word using your Ryan standard. Ryan is now sounding like the most muddled speaker I have ever heard. If he was trying to say what you are saying, he was saying it incoherently. I think, however, it is starting to sound like Ryan actually may not be as intelligent as we have been led to believe. He either can't argue well or was being deliberately deceptive. Take your pick. Maybe he was reading a speech prepared by others and didn't understand it. Bring on the debates. It no longer sounds like he will destroy Biden with his brilliant logic.

[will.15]

"Legally true," huh? This might be a meaningful distinction if the ads were just pointing it out, but they use that to claim that Romney made certain decisions. And for those claims, they have no evidence. And when you don't have evidence for a claim, then reasonable people call it false. Whether or not you want to legally parse the establishing statement for literal truth, the conclusions drawn from it (which are the point of the ad) remain unsubstantiated, and therefore are false. Simple.

Also, I don't trust your memory on this, so I started going back and looking, and so far I'm only seeing complaints about the second ad. I asked you to substantiate this already (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=840769), and I'm asking again now.

The ads do exactly what Ryan did. They are not factually incorrect, but can be argued to be misleading. Under Romney/Bain, companies they bought when Romney was CEO had plants shut and downsized when he stepped down to run the Utah Olympics, but still was legally associated with the company. It was still Romney/Bain and it is still being disputed how much say he had at that point. Technically, the ads are accurate but don't mention Romney was no longer running the company when some of the abd things they mention happened. That makes them arguably correct, but misleading. And that is exactly what Ryan did. The speech makes it sound like the plant shut down after Obama took office. Then when defending the comments he changes the argument and mischaracterizes what Obama said, that he broke a promise. You present a different argument with different information to show perhaps Obama did break a promise. But that wasn't what Ryan was arguing. He didn't bring up your facts. It wasn't what he said, but so good of you to be in his corner and show him what he should have said. Maybe with his fourth or fifth explanation he will get to your argument. Your double standards for Dems and Republicans are just amazing.

And even this is giving the hypocrisy argument way too much credit, by the way, because I'm not proposing a weirdly literal interpretation of Ryan's speech. He doesn't blame Obama for the closure in any way, shape, or form, whether you read it literally or just normally. He blames him for making empty promises.

If the Ryan sppech was not misleading, if it didn't require a literal interpretation for it to be defended, then why have all the non partisan fact checkers rate it either a lie or half-truth? They have all characterized it at best as deceptive. And you cited the same fact checkers for the Bain ads, and many of them qualified their rating when it was proven Romney still had ties with the company when some of the criticized decisions occurred.

You say there's an implication. I keep asking: where? I even asked again in the very last post. You're just skipping over any question you don't have an answer to.

You don't see an implication Matt Lauer said he saw and re-read it and still saw it, the fact checkers saw it, etc., while at the same time you keep saying Obama promised to keep the plant open and he didn't, except, maybe by implication, same as Ryan, who doesn't use dates when he makes his comments, but the context clearly suggest he is talking about a plant shutdown that occurred after Obama took office, not before.


Exactly. I don't usually bother to argue the everyday media spin. I'm bothering to argue this one because it's a really, really egregious example of it. The media doesn't usually screw up this badly. They don't usually repeat unfounded arguments so carelessly.
Or you are showing you partisan stripes. Ryan made a mistake. He should have said I didn't make clear what I was saying and argued like you did. But instead everytime he opens his mouth he loses more credibility. At this point I don't know if he knows what his point was.

[will.15]

Note these simple questions, since you seem intent on kicking up a lot of dust around this issue:

1. Did Paul Ryan accuse Obama of being responsible for closing the plant in his speech? No.

He implies it by making it sound the plant closed after he took office. He more directly blamed him for the shutdown in an earlier speech.

2. Did Paul Ryan accuse Obama of promising he'd save the plant? Yes.

Yes, but Obama didn't in the speech he quoted. So he made a factually incorrect statement.

3. Did Obama save the plant? No.

You got one out of three. if he tried to or not is not something Ryan addresses and the answer is unknown.

Therefore, Ryan's statement is true. Where's your argument? Show it to me, because I can't find it.

Only the last is totally factual, so the statement is mostly false.

[Yoda]

He implies it by making it sound the plant closed after he took office. He more directly blamed him for the shutdown in an earlier speech.
How does it "make it sound" like the plant closed after he took office? What part of the speech does this?

Yes, but Obama didn't in the speech he quoted. So he made a factually incorrect statement.
This is the part I doubt you actually believe. Obama went to Janesville, talked to them about his policies, said those policies will enable "plants like Janesville to stay open for 100 years," and you say that he's not actually talking about Janesville? What was it, trivia? "Hey you guys, did you know, hypothetically, that if we did this one thing, plants a lot like yours will be saved? Just hypothetically, I mean."

I'm also not sure why you think the failure to include the quote from October is somehow damning. If Ryan is saying Obama pledged to save Janesville, then why does he have to mention both? The October quote happened, yes? Which means he didn't misrepresent Obama's position. So, at most, all you can get out of this distinction is to excuse yourself for thinking he'd misrepresented his position at first. But once you learn about the other quote, your complaint would be no more. At that point you're admitting that the speech is accurate and just complaining that it didn't come with footnotes.

[Yoda]

Technically, the ads are accurate but don't mention Romney was no longer running the company when some of the abd things they mention happened.
But again, you fail to distinguish between the initial claim and the conclusion. The problem isn't that the initial claim is literally false. It isn't. It is literally true--though obviously misleading--to say that Romney still had some strictly legal role with Bain. And if that's all the ad said, I'd have to admit it was literally true. But it goes on to treat this fact as if it proves ownership over decisions. And that claim--which is the point of the ad--is the part that isn't even "legally true" or literally true. Thus, the ad is not just misleading but literally false, because it takes a literally true statement and derives an unsubstantiated claim from it.

The speech makes it sound like the plant shut down after Obama took office
See previous post, where I ask for an example of how and where it does this.

If the Ryan sppech was not misleading, if it didn't require a literal interpretation for it to be defended, then why have all the non partisan fact checkers rate it either a lie or half-truth?
That's exactly what I want to know. They've completely bungled this. I expect flaws, and I expect bias, but they've really screwed up their reporting on the Ryan speech. That's why I'm making a big deal out of it even though it doesn't seem like the kind of thing I'd usually bother much with.

If you want me to speculate as to the "why," I suppose fact checking is becoming more and more like punditry (some of the organizations have changed hands since their heyday, for example). I've linked you to a few examples of their demonstrable bias, and I can link you to a whole lot more if you desire further proof. Their verdicts are increasingly bizarre and decreasingly defensible. They're often just well-researched editorials. Good for facts, bad for shorthand conclusions. And they always need to be scrutinized, just like any argument. Especially now that they regularly venture beyond "pure" fact checking.

A further part of the problem might be that a lot of reporting is just an echo. How many places are we actually talking? WaPo, PolitiFact, CNN? And then hundreds of papers and thousands of websites report on those reports, and what looks like a thousand people saying something independently is really a few people saying it and a whole lot of people referencing it.

It's reasonable to ask why this would happen, but it's beside the point, which is that when you look at the "fact checks" for this speech they're debunking a claim that isn't stated or even implied in the text.

And you cited the same fact checkers for the Bain ads, and many of them qualified their rating when it was proven Romney still had ties with the company when some of the criticized decisions occurred.
Yeah, this is literally the fourth time you've said this, and I've replied the same (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=840734#post840734) way (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=834550#post834550) every (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=834523#post834523) time (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=834511#post834511). My position on this has been completely consistent: I haven't questioned any of the research in these reports. I assume their dates and details about the plant's closure and SUV production are spot-on. That's different from whether or not the question they're researching was actually uttered by the candidate. That, I can check for myself, and see that they weren't. Their interpretations and verdicts have become overtly partisan, and highly inconsistent, too, so the subjective conclusions need to be scrutinized, just like with anything else.

[Yoda]

You keep rewriting what he is saying. But his comments doesn't make your point. Now when exactly have you done this for a Democrat? Reinterpret a speech and add information not in the speech so it makes better sense? You make a valid argument, but it isn't' Ryan's argument as presented.
Okay, so your argument is that what I'm saying makes sense by itself, but Ryan didn't say it in his speech. Great; that's a lot of progress already. Let's examine that.

My claim this entire time has been that Ryan was blaming Obama for making empty promises. It's Ryan's own explanation when questioned about his speech, too. And it's a standard accusation: that a politician promised big things on the campaign trail and then didn't deliver. Here's the speech:

“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 G.M. 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 100 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 where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.”

What part of this is at odds with my (and Ryan's, post-speech) explanation? He says the plant was about to close (it was, we now know). He says "candidate Obama," which means it took place before the election, so there's nothing misleading there. He says it happened in 2008, which put it before Obama's end of the bailout (which was in 2009), so there's nothing misleading there, either. And he sums it all up with "the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight." A simple, elegant way of accusing Obama of failing to deliver on what he told those workers.

So where's the discrepancy? What part is "incoherent"? Where's the part of the speech that suggests things totally different from what I'm suggesting? And why, if he was attempting to mislead, does he add things like "candidate Obama" and "in 2008," which would directly undermine such an attempt? That doesn't make a lick of sense.

[DexterRiley]

I need your imput here Chris. This was posted on another board, and im contending that this has got to be staged, ie these are actors, or at the very least people spouting nonsense to get their mug on TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufUCmj1p9rE

Whats the verdict?

[will.15]

How does it "make it sound" like the plant closed after he took office? What part of the speech does this?

It is context. The implication is the statement was made in conjunction with auto bailout talk. Everybody but you and your Republican pals think that is what is being implied.


This is the part I doubt you actually believe. Obama went to Janesville, talked to them about his policies, said those policies will enable "plants like Janesville to stay open for 100 years," and you say that he's not actually talking about Janesville? What was it, trivia? "Hey you guys, did you know, hypothetically, that if we did this one thing, plants a lot like yours will be saved? Just hypothetically, I mean."

Well, I don't believe you believe Ryan was not trying to make it sound Obama was responsible for the plant closing, that hr wasn't deliberately implying the plant closed after he took office. And again, you are being literal with Ryan and not with Obama. You give Ryan the benefit of the doubt, rewrite and re-argue him far better than he appears capable of, but don't apply that courtesy to Obama, just the opposite. Obama was saying what he thought his audience wanted to hear, (Romney does that also, you know), but was he making a flat-out promise? He knew what he was doing. The comments are carefully worded. And you are leaving out context, as Ryan was. He was talking about a plant that at the time he spoke was not scheduled to close. What does he mean, factories like Janesvlle? He is talking about the auto industry in general. His comments are not directed squarely at Janesville. He makes no promises. He says what he thinks he believes can happen. He gave himself more wiggle room than a snake in a vacated department store. And you would have noticed that if Romney had said it.

I'm also not sure why you think the failure to include the quote from October is somehow damning. If Ryan is saying Obama pledged to save Janesville, then why does he have to mention both? The October quote happened, yes? Which means he didn't misrepresent Obama's position. So, at most, all you can get out of this distinction is to excuse yourself for thinking he'd misrepresented his position at first. But once you learn about the other quote, your complaint would be no more. At that point you're admitting that the speech is accurate and just complaining that it didn't come with footnotes.
Because Ryan has to assume his audience is not familiar with every comment Obama makes. If his point is Obama broke a promise in October, then he needs to mention the October speech. Otherwise he is being incredibly incoherent. But I don't believe him anyway. I think it is pretty clear now by his poor defense, he was doing exactly what most people thought he was doing, blaming the President for the shutdown and trying to change the subject. You do a far better job arguing the president broke his promise than he does. I don't think he thought through what he was saying at all. He doesn't appear to be very thoughtful compared to Obama. Look what Obama did in that Janesville speech, made it sound like he was making a promise when he wasn't saying much at all. Perfect politician speak. Beautiful. Ryan is like Inspector Closseau, trying to get over the moat but keeps falling back in.

[will.15]

Okay, so your argument is that what I'm saying makes sense by itself, but Ryan didn't say it in his speech. Great; that's a lot of progress already. Let's examine that.

My claim this entire time has been that Ryan was blaming Obama for making empty promises. It's Ryan's own explanation when questioned about his speech, too. And it's a standard accusation: that a politician promised big things on the campaign trail and then didn't deliver. Here's the speech:
“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 G.M. 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 100 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 where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.”
What part of this is at odds with my (and Ryan's, post-speech) explanation? He says the plant was about to close (it was, we now know). He says "candidate Obama," which means it took place before the election, so there's nothing misleading there. He says it happened in 2008, which put it before Obama's end of the bailout (which was in 2009), so there's nothing misleading there, either. And he sums it all up with "the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight." A simple, elegant way of accusing Obama of failing to deliver on what he told those workers.

So where's the discrepancy? What part is "incoherent"? Where's the part of the speech that suggests things totally different from what I'm suggesting? And why, if he was attempting to mislead, does he add things like "candidate Obama" and "in 2008," which would directly undermine such an attempt? That doesn't make a lick of sense.
Only people with a crystal ball knew it was about to close. Obama didn't know it was about to close. If the plant closure was not connected directly to Obama's comment (which was not a promise, just nice talk about what the role of government could be), the Ryan remark is disconnected. The recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight has nothing to do with the February remark. The banking crisis did not happen until the end of the year. He is putting apples and oranges together. And he picked a peculiar target because the promise he made regarding the auto industry was kept. That part of what he did, the bailout, was successful. Ryan would have made a better point if the plant that shut down was not connected to the auto industry. That plant may still be closed, but there are more auto workers employed than four years ago.

[FILMFREAK087]

I can't find the post, but I think Yoda said something like; " Ryan was criticizing Obama for cutting medicare to pay for another entitlement." Anyway, so that is to say that Ryan supports cuts to medicare, but the problem is that when at the RNC he spun it as "preying on seniors," but how can he play that card, when his budget essentially guts the program? I mean, if it's a philosophical standpoint of government intervention or solvency, that's one thing, but he actually moralized the act which he endorsed as victimizing the elderly. The only difference between Ryan and Obama's cuts being that the revenue saved wouldn't go to the affordable healthcare act, but to tax cuts, which are not deficit neutral. All I'm saying is, Ryan is not against the method, but the end goal, yet portrayed the opposite.

[Powderfinger]

Obama's best weapon is

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2009/database/michelleobama/michelle_obama300.jpg

[Yoda]

It is context.
This is circular. When I ask you how he implies it, saying it's in context is just repeating yourself. Where is this context? How does it imply this? Quote him.

