Republican says something stupid...

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

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

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

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

[Papa_Complex]

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

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

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

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

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

[defector]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Which would coincide with the dismanteling of "right to work" (I hate that name) so that an employer can't fire someone for voting yes.

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

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by defector

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

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

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

[goof2]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

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

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



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

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

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

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by goof2

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

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

Originally Posted by Paul Ryan at the RNC

"That’s what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight."

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

How have my claims changed from earlier posts?

[goof2]

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

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

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by goof2

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

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

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO the first time

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

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO the last time

But regardless, his point was the same: that President Obama somehow failed to keep the plant open after saying he would keep the plant open.

The best I can come up with is this quote:

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO in the middle

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

But that was a response to this question by you:

Originally Posted by goof2

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

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

[fatbuckRTO]

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

Originally Posted by Romney

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

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

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

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