The implication is the statement was made in conjunction with auto bailout talk.
Now you're totally contradicting yourself. You keep saying that Ryan wants to make it sound like Obama was responsible for the plant closing, but you ALSO keep saying that Ryan wants to make it sound like this is happening in conjunction with the bailout. These are mutually exclusive accusations, because Obama can't be administering a bailout without knowing which companies are distressed. And again, I ask: if he was trying to do this, why say "candidate Obama" rather than Obama? Why say 2008, when Obama's end of the bailout came in 2009? Those are completely counterproductive choices if he's trying to do all the many contradictory things you say he was trying to do. Under your explanation he has absolutely no reason to say them. So why does he?

And on top of that: where is the above implied, either? Ryan doesn't say anything about the bailout in that section of the speech. Your entire argument is based around these implications, yet you can't seem to produce anything in the text that implies these things.

He knew what he was doing. The comments are carefully worded. And you are leaving out context, as Ryan was. He was talking about a plant that at the time he spoke was not scheduled to close. What does he mean, factories like Janesvlle? He is talking about the auto industry in general. His comments are not directed squarely at Janesville. He makes no promises. He says what he thinks he believes can happen. He gave himself more wiggle room than a snake in a vacated department store.
Leaving aside how incredibly misleading this is (are you saying Ryan's speech would be accurate if "empty promises" were changed to "empty rhetoric"? Sounds like it), Obama reiterated this pledge in October and added "As President, I will work to..." So even this weaselly explanation doesn't fly.

Because Ryan has to assume his audience is not familiar with every comment Obama makes. If his point is Obama broke a promise in October, then he needs to mention the October speech. Otherwise he is being incredibly incoherent.
This is a flat-out non-sequitur. It doesn't follow that Ryan has to mention the October quote. Why would he? It happened. Which means any reference to it is true, even if not specifically cited. He's giving a speech, not listing a bibliography. He simply needs to portray his opponent's position accurately, which he does.

You didn't accuse him of incoherence (though the speech makes sense either way), you accused him of lying, and then of misleading. But as the October comment shows, he wasn't misleading anyone about Obama's position.

[Yoda]

Only people with a crystal ball knew it was about to close. Obama didn't know it was about to close. If the plant closure was not connected directly to Obama's comment (which was not a promise, just nice talk about what the role of government could be), the Ryan remark is disconnected. The recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight has nothing to do with the February remark.
The connection is obvious: it's "here's an anecdote that illustrates a larger claim." Ryan's making the point that Obama talks a big game and doesn't deliver. This is a common criticism of Presidents, particularly this one. And to that end, he's producing a quote of Obama leading the people of his plant on and then not following through. It's a good example because it's his hometown plant. Far from being disconnected, it's friggin' gift-wrapped.

And he picked a peculiar target because the promise he made regarding the auto industry was kept. That part of what he did, the bailout, was successful. Ryan would have made a better point if the plant that shut down was not connected to the auto industry. That plant may still be closed, but there are more auto workers employed than four years ago.
Tell that to the non-union Delphi guys who got completely screwed over. Or the taxpayers who are still on the hook for billions now that GM's market share is down and its stock has plummeted. And who still haven't gotten the initial loan back--just the bridge loan, which means one of the central premises behind the idea that it was a success (that we got the money back) wasn't true to begin with. Any time you want to take this up again I can refer you back to the old posts. Believe it or not, the position has gotten even less defensible than before over the last few months.

[Yoda]

I can't find the post, but I think Yoda said something like; " Ryan was criticizing Obama for cutting medicare to pay for another entitlement."
Correct. :) I did say that.

Anyway, so that is to say that Ryan supports cuts to medicare, but the problem is that when at the RNC he spun it as "preying on seniors," but how can he play that card, when his budget essentially guts the program?
Where did he say "preying on seniors"? I don't see anything like that in his RNC speech.

I mean, if it's a philosophical standpoint of government intervention or solvency, that's one thing, but he actually moralized the act which he endorsed as victimizing the elderly. The only difference between Ryan and Obama's cuts being that the revenue saved wouldn't go to the affordable healthcare act, but to tax cuts, which are not deficit neutral. All I'm saying is, Ryan is not against the method, but the end goal, yet portrayed the opposite.
This would be true if he were only taking from Medicare to fund tax cuts, in which case he'd be taking from Medicare to fund some other idea he likes, same as Obama. But he doesn't; he does it as part of reforming the system as a whole. That's the difference, in a nutshell. You may not think his plan will work, but it's perfectly coherent to say that, if you want to cut Medicare, those cuts should be accompanied by reforms to help make it more affordable. If the point is fiscal solvency--and it is--then cutting Medicare isn't consistent with that if it just goes to another entitlement.

Also, I should point out that this complaint on the left is essentially just a complaint that they've had the tables turned on them. They were trying to "Medi-Scare" people about Ryan's budget cuts for awhile, even though Obamacare made those cuts, too, and it never occurred to anyone on the left (or anyone more sympathetic to the left) to criticize that as hypocritical. But now that Ryan's flipped the issue on them, suddenly they see the problem, even if they've conveniently forgotten their own culpability in perpetuating it before.

[ManOf1000Faces]

I Bet the Republicans only care for the money and the happiness of the rich-men and they'll say goodbye to the middle class and poor families. I don't get what you two are fighting about because it's only about two sides. All these discussions prove who is wrong and who is right?? Democrats are bad too but they will help the families and some republicans will too but not these leaders. All to worry about is money and taking your hard earned money. Would you rather see a better country or be selfish and be rich. Think of more than just you. A great russian man Leo Tolstoy once said ''people only think about changing themselves but never thought about changing the world'' Now think about that.

[Yoda]

Tolstoy's right, but he's not arguing for social welfare programs. If anything, it's the opposite. The beginning of the quote you're citing is "There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one; the regeneration of the inner man." He's making the case for charity, not statism. For virtue, not law. And by definition, something ceases to be charitable when it is compelled through force.

Thinking of others is inarguably good; no reasonable person would disagree. The question is whether or not this should happen at the individual level, as Tolstoy suggests, or through some level of force. Whether or not charity is to be compelled or chosen. Or perhaps something in-between, depending on the extremity of a given problem.

The main difference, though, is that when you ask "Would you rather see a better country or be selfish and be rich," I have to reject the premise of the question, because I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, I think the two are mutually complimentary most of the time.

[will.15]

This is circular. When I ask you how he implies it, saying it's in context is just repeating yourself. Where is this context? How does it imply this? Quote him.

The speech implies the plant shut down while Obama was president because he refers to how Obama says with government help it could be (and misquoting Obama) around for a hundred years and saying it was closed in less than a year after saying it. The implication is he made the comments after the auto industry asked for a bailout.


Now you're totally contradicting yourself. You keep saying that Ryan wants to make it sound like Obama was responsible for the plant closing, but you ALSO keep saying that Ryan wants to make it sound like this is happening in conjunction with the bailout. These are mutually exclusive accusations, because Obama can't be administering a bailout without knowing which companies are distressed. And again, I ask: if he was trying to do this, why say "candidate Obama" rather than Obama? Why say 2008, when Obama's end of the bailout came in 2009? Those are completely counterproductive choices if he's trying to do all the many contradictory things you say he was trying to do. Under your explanation he has absolutely no reason to say them. So why does he?

The auto bailout talk occurred while Bush was still president and Obama was not elected yet. There is no contradiction in my remarks which was responding to your assertion Ryan was talking about the broken promises of the stimulus. Ryan's comments, claims, and counter-claims what he was saying or wanted to say are all over the place. All we can do is look at the actual remarks, not what he could have said, and he either was deliberately being deceptive or failed big time to get his point across in a clear way.

And on top of that: where is the above implied, either? Ryan doesn't say anything about the bailout in that section of the speech. Your entire argument is based around these implications, yet you can't seem to produce anything in the text that implies these things.

So all the non partisan fact checkers are wrong, Matt Lauer also wrong who said he re-read the remarks. And when you combine the earlier speech where he is more explicit blaming the president for the plant closing, it is pretty obvious what his intent was. He already blamed the president for the plant closing. And he was doing it again, but somewhat less directly.


Leaving aside how incredibly misleading this is (are you saying Ryan's speech would be accurate if "empty promises" were changed to "empty rhetoric"? Sounds like it), Obama reiterated this pledge in October and added "As President, I will work to..." So even this weaselly explanation doesn't fly.

Well, if you give Ryan a pass for what he doesn't explicitly say, the same criteria should apply to Obama. "I will work to..." doesn't mean a damn thing, unless you want to argue he didn't work to do it.


This is a flat-out non-sequitur. It doesn't follow that Ryan has to mention the October quote. Why would he? It happened. Which means any reference to it is true, even if not specifically cited. He's giving a speech, not listing a bibliography. He simply needs to portray his opponent's position accurately, which he does.

You're not making any sense. He defends his speech which only mentioned the February speech by your interpretation with a reference to the October speech. if he was making a point in his speech about a broken promise in the October speech, he has to talk about the October speech. But instead he incorrectly characterized what Obama said in the February speech.

You didn't accuse him of incoherence (though the speech makes sense either way), you accused him of lying, and then of misleading. But as the October comment shows, he wasn't misleading anyone about Obama's position.
He was either if we accept his argument being incoherent, or being deceptive. He doesn't do a coherent job of defending the comments or explain his intent. You do a better job, but you reinterpret his comments and add new information he never mentioned to do so.

[will.15]

Tolstoy's right, but he's not arguing for social welfare programs. If anything, it's the opposite. The beginning of the quote you're citing is "There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one; the regeneration of the inner man." He's making the case for charity, not statism. For virtue, not law. And by definition, something ceases to be charitable when it is compelled through force.

Thinking of others is inarguably good; no reasonable person would disagree. The question is whether or not this should happen at the individual level, as Tolstoy suggests, or through some level of force. Whether or not charity is to be compelled or chosen. Or perhaps something in-between, depending on the extremity of a given problem.

The main difference, though, is that when you ask "Would you rather see a better country or be selfish and be rich," I have to reject the premise of the question, because I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, I think the two are mutually complimentary most of the time.
It is debatable what Tolstoy meant.

[Yoda]

The speech implies the plant shut down while Obama was president because he refers to how Obama says with government help it could be (and misquoting Obama) around for a hundred years and saying it was closed in less than a year after saying it. The implication is he made the comments after the auto industry asked for a bailout.
But the bailout isn't brought up in that passage at all. He doesn't even mention them next to each other, the way some politicians do, to create impressions without making them explicit. You're pulling it out of thin air.

The purpose of quoting him is to provide an example of being big on talk and small on results. That's the plainest, most straightforward reading of the text. So where exactly do you get the idea that this is about the bailout? Specifically. Don't just say it's in the context, or implied. Show me the context. Show me the implication.

The auto bailout talk occurred while Bush was still president and Obama was not elected yet.
So then how could he be blaming Obama for it? You want to say he was simultaneously blaming Obama for the closure--which wouldn't work unless Obama was President--and that he was tying it to the initial bailout somehow--which wouldn't work unless Obama wasn't President. The contradictions are mutually exclusive.

There is no contradiction in my remarks which was responding to your assertion Ryan was talking about the broken promises of the stimulus. Ryan's comments, claims, and counter-claims what he was saying or wanted to say are all over the place. All we can do is look at the actual remarks, not what he could have said, and he either was deliberately being deceptive or failed big time to get his point across in a clear way.
It's your reading of the text that's all over the place. The text itself--the "actual remarks" that you're saying we have to look at--simply says that Obama talks a big game and doesn't follow through. He quotes him in February because the 100 years/1 year symmetry makes for nice rhetoric, and because most people treat that sort of sneaky not-literally-a-promise rhetoric as if it were a promise anyway. But, for people who want to give Obama a pass or take him in an oddly literal way, the October quote takes care of that, too. Perhaps you find this complicated, but it seems pretty damn simple to me.

So all the non partisan fact checkers are wrong, Matt Lauer also wrong who said he re-read the remarks. And when you combine the earlier speech where he is more explicit blaming the president for the plant closing, it is pretty obvious what his intent was. He already blamed the president for the plant closing. And he was doing it again, but somewhat less directly.
Yes, they're wrong. This is what I've been saying.

Ryan, on the other hand, definitely overstated things in his earlier remarks. He was corrected and fixed it in the speech. No arguments there. My position is not that Ryan has never stretched the truth. He's a politician; of course he has. My position is that the speech is accurate, not that Paul Ryan is the first political candidate in history to never rhetorically overreach or stretch the truth on the stump.

Well, if you give Ryan a pass for what he doesn't explicitly say, the same criteria should apply to Obama. "I will work to..." doesn't mean a damn thing, unless you want to argue he didn't work to do it.
Well, I did argue that (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=841104). And I'm not giving Ryan a pass for anything. Just the opposite: I'm looking at what he says and asking: is that accurate? And whaddya' know: it is.

You're not making any sense. He defends his speech which only mentioned the February speech by your interpretation with a reference to the October speech. if he was making a point in his speech about a broken promise in the October speech, he has to talk about the October speech. But instead he incorrectly characterized what Obama said in the February speech.
At this point your complaint has been really watered down. First Ryan's lying. Then he's misleading/misrepresenting Obama's position. Now he's not doing that, but he's failing to specify whether or not his conclusion is based on one quote or another, even though the quotes exist and justify the conclusion anyway. If this is the totality of your response, then you've conceded the central point: Ryan's speech accurately reflects Obama's position and actions.

The more specific answer is that Ryan thinks--and I do, too--that the February quote is plenty on its own, because we don't generally let politicians get away with that kind of rhetorical sneakiness. The February quote is sufficient to demonstrate that Obama's talk is bigger than his walk, in other words. But if you decide to be clumsily literal, then the October quote takes care of that, too. It's not in the speech, but nobody claimed that Ryan's speech (or any speech, ever, for that matter) contained within it every cite and source necessary to expound on every claim. He doesn't cite the specific CBO reports that explain some of his spending numbers, either. Why isn't that a problem? Because they're out there and you can verify them and they're accurate. It's only an issue if he misrepresents something. Which he didn't.

If you want to have some weird argument about whether or not he should have included the October quote instead, I'm not really interested, because at this point you're not arguing anything meaningful. The February quote makes for nicer rhetoric and is sufficient with anything other than a literal reading. And his conclusion is accurate even though the reason it's accurate isn't spelled out. My position is that the speech is accurate. That's what you're supposed to be disputing. This entire conversation has been one long backtrack from the initial claim that Ryan "lied."

[Yoda]

It is debatable what Tolstoy meant.
I guess anything is technically debatable. But I'm not sure what this debate would look like. Do you think his reference to a "moral" revolution and a "regeneration of the inner man" is a reference to government, rather than personal charity? That feels like a stretch, to put it as nicely as I possibly can. Charity, by definition, can only exist without compulsion.

[will.15]

I guess anything is technically debatable. But I'm not sure what this debate would look like. Do you think his reference to a "moral" revolution and a "regeneration of the inner man" is a reference to government, rather than personal charity? That feels like a stretch, to put it as nicely as I possibly can. Charity, by definition, can only exist without compulsion.
It could be referring to both, obviously not Marxist revolution. but quite possibly democratic reform. He is not obviously talking only about individual transormation, but could mean a society that did not openly prevent moral reform like the one he lived in. He might have been sympathetic to the progressive movement, which still means government imposed their will to some extent on individuals, but did so not through violent revolution.

[Yoda]

My understanding is that he was a Christian anarchist, which is a long way from progressive. But I'm not trying to summarize his entire worldview. The only point I'm making is that the quote specifically emphasizes the internal, individual morality of each person. And, by definition, an act cannot be both moral and compelled. You can't force charity, or it ceases to be charity. Which makes it an odd choice to justify modern progressive policies.

[will.15]

But the bailout isn't brought up in that passage at all. He doesn't even mention them next to each other, the way some politicians do, to create impressions without making them explicit. You're pulling it out of thin air.

That is what you said he was saying, he was talking about broken promises with regard to adding jobs to the economy and that would mean the stimulus. What else could he be referring to?

The purpose of quoting him is to provide an example of being big on talk and small on results. That's the plainest, most straightforward reading of the text. So where exactly do you get the idea that this is about the bailout? Specifically. Don't just say it's in the context, or implied. Show me the context. Show me the implication.

I just did. There is no broken promise in the quote. But if you are applying it more broadly, to the economy in general, then we are talking about the stimulus. Taking him word for word, he is not making a coherent point if he is not blaming the president for the shutdown. The President didn't promise anything in the actual remarks in February. Could Ryan have worded his argument better? Yes. "The president talked about transforming America, about creating hope, change, a better, more vibrant economy But where is it?" That sort of thing. keep it general, or use a better example. His example is clumsy and deceptive as presented. I am convinced at this point he was deliberately implying the president was responsible, got heat for it, and is dancing around it with a very weak defense on The Today Show. If we accept his argument, he at best presented his point so poorly nobody understood it.


So then how could he be blaming Obama for it? You want to say he was simultaneously blaming Obama for the closure--which wouldn't work unless Obama was President--and that he was tying it to the initial bailout somehow--which wouldn't work unless Obama wasn't President. The contradictions are mutually exclusive.

He doesn't say Obama wasn't President when the plant shut down. he implies he was. That is how he blames him for it. If he included dates the context would be clearer.


It's your reading of the text that's all over the place. The text itself--the "actual remarks" that you're saying we have to look at--simply says that Obama talks a big game and doesn't follow through. He quotes him in February because the 100 years/1 year symmetry makes for nice rhetoric, and because most people treat that sort of sneaky not-literally-a-promise rhetoric as if it were a promise anyway. But, for people who want to give Obama a pass or take him in an oddly literal way, the October quote takes care of that, too. Perhaps you find this complicated, but it seems pretty damn simple to me.

And everybody who heard the speech interpreted it the way I did. It wasn't until the comments became controversial that the GOP spin machine give the speech a different interpretation. The lack of dates and specifics means it could be said he doesn't actually blame the President for the plant shutting down, But thaT IS THE imPRESSION HE GIVES. aND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH EARLIER REMARKS WHERE HE DIRECTLY BLAMED THE PRESIDENT FOR THE PLANT CLOSING.


Yes, they're wrong. This is what I've been saying.

Ryan, on the other hand, definitely overstated things in his earlier remarks. He was corrected and fixed it in the speech. No arguments there. My position is not that Ryan has never stretched the truth. He's a politician; of course he has. My position is that the speech is accurate, not that Paul Ryan is the first political candidate in history to never rhetorically overreach or stretch the truth on the stump.

That appears to be a concession, far different that the initial reaction that I was being horribly partition by bringing up comments that had been widely reported in the mainstream media.


Well, I did argue that (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=841104). And I'm not giving Ryan a pass for anything. Just the opposite: I'm looking at what he says and asking: is that accurate? And whaddya' know: it is.

Not the way he said it in that speech. He didn't present the argument properly. He wasn't accurate even if you give him the literal test because he mischaracterized what Obama said.


At this point your complaint has been really watered down. First Ryan's lying. Then he's misleading/misrepresenting Obama's position. Now he's not doing that, but he's failing to specify whether or not his conclusion is based on one quote or another, even though the quotes exist and justify the conclusion anyway. If this is the totality of your response, then you've conceded the central point: Ryan's speech accurately reflects Obama's position and actions.

No, I am not. He didn't accurately report what Obama said. And the difference between a complete lie or a half lie is the only concession I will make. But we still have ryan's earlier comment about the plant shutdown, which is a lie. The best you can argue for Ryan is he is a Klutz and wasn't clear and didn't deliberately mislead or lie. But the circumstantial evidence, the previous statement a week before the convention, suggests the lying on purpose scenario still looks good.

The more specific answer is that Ryan thinks--and I do, too--that the February quote is plenty on its own, because we don't generally let politicians get away with that kind of rhetorical sneakiness. The February quote is sufficient to demonstrate that Obama's talk is bigger than his walk, in other words. But if you decide to be clumsily literal, then the October quote takes care of that, too. It's not in the speech, but nobody claimed that Ryan's speech (or any speech, ever, for that matter) contained within it every cite and source necessary to expound on every claim. He doesn't cite the specific CBO reports that explain some of his spending numbers, either. Why isn't that a problem? Because they're out there and you can verify them and they're accurate. It's only an issue if he misrepresents something. Which he didn't.

You sure want to be literal in giving Ryan a pass for a speech everyone though when he gave it blamed the President for a plant closing before he took office.

If you want to have some weird argument about whether or not he should have included the October quote instead, I'm not really interested, because at this point you're not arguing anything meaningful. The February quote makes for nicer rhetoric and is sufficient with anything other than a literal reading. And his conclusion is accurate even though the reason it's accurate isn't spelled out. My position is that the speech is accurate. That's what you're supposed to be disputing. This entire conversation has been one long backtrack from the initial claim that Ryan "lied."
I am saying the intent of the speech was to imply the president was responsible for the plant shutting down, it is consistent with earlier remarks where it was said explicitly. His defense is damage control. It is bizarre to bring up the February speech when that has nothing to do with the plant shitting down if his real point was the October remarks had the real broken promise. he never explicitly discusses the October meeting, so you bringing it up is not relevant. The real purpose of mentioning the February remarks is to make it sound he was promising to keep the plant open after the automakers asked for a bailout. he couldn't do that s effectively with the october comment.

[will.15]

My understanding is that he was a Christian anarchist, which is a long way from progressive. But I'm not trying to summarize his entire worldview. The only point I'm making is that the quote specifically emphasizes the internal, individual morality of each person. And, by definition, an act cannot be both moral and compelled. You can't force charity, or it ceases to be charity. Which makes it an odd choice to justify modern progressive policies.
He could be referring to changing the hearts and minds of a society, not every individual. that would still be a moral revolution.

There is no such thing as permanent change left entirely up to individuals.

Slavery in no society did not disappear without laws abolishing it.

[FILMFREAK087]

Correct. :) I did say that.


Where did he say "preying on seniors"? I don't see anything like that in his RNC speech.


This would be true if he were only taking from Medicare to fund tax cuts, in which case he'd be taking from Medicare to fund some other idea he likes, same as Obama. But he doesn't; he does it as part of reforming the system as a whole. That's the difference, in a nutshell. You may not think his plan will work, but it's perfectly coherent to say that, if you want to cut Medicare, those cuts should be accompanied by reforms to help make it more affordable. If the point is fiscal solvency--and it is--then cutting Medicare isn't consistent with that if it just goes to another entitlement.

Also, I should point out that this complaint on the left is essentially just a complaint that they've had the tables turned on them. They were trying to "Medi-Scare" people about Ryan's budget cuts for awhile, even though Obamacare made those cuts, too, and it never occurred to anyone on the left (or anyone more sympathetic to the left) to criticize that as hypocritical. But now that Ryan's flipped the issue on them, suddenly they see the problem, even if they've conveniently forgotten their own culpability in perpetuating it before.

I don't have a transcript of his speech, but I do recall him saying that Obama harmed seniors in enacting his healthcare law, not sure about specific wording, but the jist of it was that he took money from medicare and used it for his healthcare law. As far as the cuts from Ryan being a result of solvency, again I have to point out that Ryan and Romney support tax cuts, which is in essence siphoning off revenue, and needing to be either replaced by other streams, or the reducing of payouts in these programs. It's simple, they're running on cutting the deficit and "saving" entitlements, there's no practical way of doing this, by cutting revenue they can't render these programs solvent with these cuts if revenue is leaking out elsewhere. Unless the whole "reducing the deficit, lowering taxes and saving entitlements" lines are just election time rhetoric being used as ammo against an incumbent.

[wintertriangles]

I don't have a transcript of his speech, but I do recall him saying that Obama harmed seniors in enacting his healthcare law, not sure about specific wording, but the jist of it was that he took money from medicare and used it for his healthcare law.Not to defend Ryan but he was probably referring to one if not more of the 22 new taxes in the obamacare bill, at least half of which if I'm not mistaken have nothing at all to do with healthcare.

[will.15]

Alright, i read Tolstoy, sounds like he does have an extremist view about government. he isn't practical when challenged by his pacifism.

[Yoda]

That is what you said he was saying, he was talking about broken promises with regard to adding jobs to the economy and that would mean the stimulus. What else could he be referring to?
Simple: the mere fact of failure. It's a claim that he failed, not an enumerated list of the things that failed or why. It's not a particularly wonky passage.

I just did. There is no broken promise in the quote. But if you are applying it more broadly, to the economy in general, then we are talking about the stimulus. Taking him word for word, he is not making a coherent point if he is not blaming the president for the shutdown.
Sure he is: he's blaming him for talking a big game and not being able to back it up. For making all sorts of grandiose claims and then failing to make them reality.

All these claims about coherence only make any sense if you're operating under the assumption that nobody gets to compare what he said on the campaign trail to what he's actually done. But of course you get to do that. Of course you get to compare the promises of his candidacy and the reality of his Presidency. That's a perfectly fair target, and that's the one Ryan hits in that passage.

The President didn't promise anything in the actual remarks in February.
Do you think he misled those workers, will?

He doesn't say Obama wasn't President when the plant shut down. he implies he was. That is how he blames him for it. If he included dates the context would be clearer.
You're not addressing the contradiction, you're just elaborating on one of the two claims. Again: you are claiming mutually exclusive things. First, that Ryan wants to make it seem like Obama is responsible for the closure--which wouldn't work unless Obama was President. Second, that he was tying to tie it to the initial bailout--which wouldn't work unless Obama wasn't President. They can't both be true.

Also, as I asked before: if Ryan he wanted to make it seem like Obama was President, why did he call him "candidate Obama"? If he wanted to make it seem like it was part of the stimulus, why did he say "in 2008"?

That appears to be a concession, far different that the initial reaction that I was being horribly partition by bringing up comments that had been widely reported in the mainstream media.
Not at all; I never suggested you were being partisan about bringing up comments he made before the speech. They're just irrelevant to the question of whether or not the speech was accurate, because he changed the language for it, which was the correct response.

Not the way he said it in that speech. He didn't present the argument properly. He wasn't accurate even if you give him the literal test because he mischaracterized what Obama said.
Actually, even under your now very, very narrow criticism that takes Obama very, very literally, you're only arguing that he mischaracterized when Obama said it. The characterization of his position is entirely accurate.

I am saying the intent of the speech was to imply the president was responsible for the plant shutting down
So why does he call him "candidate Obama," put the speech in 2008, and say they were already "about to lose it"?

It is bizarre to bring up the February speech when that has nothing to do with the plant shitting down if his real point was the October remarks had the real broken promise. he never explicitly discusses the October meeting, so you bringing it up is not relevant.
Of course it's relevant...to the question of whether or not he accurately characterized Obama's position. It shows that he does. And that's the argument. Or it was, before it got whittled down into all this pedantry about citation etiquette.

And you know what? Even the clumsy literalism doesn't work. Check it:

1) Do we take everything super-literally? Then Obama didn't promise in February, and Ryan didn't accuse him of anything, because he only quoted Obama and said the factory was closed. LITERALLY, there's nothing false in the speech.

2) Do we take things the way human beings actually speak? Great, then Obama did promise in February and Ryan's quote is accurate.

Doesn't add up either way. The only way you get to any kind of critique is by taking Obama literally, but not Ryan. And even THEN, the only complaint is that he described his position accurately, but made it sound like he stated that position in February instead of October. That's the most forceful argument that can be mustered, and even that can only be mustered with a double standard on literalism.

The real purpose of mentioning the February remarks is to make it sound he was promising to keep the plant open after the automakers asked for a bailout. he couldn't do that s effectively with the october comment.
So he wanted to make it sound like the automakers had just asked for a bailout AND Obama was somehow President already? That's some pretty cool time-traveling rhetoric he's got there.

[Yoda]

I don't have a transcript of his speech, but I do recall him saying that Obama harmed seniors in enacting his healthcare law, not sure about specific wording, but the jist of it was that he took money from medicare and used it for his healthcare law.
Yep, that's an accurate summary of his claims.


As far as the cuts from Ryan being a result of solvency, again I have to point out that Ryan and Romney support tax cuts, which is in essence siphoning off revenue, and needing to be either replaced by other streams, or the reducing of payouts in these programs. It's simple, they're running on cutting the deficit and "saving" entitlements, there's no practical way of doing this, by cutting revenue they can't render these programs solvent with these cuts if revenue is leaking out elsewhere. Unless the whole "reducing the deficit, lowering taxes and saving entitlements" lines are just election time rhetoric being used as ammo against an incumbent.
Again, you're acting as if he's taking Medicare funds to pay for another program (just tax cuts, instead of Obamacare). That's not what's happening. The cuts are part of a larger reform plan designed to bring down costs.

If Ryan were ONLY gutting Medicare to pay for tax cuts, you'd be completely right. He'd be doing the same thing Obama is. But he isn't; it's part of a larger reform. You may find this larger reform good or bad (I'm guessing bad ;)), but you can't excise a part of it from the rest of it and then say it doesn't make sense. Lots of plans don't make sense if you take individual parts out and analyze them as stand-alone policies.

Also, the argument about tax cuts is that they also generate revenue; they are not a pure cost. They increase growth and employment, and can even increase total tax revenues (see: 2003/2004).

[Yoda]

I forgot to mention in that last reply to FF: even saying Obama took the money from Medicare to pay for Obamacare is being far too kind. He says that both get the money! He says he's extending Medicare's solvency through the cuts, but spends it on Obamacare, simultaneously. That's double counting (you can see Ryan pick it apart here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs)).

Either Obama's claiming savings in Medicare which aren't there, or else Obamacare actually contributes over $700 billion to the deficit. He acknowledges neither, but claims the benefits of both. Doesn't add up.

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.movieforums.com/community/resize/phpThumb.php?src=http://www.movieforums.com/upload/paul_ryan_math.jpg&h=550

[will.15]

The Truth Squad: Arguing The Auto Rescue Between The Campaigns

Here are the facts on the auto bailout

http://o.aolcdn.com/os/autos/article/aoloriginal-sm.gif Posted: Sep 05, 2012

145 comments (http://www.movieforums.com/community/#aol-comments)
(javascript:;)



by: David Kiley

See More Articles
from this Author (http://www.movieforums.com/author/david-kiley/)


The Democratic National Convention this week features much rhetoric and debate about whether it was a proper use of government to rescue General Motors (http://autos.aol.com/gm-general-motors/) and Chrysler (http://autos.aol.com/chrysler/) with loans in 2008 and early 2009, followed by a tax-payer-assisted bankruptcy for both companies designed to preserve the companies and hundreds of thousands of jobs centered in the Midwestern states of the country.

On Tuesday night, former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland was a loud endorser of the rescue effort, asserting that 1 in 8 jobs in his state are tied to the auto industry. On Wednesday night, Democrats showed a film to the television audience and conventioneers about the auto rescue and its benefits. A union auto worker gave a short speech, as did United Auto Workers President Bob King. Former President Clinton, too, touched on the decision to rescue the domestic auto industry. A co-founder of the auto retailing chain CarMax also gave a speech extolling the virtues of both the auto rescue and the way the Obama White House supports small and medium-sized business.

Vice President Biden has made "Osama bin Laden is Dead. And General Motors is Alive," a kind of unofficial campaign battle slogan.

The rescue of the auto industry with tax-payer money -- nearly $85 billion in total, with a net cost now estimated to be around $25 billion-$27 billion after the companies repay the loans and the government sells its 26 percent stake in GM (http://autos.aol.com/gm-general-motors/) -- remains a hot political button. Because the auto industry is a key driving force of the economy and the companies have returned to profitability and are hiring again, the President is making it a cornerstone of his re-election campaign. But Republican nominee Mitt Romney and vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan claim that the government was wrong to grant loans to the automakers, or take an equity stake in GM.

Because of the hot temperature of political rhetoric this close to the election, and the frequency with which the auto rescue will come up, AOL Autos (http://autos.aol.com/) is providing a guide to the issues, a "truth squad" if you will, where we will check the candidates' words and "facts."



Issue: Paul Ryan's rhetoric about the former Janesville, Wisconsin GM plant.

Truth: Here is the quote from Ryan's speech: "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."

By any reasonable interpretation, Ryan was trying to tie the closure of the GM plant to the President. But GM announced that the GM plant, which made big SUVs (http://autos.aol.com/car-finder/style-suv/), was going to close because of lack of demand. That announcement came on June 3, 2008. Obama made his statement as a candidate, not as President. The plant was shuttered except for light contract work, before President Obama took office.

Ryan has denoted that he intended to tie the closure of the plant to an Obama policy. And he has pivoted on his response. In response to Vice President Biden saying, "Osama bin Laden is dead, and GM is Alive," Ryan now says, "GM is not alive in Janesville." That pivot does't address his earlier misleading assertion in his nomination speech.

Issue: Mitt Romney says: "The government gave the [auto] companies to the union [UAW]."

Truth: When the White House structured the rescue of General Motors and Chrysler, the government negotiated with the United Auto Workers to swap $20 billion that GM owed the union in future healthcare benefits for an equity stake of 17.5% in the company. The UAW healthcare trust, not the union, today owns 10.2% of GM and 41.5% of Chrysler.

The banking and investment community did not like this. The union clearly got preferential treatment in the deal, compared with institutions holding GM and Chrysler bonds. It's worth noting that most of the bond holders were investors who bought the bonds as they lost value from their original sale price, many for as little as .19 cents to .30 cents on the dollar. The bankruptcy judge's decision was that bond holders would get 10% of GM's post-bankruptcy equity, and warrants to buy an additional 15% of GM. It is true that these stakes were much smaller than the union healthcare trust received.

Those deals were negotiated between the White House, the union and bond holders. Institutions representing more than 50% of the bond debt agreed to the terms, as did the union.



Issue: Mitt Romney said "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt."

Truth: A New York Times headline writer actually wrote that line above an op-ed article Mitt Romney wrote for the paper on November 18, 2008.

Romney, lobbying as a future White House candidate even before Obama took office against a loan package approved by President Bush to keep the automakers afloat, argued that the bailout would delay a much needed reorganization of the auto companies. Romney advocated for a "managed bankruptcy" in the Fall of 2008, a move that would not be done until six months later with the White House overseeing it and tax-payers funding it.

For that reason, Romney claims that President Obama and his White House task force followed his advice. Romney says it was wrong for President Bush to have spent more than $20 billion in loans propping the companies up while bankruptcy was debated. Bush should have just let the companies "fall" into bankruptcy, says the former Massachusetts governor.

What Romney leaves out of the discussion is that there was a prolonged political debate in Washington that lasted for months about how best, or whether, to rescue the auto companies. If the loans had not been granted by President Bush, the companies would have defaulted on obligations and forced into a messy, sudden bankruptcy. Romney says that rather than the government rescuing GM and Chrysler, the government should have provided loan guarantees to banks and private equity firms that would have then lent the automakers enough money to get through the financial crisis. President Obama funded the auto rescue out of the Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP] because he could not get the Congress to vote yes on a specific rescue package for the auto companies.

There are two big flaws in Romney's position. According to Steven Rattner, the private equity investor who was named by President Obama to the auto industry task force, banks and private equity firms had neither the capital nor the interest in providing some $80 billion in funds needed for a traditional managed bankruptcy. None came forth at the time. Additionally, recapitalizing the companies with all loans--debt-- would not have fixed the company's problems or led them back to profitability. It was decided that GM and Chrysler needed to shed debt, restructure by shutting down low-performing brands and factories, and that the government would have to take equity in GM and take a risk that it would it get its money back later. Romney and adviser Carly Fiorina have said that the government could have forced the banks to provide the loans given the atmosphere and the fact that the banks were being bailed out too. But the companies would still have more debt than they could handle.

Issue: Romney says it would have been better to let banks and financial firms manage GM's bankruptcies and be their owners rather than the government/taxpayers.

Truth: The Obama White House reckoned that the country and economy would be better off if the auto industry was managed up from their low point for job growth. If banks and private equity groups owned GM and Chrysler, they would be managing through the financial crisis and recovery for their profit only.

Cerberus Capital Management, a private equity firm, owned Chrysler from 2004 to 2008. By any objective account, Cerberus was managing the company down, and was more interested in profiting off the company's book of auto-loans than making competitive cars and trucks (http://autos.aol.com/trucks/), or building a company for the future. Employees of Chrysler have said that Cerberus's management of the company was leading Chrysler to destruction and eventual breakup before the collapse of the financial markets.

Issue: The auto industry is the backbone of the U.S. economy.

Truth: The U.S. auto industry employs about 1.7 million workers and supports an additional 6.3 million private-sector jobs, according to the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich. The center said those positions represent more than $500 billion in annual compensation and more than $70 billion in personal tax revenue. That is significant, especially in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.

Issue: The auto industry's hiring is driving job growth.

Truth: Jobs are notoriously hard to count. The White House says the auto industry, including suppliers, have added 170,000 jobs since 2009. The UAW puts it at 250,000, but that includes dubious additions such as auto-parts retailers. It also includes jobs added by foreign automakers, such as Volkswagen (http://autos.aol.com/volkswagen/) and Hyundai (http://autos.aol.com/hyundai/), which were not part of the rescue.

Issue: The government will make money on the auto rescue.

Truth: We heard this in some of the DNC interviews this week with various lawmakers. We figure it is a talking point that is getting repeated without verification. This is a big stretch, and is pretty much untrue. The U.S. Treasury has recently estimated that the cost to the tax-payer for the auto rescue will be approximately $25 billion. That is after GM and Chrysler paying back all the loans it was on the hook for, and what the government is expected to net after selling its remaining 26% of GM.

What the U.S. Treasury estimate does't include is the future tax revenues of auto workers who would have been displaced had GM and Chrysler been allowed to break up under private equity ownership. Private-equity ownership would have had purely profit incentives, unless blocked by the government participation in the own guarantees, to offshore more jobs to cheaper labor markets. Preservation of high-quality manufacturing jobs has an enormous ripple effect through the economy and to the tax base. The cost also doesn't include the enormous state and federal payouts of unemployment benefits to those that would have been displaced by private equity ownership of the automakers.

[will.15]

CHARTS: If Romney Wins, Will The Republicans Once Again Say "Deficits Don't Matter"?


Henry Blodget|April 28, 2012|
2,473|51 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/#comments)

http://www.movieforums.com/images/pixel.gif





http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4f9bf91669beddcb76000001-620-373/federal-spending.jpg (http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4f9bf91669beddcb76000001-620-373/federal-spending.jpg)
Federal government spending under Bush and Obama. (St. Louis Fed (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/))

All through the Bush years, the refrain from the party in power was "deficits don't matter (http://www.businessinsider.com/government-spending-2011-7)."
Then the economy collapsed.
Then the other party came to power.
And suddenly the vanquished party became obsessed with the country's massive deficit and wanted to immediately slash spending--and, bizarrely, cut taxes--to fix it.
And that will likely be the Republicans' message throughout the coming campaign.
So here's a question:
If Romney wins, will the Republicans immediately reverse course (http://www.movieforums.com/community/#) and revert back to "deficits don't matter"?
They're going to have to.
Because the first thing that President Romney will likely do is retroactively eliminate "Taxmageddon (http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-the-size-of-the-coming-tax-hikes-in-context-2012-4)"--the confluence of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and some temporary stimulus measure (http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-the-size-of-the-coming-tax-hikes-in-context-2012-4)s that threatens to take a big bite out of economic growth (and the deficit) starting January 1.




http://www.movieforums.com/images/pixel.gif
</A itxtNodeId="99" itxtHarvested="0">

http://www.movieforums.com/images/pixel.gif
And extending the Bush tax cuts and stimulus will instantly balloon the deficit again (http://www.businessinsider.com/us-budget-deficit-2011-7).
If Romney were also going to take a hatchet to government spending, he might be able to mute the impact on the deficit, but he won't.
Why not?
Because he's no fool.
Romney has seen what the UK and other European countries that tried "austerity" did to their economies. And what President in his right mind would want to kick off his Presidency by destroying the economy and putting millions of people out of work?
So here's a prediction:
If Romney wins, the Republican party is going to re-embrace the Bush-Cheney doctrine: Deficits Don't Matter.
(We're poking fun at Republicans here, but the Democrats need to take a look in the mirror, too. The federal government is currently spending a lot more as a percent of GDP than it normally does. That can't continue, unless the plan is to radically increase taxes. See charts below.)
SEE ALSO: IT'S OFFICIAL: Keynes Was Right (http://www.businessinsider.com/its-official-keynes-was-right-2012-4)
Here's the problem in charts:
First, federal government spending: It increased every year under Bush and then flattened under Obama.
Next, the federal deficit: We went from surplus to deficit under Bush and then to a huge deficit under Obama.

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4f9bf951ecad041c41000001/federal-deficit.png
Next, federal tax receipts: Importantly, the reason the deficit ballooned under Obama has not been the increase in federal spending--that was modest and has now flattened. The reason for the huge deficit was the collapse in tax receipts. Why? GDP shrank, and the percentage of GDP that is collected in taxes shrank.

http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4f9bf97969bedd6676000004/federal-tax-receipts.png
And now here's the problem...
Romney wants to cut taxes. But taxes are already historically low as a percent of GDP -- 17%.


Meanwhile, federal government spending as a percent of GDP is at an all-time high. So unless Romney radically cuts Federal spending, Republicans are going to have to say "deficits don't matter."

[ManOf1000Faces]

Why Is Romney is running for president?? he is a business mongrel. He only wants to be on the top. He cares only for money and business. He shouldn't even run for president. A real president cares for the PEOPLE. All Mitt Romney cares for is money and the rich people.

[wintertriangles]

Why Is Romney is running for president?? he is a business mongrel. He only wants to be on the top. He cares only for money and business. He shouldn't even run for president. A real president cares for the PEOPLE. All Mitt Romney cares for is money and the rich people.Have you met Obama? He's a lot like Mitt but more of a sandy shade. Why did he WIN presidency? Better question why did he win a nobel peace prize?

[ManOf1000Faces]

Have you met Obama? He's a lot like Mitt but more of a sandy shade. Why did he WIN presidency? Better question why did he win a nobel peace prize?


So are you saying Obama doesn't care for the middle class??

[Yoda]

He's got a point. I mean, all analysts agree that our CDP (Care Domestic Product) has gone up more than 40% over the last three years. And that's Pathos-Adjusted, too. Combined with the recent MIT breakthrough that allows us to convert Caring into food, housing, and medical technology, that's a pretty big deal.

[Powderfinger]

I've been getting my Presidential information from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I find it very interesting. lol! :D The other day, they were doing some yay or no counts in this hall...lol! I was cracking up because the yays and No's were even. Why did the yays get across the line...because the screen (Teleprompter) said so....lol! :D Now, that cracks me up.

[will.15]

OBAMA GOT A CONVENTION BOUNCE AND Romney DIDN'T. NOW THE BOUNCE PROBABLY IS TEMPORARY AND THE SEPTMEBER JOB NUMBERS WERE MEDIOCRE, WHICH MAY PUT THEM BACK TO PARITY.

But the problem for Romney is clearly he didn't connect with his speech and Obama did and his best chance now are the debates, but if he couldn't persuade voters he is the one to vote for when he had the the stage to himself, he is going to do a better job when he is sharing it with Obama?

Romney's big problem is he and his handlers still think all they have to do is remind voters the economy sucks. And his previous main strategy to remind people he was a great businessman as his main qualification is in tatters.

And they are only in parity in national opinion polls. Romney is way behind in the electoral college. Florida is still tied or a slight Romney lead and Obama has a small but consistent lead in Ohio. Obama might lose Wisconsin, but it isn't important.

[ManOf1000Faces]

OBAMA did not sympathize with the Libya but according to Romney and his adviser Norm Coleman, The Obama administration is being sympathetic but they are apologizing about the youtube video that was ''Actually'' made before the attack occurred.

[wintertriangles]

So are you saying Obama doesn't care for the middle class??I find it funny that this has nothing to do with what you're responding to but ok I'll bite. I don't think any candidate that spends millions on campaigning alone, let alone conventions, cares about much of anything.
OBAMA did not sympathize with the Libya but according to Romney and his adviser Norm Coleman, The Obama administration is being sympathetic but they are apologizing about the youtube video that was ''Actually'' made before the attack occurred.
If you haven't noticed yet, all they do is attack each other. It's a lot like wrestling but with suits instead of gaudy costumes. The fighting between candidates has continually escalated throughout each election year because the public buys into it and thus is legitimized and thus is continued and augmented. Anything for a distraction.

[will.15]

Mitt Romney hit an incredible low with that speech.

This from someone who criticized spending so much resources on finding Bin Laden.

[Yoda]

Mitt Romney hit an incredible low with that speech.
Barack Obama Used Troop Deaths To Ding Bush, McCain Support For Iraq In 2008 (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/barack-obama-used-troop-deaths-to-ding-bush-mccai). Politics hasn't stopped at the water's edge for awhile now.

Pretty much this whole campaign is Obama complaining about other people doing the things he did all the time in 2008.

This from someone who criticized spending so much resources on finding Bin Laden.
What're you talking about? He condemned the statement that came out of the embassy. Which he was right to do. Even Obama's already disavowed any responsibility for it.

I think you might have run your "<INSERT ANY EVENT HERE> is totally bad news for Republicans and/or Romney" program a bit hastily this time.

[Yoda]

Hey everyone: two embassies were stormed in a fit of fundamentalist rage, several Americans are dead, and a United States Ambassador was murdered in what is increasingly looking like a planned, coordinated attack that the Administration had no idea was coming.

Clearly, the real story here is Mitt Romney's reaction.

[will.15]

Yes, I am now understanding how you respond to these things.

Mitt Romney's speech was despicable.

And if this happened when Bush was president and that speech was given by Kerry, you would be saying Kerry was for giving it.

[Yoda]

And I have, for some time, understood how you respond to these things: boilerplate responses about how the other guy is--surprise!--in the wrong, or hurt by the news, or here's-what-I'm-going-to-unfalfisiably-predict-you-would-have-said-if-Kerry-did-this, yadda yadda yadda. You could have a robot write them.

As I said already--and I'm afraid this is terribly inconvenient for your selective sense of outrage--Romney criticized the statement the Embassy issued. He was right to do so; it was a very ill-advised statement. And Obama consequently disavowed any responsibility for it. So Romney is despicable for...condemning the same thing Obama disapproves of? :skeptical:

I'm not sure where you're tangled up about this, and since you're not really saying anything all that specific, it's impossible to know.

[will.15]

Barack Obama Used Troop Deaths To Ding Bush, McCain Support For Iraq In 2008 (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/barack-obama-used-troop-deaths-to-ding-bush-mccai). Politics hasn't stopped at the water's edge for awhile now.

Pretty much this whole campaign is Obama complaining about other people doing the things he did all the time in 2008.

Are you serious? You don't understand the difference? Serioulsy? You posting that as comparable to what Romney did is a joke.


What're you talking about? He condemned the statement that came out of the embassy. Which he was right to do. Even Obama's already disavowed any responsibility for it.

He lied about it. To even try to defend that speech is a waste of time. It was indefensible. It was deploreable. The poor people in the embassy were trying to calm down anger so they wouldn't get attacked. The words were not any different than comments made during the Bush administration regarding the Mohammad cartoon. Romney has probably made a blunder that will guaRANTEE HIS DEFEAT. SO GO AHEAD AND DEFEND HIM. What an irresponsible piece of garbage he is. And you were making such a big deal about what was said about him in those ads. He is a super nasty piece of work.

I think you might have run your "<INSERT ANY EVENT HERE> is totally bad news for Republicans and/or Romney" program a bit hastily this time.
The only major Republicans who have been defending Romney's comments have been Sarah Palin and that Jim de Mint.

I guarantee I wouln't defend any Democrat who was that stupid to make that speech.

[Yoda]

Is your new strategy to be so incredibly vague that nobody can actually figure out what it is you're arguing? Because you haven't given the slightest indication of what it is you're actually outraged about, or why.

Is it that American politicians shouldn't use acts of violence abroad to criticize each other? Well, Obama does that, too. It's common and an important consideration in evaluating policy.

Is it that Romney's criticism of the statement was wrong? Well, Obama denied responsibility for it, so it sounds like they both agree on that.

Is it that Romney is wrong to ascribe responsibility for the statement to Obama? If so, then your incredible position is that it's "despicable" to suggest that a President should be held accountable for what comes out of administration's appointed embassy officials.

[will.15]

Are you paying any attention to what the criticism has been about?

You really don't understand the controversy?

Unbelievable.

[Yoda]

Ah yes, the old "I don't have to have this argument because I can bask in the consent of the media narrative" response. You take intellectual refuge in that so often you ought to be paying rent.

Romney lied? About what? Again, you avoid being pinned down by not making any hard accusations. If you're like most people discussing this, you're probably talking about the idea that the initial statement came before the riots. And if you're like most people discussing this, you're also completely unaware that the Embassy issued a second statement after the riots began (I'm guessing you didn't know this; most media outlets conveniently neglect to mention it) reiterating the content of the first. Whoops.

[Yoda]

Are you paying any attention to what the criticism has been about?

You really don't understand the controversy?

Unbelievable.
Your dodges are way, way less subtle these days, man.

[will.15]

http://www.news24.com/World/News/Romney-made-a-bad-tactical-mistake-20120913

[Yoda]

So you're just, like, not reading the posts at all at this point, right? Okay:

1) The Embassy reiterated the statement after the riots began. So, no timeline issue.

2) The Embassy is part of Obama's administration, so Romney is ascribing its statements to the President. The President then denying responsibility is the only real point of disagreement. Obama says: not my statement. Romney says: it's your Embassy, you're responsible for the nonsense that comes out of it.
Which of these two points are you having trouble with? Because right now, your position appears to be that it's "despicable" to suggest the President is responsible for what his Administration's Embassies say.

[will.15]

You don't still don't get it.

And you sure would if the shoe was on the other foot.

It doesn't matter who said it. Romney is still lying about the meaning of the orignal comments.

Which are no different than authorized comments made when Bush was in office.

[Yoda]

What are you even criticizing? I keep asking and you won't even say. It's Magical Floating Outrage, unattached to anything in particular.

The complaint is that you don't respond to thuggery by suggesting we avoid offending the thugs. You don't respond to rioters literally breaching our sovereignty by suggesting we not hurt their feelings (actual verbiage!). That's an insane misplacement of priorities.

Even Obama agrees, which is why he's strenuously denying responsibility for the statement.

[will.15]

You are pretending you don't know what the controversy is about.

I can't believe you.

I posted a link and you are still ignoring it.

[Yoda]

If by "ignoring it" you mean "making point-by-point rebuttals and asking questions that go conspicuously unanswered," then yeah, I'm totally ignoring it.

Because you've been so incredibly (and, I'm starting to think, deliberately) vague, I was even nice enough to make several preemptive arguments about things you might be outraged about. So go ahead and pick whichever is applicable. Sounds like it's the last one (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=842628), even though you're kind of pretending it isn't there.

[will.15]

You keep ignoring what the controversy is about. You have not made any rebuttals to what Romney actually did.

What Romney said was so toxic and outrageous all mainstream Republican politicians won't back him up.

He has excited the extreme fringe in his party, but that is not going to make his behavior acceptable to anyone else.

He had a good opportunity to at least get back to even with Obama in opinion polls after a lackluster convention and now he has messed that up by being incredibly petty, partisan, and stupid.

Unless something happens before election day to change this blunder, this will be the defining moment that will cost him any hope of getting to the White House.

[Yoda]

I can't rebut something you never even say, guy. Though--hey--maybe that's the idea? We're up to seven posts now, so it's looking a little conspicuous.

Because I'm such a nice guy, and because I apparently love talking actively to brick walls, I went ahead and preemptively rebutted several possible complaints. They're up above; have a look. On the off chance that you have some other complaint that none of them address, I'm afraid you'll just have to engage in the apparently humiliating act of explaining your thoughts to another person. A horrific prospect, I know, but you'll just have to slum it for a bit.

[will.15]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-embassy-statement-a-tweet-and-a-major-misunderstanding/2012/09/12/a2d32a8c-fd24-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html?wprss=rss_fact-checker

[Yoda]

Yeah, just as I thought: it's the timeline argument. I already answered that one several posts ago (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=842614) (and I mentioned it again here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=842621)). The statement was reiterated after the compound was breached, and Romney specifically referred to this reiteration. It's also a pretty ridiculous statement to put out even beforehand.

So...did you not understand those two posts, or did you not read them, or what? Because they're directly applicable to what you seem to be saying (insofar as just mindlessly posting another general link is "saying" anything), yet you just kept on rolling as if they didn't.

[7thson]

The last few posts are quite entertaining. Yoda you want so bad to debate on an even level with this guy it hurts to see it.

Will, you are obviously goading - everyone sees it, especially Yoda, but he is so hungry to understand your point and your side. He does not want to see a link to your complaint, he wants it in YOUR words.

It is hard to argue with a rock, but it is even more funny to watch someone try.

Sorry guys I am being sarcastic and joking, but it is entertaining stuff NTL.

[will.15]

No, it isn't the timeline argument, although that is in the post.

You still can't read.

[Yoda]

Your options are:

a) State your argument.
b) Stop speaking.

Choose wisely.

http://thelawnsprinklerguys.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/choose-wisley.jpg

[will.15]

You know what the controversy is about.

You know all the Republican leaders are keeping an arm's length from Romney over this.

You know Romney's only defenders on this are the hard right.

Not once have you commented on the core issue, even though I just posted a link that discusses it in length and I previously mentioned it.

[Yoda]

WHAT CORE ISSUE? Good lord, man. Do you even know?

I've heard people make several complaints about this, so I preemptively rebutted them. Apparently you're saying it's none of those, but the thing it's "really" about is some classified secret that's somehow both really obvious to everybody AND something you can't actually say? What reason could you possibly have for stubbornly refusing to articulate a position?

[ManOf1000Faces]

Is there any Republican that has agreed with Obama??? Is there any Democrat that has agreed with Romney??

[Yoda]

Sure, but we're two months from an election, so both sides ignore the points of agreement and focus on contrast. It's sometimes ugly, but when faced with a choice it's probably more useful to try to illuminate what that choice may entail than to talk about points of consensus.

Anyway, I can't speak for others, but I agree with Obama on a few things. Immigration is the most notable; I'm much closer to him than Romney on that issue.

[will.15]

There never was an apology. That was a lie.

His claims about what Obama's position has been was a lie.

The statement was consistent with many statements made by the Bush administration DOCUMENTED IN DEPTH IN THE LAST LINK.

The embassy statement was unauthorized by the White House, and they even told the author not to release the statement without changes and he did anyway,

But the remarks still were not an apology. I can provide you with another fact checker who checked with three linguists and all agreed the statment wasn't an apology,

Romney takes a moment of tragedy and instead of expressing his sympathy acts like an ******* who tries to make it a political issue to exploit even though he has zero baSIS TO MAKE THE ACCUSATIONS HE DOES.

He lied, continues to lie and makes up more lies to justify his political cowardliness and recklessness because he knows he stepped over a line.

There is no defense for what he did. Only the extreme right have seen fit to think so.

So now we know where you stand,

Keep criticizing those Bain ads you find so deplorable. They are like an eye-drop compared to the reckless liar that is Mr. Romney.

[Yoda]

There's a big, glaring problem underlying your outrage: Obama repudiated the statement. That means he admits there's something wrong with it. What could that be?

[wintertriangles]

Keep criticizing those Bain ads you find so deplorable. They are like an eye-drop compared to the reckless liar that is Mr. Romney.All politicians are liars. Especially the one you're defending.

[will.15]

There's a big, glaring problem underlying your outrage: Obama repudiated the statement. That means he admits there's something wrong with it. What could that be?
And that is a lie. Read the comment he actually made.

[will.15]

All politicians are liars. Especially the one you're defending.
They all may be liars, but Yoda only finds faults with Obama statements and there are small lies, medium lies, and big stinking slanderous lies of the Joe McCarthy variety and this one is in that category.

[Yoda]

You mean this? (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/white-house-disavows-cairo-apology-135247.html)

"The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government."

"Does not reflect." Gee, that sure sounds like a repudiation of the statement.

[will.15]

Read what Obama said.

That statement does not repudiate the comments BECAUSE IT WAS AN APOLOGY, but says only it does not reflect an official position. It does not mean Romney properly characterized the comment. The author of the remarks asked for permission to release the statement and was denied permission without corrections and did so anyway so the Whit House statement is accurate, But your interpretation like Romney's of it, is misleading or, again, a deliberate lie. it does not mean the staTEMENT WAS AN APOLOGY, WHICH IS WHAT rOMNEY SAID. wHERE DOES THAT STATEMENT YOU QUOTE SAY THAT?

And Romney lied about what Obama had said in previous comments.

[Yoda]

So he needed to make "corrections." That means there was something wrong with it, just like I said before. So my question stands: what was wrong with it?

[will.15]

iT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WAS WRONG WITH IT. WAS IT AN APOLOGY?

NO.


And you nor anyone else have not shown how the comments were any different than those made during the Bush era. And I have a link that compares the quotes.

[will.15]

September 13, 2012 7:58 AM

Print (http://www.movieforums.com/2102-505263_162-57511981.html)
Text


President Obama: "Gov. Romney didn't have his facts right" on Middle East


comments
0 (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57511981/president-obama-gov-romney-didnt-have-his-facts-right-on-middle-east/#postComments)



inShare (javascript:void(0);)0
More

Email
Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2F8301-505263_162-57511981%2Fpresident-obama-gov-romney-didnt-have-his-facts-right-on-middle-east%2F)
Twitter (http://twitter.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2F8301-505263_162-57511981%2Fpresident-obama-gov-romney-didnt-have-his-facts-right-on-middle-east%2F%3Ftag%3Dsocsh&counturl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2F8301-505263_162-57511981%2Fpresident-obama-gov-romney-didnt-have-his-facts-right-on-middle-east%2F%3Ftag%3Dtwitter&via=CBSNews&text=President%20Obama%3A%20%22Gov.%20Romney%20didn't%20have%20his%20facts%20right%22%20on%20Middle% 20East)
LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2F8301-505263_162-57511981%2Fpresident-obama-gov-romney-didnt-have-his-facts-right-on-middle-east%2F&title=President%20Obama%3A%20%22Gov.%20Romney%20didn't%20have%20his%20facts%20right%22%20on%20Middle %20East&summary=&source=CBSNEWS)
Digg (http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2F8301-505263_162-57511981%2Fpresident-obama-gov-romney-didnt-have-his-facts-right-on-middle-east%2F&title=President%20Obama%3A%20%22Gov.%20Romney%20didn't%20have%20his%20facts%20right%22%20on%20Middle %20East&bodytext=&topic=world_news)


Print
Delicious (http://del.icio.us/post?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2F8301-505263_162-57511981%2Fpresident-obama-gov-romney-didnt-have-his-facts-right-on-middle-east%2F%3Ftag%3Ddelicious&title=President%20Obama%3A%20%22Gov.%20Romney%20didn't%20have%20his%20facts%20right%22%20on%20Middle %20East&notes=)
Reddit (http://reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2F8301-505263_162-57511981%2Fpresident-obama-gov-romney-didnt-have-his-facts-right-on-middle-east%2F%3Ftag%3Dreddit&title=President%20Obama%3A%20%22Gov.%20Romney%20didn't%20have%20his%20facts%20right%22%20on%20Middle %20East)
Stumbleupon (http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2F8301-505263_162-57511981%2Fpresident-obama-gov-romney-didnt-have-his-facts-right-on-middle-east%2F%3Ftag%3Dstumbleupon&title=President%20Obama%3A%20%22Gov.%20Romney%20didn't%20have%20his%20facts%20right%22%20on%20Middle %20East)
Google Bookmarks (http://www.google.com/bookmarks/mark?op=add&bkmk=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2F8301-505263_162-57511981%2Fpresident-obama-gov-romney-didnt-have-his-facts-right-on-middle-east%2F%3Ftag%3Dgoogle&title=President%20Obama%3A%20%22Gov.%20Romney%20didn't%20have%20his%20facts%20right%22%20on%20Middle %20East)





Play CBS News Video

(CBS News) With less than two months to go before the presidential election, the violence in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511944/protesters-forced-back-after-rushing-walls-of-u.s-embassy-in-yemen/)are adding a new element to the presidential campaigns. Mitt Romney has accused the Obama administration of sympathizing with the protesters. Democrats and Republicans alike criticized Romney (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57511707/how-badly-did-romney-botch-response-to-libya-attack/)for his remarks, and on Wednesday the president fired back in an interview with "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft.
"I think most Americans, Democrats or Republicans understand that there are times when we set politics aside. One of those is when we've got a direct threat to American personnel who are overseas. And so-- you know-- I think that if you look at how most Republicans have reacted, most elected officials, they've reacted responsibly, waiting to find out the facts before they talked."
In Obama's opinion, however, Romney is not among those who waited for the facts.
"It appears that Gov. Romney didn't have his facts right. You know, the situation in Cairo was one in which an embassy that is being threatened by a major protest releases a press release saying that the film that had disturbed so many Muslims around the world wasn't representative of what Americans believe about Islam, in an effort to cool the situation down," the president said about a statement released by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.
"It didn't come from me. It didn't come from Secretary Clinton," he continued. "It came from folks on the ground who are potentially in danger. And, you know, my tendency is to cut folks a little bit of slack when they're in that circumstance rather than try to question their judgment from the comfort of a campaign office."
Obama continued that Romney has a tendency to "shoot first, aim later" and that as president, "it's important to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by facts and that you've thought through the ramifications before you make them." The president stopped short of calling Romney's comments irresponsible but said "I'll let the American people judge that."
And touching again on the film (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511893/new-questions-about-makers-of-anti-muslim-film-as-shadowy-details-emerge/) that is said to have sparked the protests, Obama acknowledged the importance of the First Amendment and his commitment to uphold the right of individuals to "speak their mind," but firmly reiterated that "this film is not representative of who we are and our values and I think it is important for us to communicate that. That's never an excuse for violence against Americans," Obama said before adding that his "number one priority and my initial statement focused on making sure that not only are Americans safe, but that we go after anybody who would attack Americans."

[Yoda]

Of course it matters. There are only so many things that could be wrong with it, and they're all going to play right into Romney's criticism about apologies and excuses.

The Obama administration clearly recognizes the statement was faulty. So what's wrong with it?

[will.15]

You are being ridiculous and nonsensical. Did you read what Obama actually said?

And the Romney statement was released after the white House distanced itself from the statement so he knew it wasn't an official WH position as was claimed.

And again. Romney tied in the statement to lies about Obama's previously stated position.

[Yoda]

Why, are you contending that Obama's interview contradicts the earlier administration line, or that he didn't hold back the statement? Because if it doesn't, and he did hold it back, that means there was something wrong with it. And I'm asking what that is. Again.

[will.15]

The statement was released before Romney released his statement and what are you defending anyway? Do you really want to defend that?

You are just splitting hairs at this point because you cannot think what Romney did was correct.

Why can't you admit Romney screwed up?

[Yoda]

I'm defending Romney's characterization of the statement. You're tossing out laundry lists of complaints, so I'm picking one (the one you called the "core issue" before deciding you actually did want to talk about all the others I'd already brought up) and asking you a really simple question about it. So what's your answer?

[will.15]

Well, he has no credible defense and the fact you chose to defend him for this while strongly attacking Obama for far less shows where you are coming from.

You were quite happy to cite the fact checkers on Bain, but suddenly fact checkers don't matter when they are even more critical of the Romney speech.

Even you have to recognize even by your standards your Romney defense has been feeble.

[wintertriangles]

You were quite happy to cite the fact checkers on Bain, but suddenly fact checkers don't matter when they are even more critical of the Romney speechWell Bain actually matters. This speech does not.

[Yoda]

So let me get this straight: you make nonspecific complaints about the speech and refuse to elaborate. I preemptively rebut some possible criticisms of it, to which you cryptically (and repeatedly) reply that none of them are the "core issue." When you finally just say it and we get to talking about the "core issue," I ask you one simple question about it, and you can't/won't answer it, and instead start talking about the apparently non-core issues I was discussing before. Yikes.

I'll go toe to toe with just about anyone just about anytime, dude, if they argue soundly and in good faith. But I'm officially out of patience with this sloppy, ad-hoc style of thinking. These issues are plenty complicated enough without having to untwist whatever mental pretzel you're serving on a given day.

[will.15]

You want to walk around something that is all over the news, he has been widely criticized for, and practically no mainstream Republican politician wants to defend him for.

To sum up:

While campaigning for the White House he decides he wants to take a political potshot at the president as a tragedy is ufolding, which is unprecedented. And no it is not comparable to the Obama comment.

He lies.

He lies about what the president has said in the past (four Pinnoccios).

He lies the speech is an apology. It is the same type of remarks made several times during the Bush Administration. You want to criticize those remarks and call them an apology? Actually, some conservatives at the time did, the right wing crazies, not mainstream Republicans.

Again, you use reverse logic. You keep insisting apparently the speech was an apology because the Obama Administration said the statement did not come from the White House and did not reflect their thinking. Does that mean it was an apology? No. The speech is not an apology. The fact checkers all agree it is not an apology. By all standards except the hard righties can that be called an apology (and many of those are actually the bigoted anti Muslim religion types). You wanted to give a literal legalese interpetation to the Ryan speech to argue he did not lie, but you want to assume this statement because the White House said they did not authorize it means it had to be an apology.

Romney blew it. And I am baffled why you feel compelled to defend the indefensible.

[Yoda]

God man, look at all the words you expend to avoid answering questions. You whined for half a dozen posts that we weren't talking about the "core issue," but as soon as I ask you a question about it you change your mind, refuse to answer, and go back to talking about all the other issues you'd brushed off before. Maybe you should figure out what it is you're saying before you say it.

It should be clear by now that I've got no problem going line-by-line and taking each part of this clumsy string of accusations down. But I'm not doing this on request, either. We are not going to have asymmetric conversations where you can demand something and then immediately abandon it, or ignore simple questions and then expect me to pick apart your latest hastily conceived manifesto. If you're not going to answer questions or be remotely consistent, then this is just a monologue, and not a particularly good one. You wanna have a discussion? Cool. Start acting like it: answer the question. I asked it for a reason. This is how arguments work.

I will single out one thing, though, because it lets me revisit one of your more spectacular logical implosions. Your reference to me interpreting Ryan's speech as "literal legalese" is, like, crazily false. I dunno if you've forgotten already, but my last post on that topic showed that your complaint is wrong either way (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=841369). Lots of other unanswered questions there, too, that I would be intensely interested in hearing you try to answer.

[Yoda]

The White House, today: "This is not a case of protest directed against the United States." Seriously. That's the quote.

I'm sure we can count on the media to keep reporting almost entirely on the very important matter of how Mitt Romney reacts to other people's foreign policy screwups.

[will.15]

You want to go against the wind, that is fine.

But it is generally regarded Rodney blew it big big time with a blunder that makes him look mean and partisan.

And the Ryan speech is also regarded as by everyone who isn't a Republican as a speech that is deceptive.

And it doesn't matter to me if you refute the Romney mess in a specific way, but by any standards you have been doing a piss poor job of it.

You are more isolated here than even with Ryan because even most Republicans don't want to defend Romney, certainly not the politicians who know not to step on doo-doo when it is in front of them.

[Yoda]

Here, let me summarize that for you: "whatever, I'll bet more people agree with me, so I don't have answer anything!"

Here's what it comes down to: arguments are supposed to be about truth. Period. If you actually care more about the media narrative than, say, whether or not you can articulate your criticisms of the Ryan speech without blatantly contradicting yourself, then there's no point to this. If that's your game, then you can just sit back, turn your brain off, and wait for public perception and the election itself to tell you what's true.

As deplorable as I find that mindset, it's not my choice. But this is: if you're not arguing about what's actually true, then I am not at all interested in what you have to say.

[will.15]

The White House, today: "This is not a case of protest directed against the United States." Seriously. That's the quote.

I'm sure we can count on the media to keep reporting almost entirely on the very important matter of how Mitt Romney reacts to other people's foreign policy screwups.
If Carney is saying the attack and murders in Libya wasn't against the United States, he is wrong. It was probably a terrorist act that used the controversy as cover for attacking the U.S. But, yeah, you can argue the protests in the Middle East at the moment are against the video rather than specifically the United StATES. BUT THE MUSLIM WORLD HAS A MAD-ON AGAINST WESTERN COUNTRIES, NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES, and they erupt no matter what country originates something they find offensive.

And if you are suggesting the tragedy in Libya is an Obama screwup, that is outrageous. I guess then it is Bush's fault for 911. Oh, wait, a lot of conservatives at the time were claiming that was Clinton's fault. This is a pretty low road you have chosen to travel on, but I guess Romney could use the company.

[Yoda]

Yeah, I didn't say it was Obama's fault, actually. Maybe don't launch into lectures about the "low road" until you're sure you know what's being said.

The screwups I mentioned are pretty much everything that's happened since. Release an inappropriate statement. Reiterate inappropriate statement. Disavow inappropriate statement. Obama says Egypt isn't an ally. The State Department says they are. Then Obama says they're not an ally or an enemy. Then the White House says it isn't a protest directed at us. It's ridiculous how confused their response has been. We needed a clear defense of free speech and a condemnation of the violence, and instead we've gotten days of schizophrenic claims and clumsy walkbacks.

[will.15]

If it was an inappropriate statement, so were similar Bush era issued statements. It was issued because the embassy staff was scared and trying to lower the anger. iIt was a specific reaction to a crisis. And it didn't come from the White House, And do you think Bush statments were inappropriate or only when such statements are issued by Obama?

Even the initial statement recognizes the right to free speech.

You actually think it is wrong the United States governmnet makes it clear the loony comments made in that video do not reflect the thinking of our government?

American values includes free speech. It doesn't include actually defending the loony birds for every hATEFUL THING THEY SAY. AND THIS LOONY BIRD WAS A FLAT-OUT LIAR, CLAIMING TO BE AN ISRAELI JEW WHEN IT TURNS OUT HE IS NOT. WAY TO GO. BLAME IT ON iSRAEL. As if they don't have enough problems. And they separated themselves from the comments also.

[Yoda]

Except Obama's claims means, as I've been harping on this whole time, that he must have found it inappropriate too. He said he'd give them a pass because they were afraid, but giving someone a pass implies a transgression. So maybe you should ask him what's wrong with it.

For my part, I think a condemnation of the incitement is fine, provided it's accompanied by a very strong defense of free speech, rather than the vaguest of passing references. Especially in a prepared statement, as opposed to an unscripted press briefing where the specific question is posed to you.

All that said, you pretty much completely ignored the list of screwups, which are screwups no matter what you think about the initial statement. They vacillated. And then they did it again. And again. Say one thing, say it again, retract it, say a new thing, get contradicted by your state department, say something in-between. It's a total bungling of the response under any interpretation, and at a time when a clear position was absolutely necessary. And how do you deal with a clear screwup? Why, you talk about something else, of course.

[will.15]

Except Obama's claims means, as I've been harping on this whole time, that he must have found it inappropriate too. He said he'd give them a pass because they were afraid, but giving someone a pass implies a transgression. So maybe you should ask him what's wrong with it.

And what were the rest of his comments you didn't quote? Basically saying the same thing in the statement. But if it was an official statement it would have been worded more carefully, a little differently. We are talking about semantics here, not a big disagreement with the general thoughts in the statement. II is a huge leap to say because the White House doesn't endorse the statement, which was released without their permission after they wanted "corrections" (not withdraw the entire statement), that it means Romney's characterization of it as an actual apology is correct. Again, you sure as hell wouldn't be making that argument if Bush was in office. What Romney did was a reckless disregard for the truth, and you endorse that.

For my part, I think a condemnation of the incitement is fine, provided it's accompanied by a very strong defense of free speech, rather than the vaguest of passing references. Especially in a prepared statement, as opposed to an unscripted press briefing where the specific question is posed to you.

And that might have been the corrections they wanted in the speech. But a scared official didn't want to waste time and issued it anyway.

All that said, you pretty much completely ignored the list of screwups, which are screwups no matter what you think about the initial statement. They vacillated. And then they did it again. And again. It's a total bungling of the response under any interpretation, and at a time when a clear position was absolutely necessary.
Those are screwups? You say they vacillated. No, I don't think they are screwups. I seem to remember real screwups during the Bush administration you probably think are just fine, like invisible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The biggest screwup so far is still an ambitious and increasingly desperate presidential candidate in a floundering campaign making inappropriate statements that were either misinformed or deliberate lies.

[Yoda]

And if they had issued a statement with "corrections" that contained a clear defense of free speech this entire situation would've unfolded differently. The bottom line is, if they had a problem with it and disavowed it, there's simply no basis from which you can argue with the word "inappropriate." It is an accurate description based on the administration's own actions.

And yes, they're screwups. Are you kidding me? In the midst of a crisis, the government says one thing, says it again, takes it back, says the country isn't our ally, then says it is, then says it sort of is, and then pretends the protests aren't directed at us. All in two and a half days. You're living on a different planet if you think that isn't a thorough bungling of the response.

And yeah, dude, the fact that Iraq didn't have WMDs was definitely a screwup. Is this a joke? "I'm going to guess you're probably fine with this other heretofore undiscussed thing" isn't a retort under any standard of discussion or debate. For one, your guess is wrong. And for another, you still don't seem to understand that charges of hypocrisy are not actually arguments. I've been beating this drum for a year.

[Yoda]

You know, something like half a dozen people (that's not an exaggeration) have contacted me privately over the last several months to ask me why I bother talking to you at all. And you know what? They've got a point.

It's not an actual discussion if you ignore questions, gloss over blatant contradictions, and jump to all sorts of random conclusions. That's arguing in bad faith. And it's just bad arguing, period.

The entire point of an argument is that the participants have some common ground from which they can make their appeals. They have to agree on basic logic, and they have to agree on the purpose of the discussion. You don't even cross these basic thresholds. You persist in using logical fallacies even after they're pointed out to you, and sometimes even suggest that you're not even talking about whether or not a given idea is right or wrong.

I mean, for crying out loud, I can catch you in outright contradiction, and you just keep on chugging as if nothing happened. If your arguments can completely implode without you even acknowledging it, that means your positions are not susceptible to being changed by any argument. So why have one? It's like arguing with the Black Knight.

Enjoy the thread; I'm done with it. I'm sure you'll turn it into quite an impressive little echo chamber.

[will.15]

And if they had issued a statement with "corrections" that contained a clear defense of free speech this entire situation would've unfolded differently. The bottom line is, if they had a problem with it and disavowed it, there's simply no basis from which you can argue with the word "inappropriate." It is an accurate description based on the administration's own actions.

It may or may not have. Romney may still have found the statement not strong enough and smarting after a poorly received convention might have still been looking for his "gotcha" moment. And again, you are establishing different standards for Democrats and Republicans. Read the Bush years' statements. Where in there are strong statements about free speech? Or any mention? And you are still ignoring the Romney mischaracterization of White House policy. His comments went way beyond merely criticizing the wording of the statement. It was wrongheaded, inappropriate, and still indefensible.

And yes, they're screwups. Are you kidding me? In the midst of a crisis, the government says one thing, says it again, takes it back, says the country isn't our ally, then says it is, then says it sort of is, and then pretends the protests aren't directed at us. All in two and a half days. You're living on a different planet if you think that isn't a thorough bungling of the response.

The government didn't say it. The embassy did against specific orders not to issue the statement as written. These are inconsequential things done in a moment of crisis that was clarified by the White House before Romney released his comments. His statement was essentially a verbal attack on the United States, making glaring misrepresentations of official United States policy.

And yeah, dude, the fact that Iraq didn't have WMDs was definitely a screwup. Is this a joke? "I'm going to guess you're probably fine with this other heretofore undiscussed thing" isn't a retort under any standard of discussion or debate. For one, your guess is wrong. And for another, you still don't seem to understand that charges of hypocrisy are not actually arguments. I've been beating this drum for a year.
Hypocrisy certainly is a valid argument. And a statement not official from the White House that was clarified in a matter of hours is somehow equal to one that could have avoided a long and costly war?

[7thson]

Well an earlier statement pretty much sums this all up:

"The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries."

[cinemaafficionado]

Someone in the present USA government will soon be called to account as to why the US Embassy in Lybia was not on full alert but oferred instead as a sacrificial lamb, just to make a point!

[will.15]

That clip is too, too funny. So according to Romney to win he has to convince five percent he is more likable than Obama?

If that is the strategy he might as well go home.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-secretly-taped-fundraiser-obama-voters-dependent-government-203717421--election.html

[cinemaafficionado]

The other day I got into it with some pro-Obama pacifist. He told me he was a political science major so I told him that he probably likes Gandhi. He then threatened to call security on me. Go figure!

[will.15]

Okay, I am ready to predict the election even though something might still happen before election day day to change the current trajectory.

Obama wins.

That 47 percent comment clinched it.

It wouldn't be a game changer by itself, but coming after a tepid GOP convention that provided no bounce, a disastrous attack on the president after the embassy deaths, it has become the nail on the coffin.

[wintertriangles]

a disastrous attack on the president after the embassy deathsRhetoric is now disastrous attack eh?

You'd think the clincher would be Obama immediately appealing indefinite detention but I guess people like the idea of being slaves

[ManOf1000Faces]

Obama wins. Romney reminds me of McCain but at least McCain was more better and actually had good ideas.

[wintertriangles]

Obama wins. Romney reminds me of McCain but at least McCain was more better and actually had good ideas.So I got a neg rep because I told you something you didn't want to hear I'm guessing

[7thson]

The 47 percent comment was just being held in a holding pattern for when Obama screwed up on something- nice deflection Dems and the media.

If it was such a big deal why was it not released right away? Like conservatives hide this line of thought. I for one recently found myself in that 47 percent category (not paying taxes), but not with the mindset that I want the government to support me. Help me sure, but support me - hell no.

Is this video really a surprise? it is like saying OMG Obama shifts blame again.... not an eye opener for me.

[will.15]

Obviously, Mother Jones was holding it for when it thought it would do Romney the most harm.

If it came out earlier it may have had less impact.

But, man, he sounds on that tape like a rich guy whining to other rich guys about those lazy people dependant on government who won't let them pay less in taxes

That always been a Republican Party position, the Democrats was the Welfare Party. But now they have expanded it to include people who don't directly get government assistance and and are working. Now they and Romney claim half the country will never vote for Republicans because they are dependant on government. It is absurd.

And what is even more troubling for Romney it has unleashed all the hard righties who are saying Romney is right and should keep saying it.

The Romney campaign has been it is the economy, stupid. Economy bad, Obama president, vote for me be because I am not him. He and his handlers thought that is all he needed to do.

Well, it isn't.

Be more specific? He does that he may alienate moderates, or he alienates the conservatives in his party who don't trust him. So he is vague and satisfies nobody. And inaccurate and insensitive remarks like that one makes him look bad and throws him off message (even though the message hasn't been working) when he can't afford it.

[Monkeypunch]

Gotta say, Mittens looks pretty damn bad right about now. It would be nice, I think, to have an election all about issues instead of personal attacks and screw ups, but that isn't happening in my life time, and probably not yours either...that aside, Romney just does NOT look like presidential material. He keeps inserting his foot in his mouth, he seems haughty and impersonal (the same things that did John Kerry in...), and in this year especially, his status as Rich as All Hell is a detriment. I guess he can still count on the Die Hard Republicans and those tea bag people, and the racist vote's all his (Admit it, some people will vote for him because he's white, lets not kid ourselves) but is that enough? In the end the Republicans will not get one in the win column this year...try finding less extreme candidates next time? They have to have another Lincoln in there somewhere, right? Can't all be hateful neo con d*ckheads...

[DexterRiley]

The 47 percent comment was just being held in a holding pattern for when Obama screwed up on something- nice deflection Dems and the media.

If it was such a big deal why was it not released right away? Like conservatives hide this line of thought. I for one recently found myself in that 47 percent category (not paying taxes), but not with the mindset that I want the government to support me. Help me sure, but support me - hell no.

Is this video really a surprise? it is like saying OMG Obama shifts blame again.... not an eye opener for me.

Shifting blame is at the heart of American Politics. Sorta like Calling this Obamas economy even though the Financial meltdown that created the super recession in the first place was under Dubya.

The problem with Romney on the one hand he has to appeal to the predjudice of his base and push the nonsense retehoric that poor folks are lazy no goods that want something for nothing with their hand out. When he knows, or should know better :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPZPaysBTqk

But unlike his father, Romney doesnt have the first foggiest clue what comprises the vast majority of the American people, evidenced by his belief that middle class means 200-250k a year.


"No one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is (to) keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers," Romney told host George Stephanopoulos.

"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.

"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PuIUT0b0kI

[will.15]

Opinion Brief

http://w.sharethis.com/images/check-big.png http://www.reddit.com/static/spreddit5.gif (http://www.reddit.com/submit)





Mitt Romney's '47 percent disaster': Is it actually a golden opportunity?

Rush Limbaugh thinks so. And he's not alone

posted on September 19, 2012, at 9:45 AM
http://media.theweek.com/img/dir_0083/41819_article_main/mitt-romney-doesnt-need-to-defend-his-comments-on-the-47-percent-says-rush-limbaugh-he-just-needs.jpg?142 (http://theweek.com/article/slideshow/233506/mitt-romneys-47-percent-disaster-is-it-actually-a-golden-opportunity)
Mitt Romney doesn't need to defend his comments on the 47 percent, says Rush Limbaugh. He just needs to "take the gloves off" and explain how conservatism solves the 47 percent problem. Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images SEE ALL 251 PHOTOS (http://theweek.com/article/slideshow/233506/mitt-romneys-47-percent-disaster-is-it-actually-a-golden-opportunity)


Best Opinion: Rush Limbaugh, TIME, Wash. Post
As Mitt Romney continues to stand behind (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/mitt-romney-no-you-have-a-hidden-video-problem.php?ref=fpnewsfeed) his surreptitiously recorded, admittedly "not elegantly stated" (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-romney-20120918,0,3321729.story) contention to wealthy donors that nearly half of American voters are dependent on government handouts, nursing "victim" complexes, and unlikely to vote for him, Republicans are split between banging their heads on their desks over this "47 percent disaster" (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/the-conservative-wonk-who-tried-to-avert-the-47-percent-disaster/262503/) and rushing to Romney's defense. David Frum at The Daily Beast is firmly in the head-banging camp, but wryly predicted (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/18/here-s-why-mitt-s-100-wrong-on-the-47.html) that the other side would "become the definitive conservative point of view after Rush Limbaugh weighs in." Limbaugh didn't disappoint, calling the secret video (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/09/18/a_golden_opportunity_for_mitt_romney) "a golden opportunity" for Romney to "take the gloves off and take the fear off and just start explaining conservatism." Instead of a campaign-crushing disaster, could Romney's write-off of the moochers be the reboot he so sorely needs?
Romney can make this a winning issue: Ignore the spin of the Obama-loving media, says Rush Limbaugh (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/09/18/a_golden_opportunity_for_mitt_romney). "When [Romney] talks to his donors about these 47 percent that are locked into Obama, he does it with disappointment, sadness," but not resignation. He's not giving up on them. And now that he's got their attention, he has a "golden opportunity" to explain why his conservative policies will free them. "It's sitting there on a silver platter," but Romney has to "get out there, take this by the horns, turn it into a positive," and convince people that if they vote Romney "they don't have to be in that 47 percent."
"A golden opportunity for Mitt Romney" (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/09/18/a_golden_opportunity_for_mitt_romney)
Are you kidding? This is an unmitigated disaster: The politics of Romney's "'47 percent' monstrosity" are terrible, says Joe Klein at TIME (http://swampland.time.com/2012/09/18/bitter-clinging-moochers/). He threw a huge number of his own voters, as well as decades of GOP tax policies, under the bus to play to "the fantasy prejudices of fat cats." Bad move. "Romney's adoption of the Fox-Rush neolibertarian sensibility" places him "in an impossible position," and now he'll have to "defend his fantasy in the debates." Since he can't, he's "rendered his campaign a parachute jump into quicksand, and he is sinking fast."
"Bitter, clinging moochers" (http://swampland.time.com/2012/09/18/bitter-clinging-moochers/)
It all depends. Will Romney rise to the occasion? Look, "everyone gets knocked down in politics," and the good candidates get back up again, says Chris Cillizza at (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/09/18/5-ways-mitt-romney-can-turn-the-2012-race-around/)The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/09/18/5-ways-mitt-romney-can-turn-the-2012-race-around/). The leaked video could be a turning point for Team Romney, "the wake-up call it needs to sharpen" its message. He has about two weeks to use this "bad September" as the foundation for a strong October. If he can "close strong on the economy," Romney "could well emerge in a month's time on the receiving end of a series of 'what didn't kill Mitt Romney made him stronger' stories."



Rush must be smoking something. Mitt Romney is to become the spokeman to explain conservatism to the American people a month and a half before the election?

[will.15]

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 at 12:58 pm SHARE (?subject=Romney Camp Silent On Whether Bain Purchased Brutal Chinese Factory&body=http://patrick.net/forum/?p=1216607%26c=870857#comment-870857) Quote (http://patrick.net/forum/?p=1216607#commentform) Permalink (http://patrick.net/forum/?p=1216607&c=870857#comment-870857) Like (http://patrick.net/forum/?p=1216607#) Dislike (http://patrick.net/forum/?p=1216607#) Delete http://patrick.net/images/lock.gif (http://patrick.net/subscribe.php)
Mitt Romney admits buying Chinese sweatshop while at Bain. 20,000 young girls. 12 girls per room. 120 girls per bathroom. Huge fences with guard towers.
"95% of life is set up for you if you were born in this country. And, I remember going to ah, uh, sorry just to bore you with stories.
When I was back in my private equity days, we went to China to buy a factory there. It employed about 20,000 people. And they were almost all young women between the ages of about 18 and 22 or 23. They were saving for potentially becoming married.
And they work in these huge factories, they made various uh, small appliances. And uh, as we were walking through this facility, seeing them work, the number of hours they worked per day, the pitance they earned, living in dormitories with uh, with little bathrooms at the end of maybe 10, 10 room, rooms. And the rooms they have 12 girls per room.
Three bunk beds on top of each other. You've seen, you've seen them? (Oh...yeah, yeah!) And, and, and around this factory was a fence, a huge fence with barbed wire and guard towers. And, and, we said gosh! I can't believe that you, you know, keep these girls in! They said, no, no, no. This is to keep other people from coming in.
Because people want so badly to come work in this factory that we have to keep them out. Or they will just come in here and start working and, and try and get compensated. So we, this is to keep people out. And they said, actually Chinese New Year as the girls go home, sometimes they decide they've saved enough money and they don't come back to the factory.
And he said, so, on the weekend after Chinese New Year there will be a line of people hundreds long, outside the factory, hoping that some girls haven't come back. And they can come to the factory. And, and so as we were experiencing this for the first time, going to see a factory like this in China some years ago.
The Bain Partner I was with turned to me and said, you know, 95% of life is settled if you are born in America. This is uh, this is an amazing land and what we have is unique and fortunately it is so special we are sharing it with the world."
-Mitt Romney-

Actually, it is not clear if he bought the factory or not, but his campaign and Bain won't answer directly, which makes it suspicious. Also, the very fact he would look at such horrible conditions and consider buying such a factory is disturbing.

And he is going to get tougher than Obama on China with this attitude?

[cinemaafficionado]

Tue, 18 Sep 2012

And he is going to get tougher than Obama on China with this attitude?

Well, surprisingly, Romney keeps emphasizing the need to cut outsourcing to China. I don't know if he really intends to follow up, but the Chinese are taking him at his word and believe me, they don't like Obama but they don't like Romney either. He surely isxn't making any friends with them.

[FILMFREAK087]

In all honesty, why is what Mitt Romney said that shocking or offensive? Seriously, his past platforms already indicated what he said, that people who can't afford healthcare and use public assistance are freeloaders, when he was passing his healthcare plan that was essentially what he said. Paul Ryan at one point said that those who's incomes were below Federal income tax levels were leeches. People act like this is so shocking, this was just a blunt way of stating it. The only thing he should apologize for, is being disingenuous when he was talking about "saving Social security and medicare for those who paid into it," when he clearly sees recipients as out of touch and looking for a handout, even though these same moochers over 65 were somehow his biggest supporters. Like I said, social programs in general are antithetical to conservative ideology. Just look at Herbert Hoover's administration who steadfastly supported completely unbridled markets and had no qualms letting people ravaged by a depression starve. Yet for some reason, this same group he was placating too when talking about SS and Medicare being safe under his administration, again disingenuous at best and a liar at worst. In my mind, anyone who supports in the affirmative, conservative philosophy and receives SS or medicare benefits, or who's pay is below that of Federal income tax, is akin to a chicken endorsing KFC, so what Romney said is entirely true.

[will.15]

To be honest, I don't know what Romney believes. He doesn't do the right wing talking points very well, which is why it is hilarious Rush suddenly wants to make Romney the official spokesman for the hard right. I don't think even there he really understands the implication of what he is saying.

[cinemaafficionado]

Yes at times he does seem dazed and confused but he is no doubt the lesser of the two evils and based on that alone should be voted in. I also believe that Romney's stance on Iran would be much stronger.
There is also no doubt that Obama's ideology is anti-capitalistic and that his record speaks for itself. If he gets re-elected this country will continue on a downward spiral from which it might never fully recover.
We seem to be only a few years from a nuclear war so the point might be moot.

[FILMFREAK087]

Yes at times he does seem dazed and confused but he is no doubt the lesser of the two evils and based on that alone should be voted in. I also believe that Romney's stance on Iran would be much stronger.
There is also no doubt that Obama's ideology is anti-capitalistic and that his record speaks for itself. If he gets re-elected this country will continue on a downward spiral from which it might never fully recover.
We seem to be only a few years from a nuclear war so the point might be moot.

Being for an economic system that classifies healthcare as a privilege based on socio-economic status is what I consider "evil," but to each their own. As far as Obama being "anti-capiatalist," you do realize his signature legislation forces citizens to purchase private insurance? Just saying. Keep in mind, being a devout Marxist, I would be singing the praise of Obama if he were truly against Capitalism.

[DexterRiley]

oooops


Turns out the 47% of freeloaders that dont pay federal income tax because they make 30 grand or less are predominantly found in the Southern "Red" States.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyyG9g_F4Kg

[cinemaafficionado]

Being for an economic system that classifies healthcare as a privilege based on socio-economic status is what I consider "evil," but to each their own. As far as Obama being "anti-capiatalist," you do realize his signature legislation forces citizens to purchase private insurance? Just saying. Keep in mind, being a devout Marxist, I would be singing the praise of Obama if he were truly against Capitalism.

You can hardly call sociolized medecine capitalistic.
Marxisam was just a concept that was never practicaly applied in the real world (hope you are not reffering it to Russian or Chinese communism that put their own slant on Marx and Engels ).
Also, Obama's soft stance on Iran, Syria and Venezuela could hardly qualify as capitalistic.

[FILMFREAK087]

You can hardly call sociolized medecine capitalistic.
Marxisam was just a concept that was never practicaly applied in the real world (hope you are not reffering it to Russian or Chinese communism that put their own slant on Marx and Engels ).
Also, Obama's soft stance on Iran, Syria and Venezuela could hardly qualify as capitalistic.

How is it "socialized" if it requires purchase of PRIVATE insurance. I'm well aware of that, which is why it's odd to see anti-Marxists site either of them as evidence of Marxisms failings. You buy into fear-mongering too easily, no international investigation has proven Iran has anything close to a nuke, so I can agree with Obama on not wanting to get into another "oops, nothing here, well now we're freeing the people." Then again, if push came to shove politically, he would probably do so.

[cinemaafficionado]

purchase . You buy into fear-mongering too easily, no international investigation has proven Iran has anything close to a nuke, so I can agree with Obama on not wanting to get into another "oops, nothing here, well now we're freeing the people." Then again, if push came to shove politically, he would probably cowtow to do so.

" Fear mongering " ? Iran's been actively working on producing a nuke for at least the last 6 years. According to published Mossad sources, they are less than two years away from achieving their goal. Even Mossad's X-chief admitted as much recently on 60 minutes ( and he does not want Israel to act on this now nor act on it prematurely ).
Wasn't it Ahmadedijan himself that confirmed that Iran is developing nuklear power ( for peacefull/energy purposes ).
But that very same individual appeared in front of the United Nations a little over a year a go and said that once Iran aquires nuklear capability Israel will cease to exist.

[FILMFREAK087]

" Fear mongering " ? Iran's been actively working on producing a nuke for at least the last 6 years. According to published Mossad sources, they are less than two years away from achieving their goal. Even Mossad's X-chief admitted as much recently on 60 minutes ( and he does not want Israel to act on this now nor act on it prematurely ).
Wasn't it Ahmadedijan himself that confirmed that Iran is developing nuklear power ( for peacefull/energy purposes ).
But that very same individual appeared in front of the United Nations a little over a year a go and said that once Iran aquires nuklear capability Israel will cease to exist.

I seem to remember hearing back in 2006, from Bush's administration that "Iran was a year away from having it," then a year later "a year away from having it," so on etc. . . Also, you didn't reply to the fact that in the same exact circumstance with Iraq, we were told how dangerous they were, only to find out they had only a few caches of chemical weapons and a whole lot of guns, fool me once.
Wow, a Middle East leader trying to act intimidating and rules through violence, I've never heard of THAT happening before!

[cinemaafficionado]

Back to sociolized medecine - What's the difference between a government deducting money from your paycheck ,without you even knowing the exact amount, and the government mandating that you have to purchase medical insurance?

As to your similie to Iraq, everybody knows that the nukes were a fabricated excuse to engage. Does that mean that we shouldn't have taken down the Napoleon wannabee of the Middle East?
Why are you ignoring Iran president's commitment to the oblidiration of Israel. You think he is bluffing? Even a lot of Iraninans take him very seriously and are very afraid, as they know what's coming.

[FILMFREAK087]

Back to sociolized medecine - What's the difference between a government deducting money from your paycheck ,without you even knowing the exact amount, and the government mandating that you have to purchase medical insurance?

As to your similie to Iraq, everybody knows that the nukes were a fabricated excuse to engage. Does that mean that we shouldn't have taken down the Napoleon wannabee of the Middle East?
Why are you ignoring Iran president's commitment to the oblidiration of Israel. You think he is bluffing? Even a lot of Iraninans take him very seriously and are very afraid, as they know what's coming.

By that logic, mandated car insurance is Socialist. No, Socialism wouldn't allow for private insurance to be forcibly bought, because they would be taken over directly by the government, and have the revenue for coverage pooled from the citizens, that's the entire point. You can say it's fascist or just bad policy, but it's not Marxist because it's still very much influenced by market forces, supply and demand. So, going to war under false pretense is alright, if you think the end justifies the means?

[DexterRiley]

200k and up represents 4% of the American people. To say that is middle class and to do so with a straight face is hard to do. The wealthy folks that are selected to run for highest office in the land, those that will play ball with their weathier donors,,these guys are in a bubble.

Democrats and Republicans alike. Competition is seen as an essential thing of the private sector, its a shame really that it isnt embraced in the political spectrum.



don't you think that the American People ought to have more choice than Repub or democrats when it comes to the Televised Debates?

Add the Greens and the Libertarians maybe. (not that the dems nor the repubs would ever allow that, which in ofitself is decidedly undemocratic eh)

[DexterRiley]

" Fear mongering " ? Iran's been actively working on producing a nuke for at least the last 6 years. According to published Mossad sources, they are less than two years away from achieving their goal. Even Mossad's X-chief admitted as much recently on 60 minutes ( and he does not want Israel to act on this now nor act on it prematurely ).
Wasn't it Ahmadedijan himself that confirmed that Iran is developing nuklear power ( for peacefull/energy purposes ).
But that very same individual appeared in front of the United Nations a little over a year a go and said that once Iran aquires nuklear capability Israel will cease to exist.

So what if Iran has been actively looking to aquire Nuclear capability? Thats a good thing not a bad thing. If they have nukes, there will be no war.

And if there is, if Israel ceases to exist (which is true now anyway, afterall they are illegally occupying atm)..then what will happen? Oh thats right, America will launch a zillion missiles their way, Judgement Day will have arrived, and since 80 percent of American are Christians as i understand things, they will be greeted into heaven by their lord and saviour.

So again, whats the big deal?

[cinemaafficionado]

I think philosophers like you need to be awakened by real events.
I would propose a meeting with the families of Iranian nuklear physisists that have been eliminated by the Mossad in the past two years.
You can tell them all about " fear mongering " and Iran's lack of nuklear program.

On the other note, it surprises me that you don't see the difference between the government mandating you do something and the government automaticaly doing it for you. In either case, you got no say.
That's not what a democrasy is all about and ours is supposed to be a democracy.

[cinemaafficionado]

So what if Iran has been actively looking to aquire Nuclear capability? Thats a good thing not a bad thing. If they have nukes, there will be no war.

And if there is, if Israel ceases to exist (which is true now anyway, afterall they are illegally occupying atm)..then what will happen? Oh thats right, America will launch a zillion missiles their way, Judgement Day will have arrived, and since 80 percent of American are Christians as i understand things, they will be greeted into heaven by their lord and saviour.

So again, whats the big deal?

Where would we be without satire?

[FILMFREAK087]

I think philosophers like you need to be awakened by real events.
I would propose a meeting with the families of Iranian nuklear physisists that have been eliminated by the Mossad in the past two years.
You can tell them all about " fear mongering " and Iran's lack of nuklear program.

On the other note, it surprises me that you don't see the difference between the government mandating you do something and the government automaticaly doing it for you. In either case, you got no say.
That's not what a democrasy is all about and ours is supposed to be a democracy.

And I'm surprised that you so loosely label something as "socialized," when you mean "authoritarian," which is what a mandate on buying PRIVATE goods or services is. Since you bring up Democracy, that's what Marxism is on a social scale. I do see the difference, you can't seem to, if funds are pooled for medical treatment, that is Socialism, if you are forced to buy private insurance, that is Authoritarianism. If someone can't afford to buy insurance under Socialism, it's already available to them, if they can't under Authoritarianism, they get fined. Also, "not having a say" about the exact taxes you pay equaling Socialism essentially renders all socities Socialist. It's not like you can fill out a form like; "Yeah, I'll donate to the defense funding, medical research etc. . . " This isn't that hard.

[DexterRiley]

I think philosophers like you need to be awakened by real events.
I would propose a meeting with the families of Iranian nuklear physisists that have been eliminated by the Mossad in the past two years.
You can tell them all about " fear mongering " and Iran's lack of nuklear program.

On the other note, it surprises me that you don't see the difference between the government mandating you do something and the government automaticaly doing it for you. In either case, you got no say.
That's not what a democrasy is all about and ours is supposed to be a democracy.

I'll say it again, and you can read it slowly.

I Don't care if Iran has nukes. If anything, i'm happy.

[cinemaafficionado]

And I'm surprised that you so loosely label something as "socialized," when you mean "authoritarian," which is what a mandate on buying PRIVATE goods or services is. Since you bring up Democracy, that's what Marxism is on a social scale.

So high on Marxism, but Karl Marx concept was not even an original one. For your edification, the priciple that Marxism was based on ie. " to work as hard as you can for the collective good and have the collective good take care of your needs " originated in first tribal societies. As we got more populated and complicated, it became impossible to stick to the original concept.
In the early twentieth century the populace became disenchanted with royalty ruling them, so they rallied under the Marxist banner, hoping for less government domination, more equality and a better life.
The Soviets overthrew their Czar and Lenin came to power and communism took over Russia. The idea of Marxism flourished for a few years, Lenin got sick and a power struggle took place in his own rulin party. Stalin emerged victorious and turned Marxism into communist dictatorship, along the way killing 20 million of his own people. And that's all she wrote.
Continue dreaming about Marxism. In essence it's an anti-thesis to human nature - the need for individuality and individual prosperity.
I don't want to go back in time, certainly not to the time of total government domination, which in all practicality Marxism , brief as it was, turned out to be.

[FILMFREAK087]

So high on Marxism, but Karl Marx concept was not even an original one. For your edification, the priciple that Marxism was based on ie. " to work as hard as you can for the collective good and have the collective good take care of your needs " originated in first tribal societies. As we got more populated and complicated, it became impossible to stick to the original concept.
In the early twentieth century the populace became disenchanted with royalty ruling them, so they rallied under the Marxist banner, hoping for less government domination, more equality and a better life.
The Soviets overthrew their Czar and Lenin came to power and communism took over Russia. The idea of Marxism flourished for a few years, Lenin got sick and a power struggle took place in his own rulin party. Stalin emerged victorious and turned Marxism into communist dictatorship, along the way killing 20 million of his own people. And that's all she wrote.
Continue dreaming about Marxism. In essence it's an anti-thesis to human nature - the need for individuality and individual prosperity.
I don't want to go back in time, certainly not to the time of total government domination, which in all practicality Marxism , brief as it was, turned out to be.
I added to my previous post, explaining how you were incorrect in your classification. As far as the USSR, as you have stated earlier it was more of a quasi fascist nation, which loosely followed Marx's writings. Also, I find it telling that you have no issue with war being waged under false pretense, because the leader of the country isn't so nice. The world's full of them, why not go after North Korea, China, and a whole host of other countries that aren't so nice under false pretense as well?

[cinemaafficionado]

I'll say it again, and you can read it slowly.

I Don't care if Iran has nukes. If anything, i'm happy.

Cool, don't worry, be happy for the few short years you have left or do you think that perhaps Manitoba has some magic umbrella saving it from the radiation fallout.
At first I thought you were joking, but now sadly I realize, you are just misinformed.
Don't mind me, I'm just another paranoid who dwells in not too far away atomic shelters.

[FILMFREAK087]

Cool, don't worry, be happy for the few short years you have left or do you think that perhaps Manitoba has some magic umbrella saving it from the radiation fallout.
At first I thought you were joking, but now sadly I realize, you are just misinformed.
Don't mind me, I'm just another paranoid who dwells in not too far away atomic shelters.
Must have been there since August 2006, when we were supposedly in dire danger.

[DexterRiley]

Cool, don't worry, be happy for the few short years you have left or do you think that perhaps Manitoba has some magic umbrella saving it from the radiation fallout.
At first I thought you were joking, but now sadly I realize, you are just misinformed.
Don't mind me, I'm just another paranoid who dwells in not too far away atomic shelters.

Cold war. maybe you heard of it.

Remember the axis of evil speech that Dubya dropped on the people? Well what country did they invade?

The one with zip zero nada weapons of mass destruction, thats who.

Do you think that was a fluke?


edit: by the way, what colour level are you worried?