Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan = My Ultimate Ayn Rand Porn.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/politics/ryans-speech-contained-a-litany-of-falsehoods.html?hp
Yes, the Janesville plant is mentioned.
The idea that the GOP is no longer afraid of fact checking is both insulting to the voting public and frightening in its implication that the truth no longer matters.
Dude, seriously, go read what he actually said.
How are you defining normal American and how are you defining “disagree”? If you operate under the assumption that America is strictly to the right of the rest of the globe and that Democrats manage to win by fraud and deception, then your conclusion follows from your premises.
By the way, who do you think made the following comments?
By the way, the speech should be seen in light of the Senate trying to get an infrastructure bill passed in the House. House Republicans had been trying to tack on oil drilling provisions to the version in the House and couldn’t come to an agreement, while Senators agreed (74-22) to a multibillion dollar bill without such provisions. See here.
Please quote him making a promise, as indicated by words such as “I promise to” or “I intend to” or “I will.”
This?
How are we to interpret this? “I will retool plants like Janesville–may be in Michigan, no promises!–that will create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin (and elsewhere).” Huh? If I live in Janesville, I interpret this to mean he’s going to do something to create jobs where I live. “I will do X, and this will create jobs in Wisconsin and across the U.S.” However we interpret X, the conclusion of this assertion isn’t ambiguous with regard to the Wisconsin at least.
If he meant something different, this was an enormously weaselly way to word it. Misleading you might say. Someone less charitable might call it a lie or a broken promise.
Sam Stone? Stratocaster? All I’m hearing is crickets on this one.
ETA: Though I’ll note that it did not get as much play on Days 2 and 3 of the convention as it got on Day 1.
I think it was deliberately misleading. That’s probably a generous description.
Only a partisan douche would say that he broke a promise to fix a plant that closed before he took office.
Two things: 1) He did in fact do just as he said. He led an effort that ended up saving jobs in the auto industry in Wisconsin and across the U.S. he did about as much as he could do without being in the administration of GM instead of the United States.
- The fucking plant closed before he became President!
Wow, I’ll assume you are deliberately avoiding actually responding to what was posted. Those were his words. He would do something, and as a result of that something, jobs would be created in Wisconsin. Only that’s not what occurred. This point has zero to do with when the plant closed, by the way. though this non sequitur seems to be a popular one in this thread.
And way to get an insult in. I’m sure that wasn’t directed at anyone in this thread.
False. It’s true the administration issued waivers, but the stated purpose of the waivers was for states to see if some other methods, less stringently tied to the law’s reporting requirements, could help more people find work.If someone wants to claim that the hidden purpose, despite that clear statement, was to actually let people off the hook, they’re going to need evidence of that, which I have not seen.
Absent any such evidence: utterly false.
Hentor, that phrasing was AT BEST poorly constructed, and at worst, misleading. If I lived in Janesville, I would have felt screwed over by a politician. The best spin I think that can be assigned is that it was weaselly. Seriously, you can’t see any sort of reasonable inference that this was going to be good news for Janesville?
Seriously? I’m sorry, but you cannot attack the President for something he simply did not say. He did not say he would keep the plant open if he was President and he did not say he would make sure those people had jobs. This debate is moronic, I’m sorry The plant was closed before he was President. FACT. The President NEVER said he would keep it open. FACT. The President did manage to keep a plant, much like Janesville open, in Tennessee. FACT.
If you are trying to hang your rhetoric, like Ryan did, on this then you are deliberately misleading. It is not a matter of “interpretation”, Ryan flat out is LYING. These are facts. What is wrong with this world?
If Obama’s wrong about the plant, how about the Bush Administration? In an article from June, 2008:
Bush Administration defends plant closure
Let the mental gymnastics begin!
Those were his words.
My response was my response.
Those were not his words.
Even worse than lying. The auto bailout definitely prevented other plants from closing - not just auto plants but the plants of the suppliers. Romney was against it. I assume Ryan was also. Attacking Obama for not keeping a plant open before he became president and also for actions that did keep plants open after he became president is beyond lying into hypocrisy.
FACT: The plant was not demolished. Whenever the plant was closed, what would have prevented Obama from pushing efforts to re-tool it? FACT: His said his efforts would create jobs in Wisconsin. Sorry, that’s what he said. It is not twisting his words at all to make this inference: Obama, if president, will re-tool the Janesville plant, and others like it, and these efforts will create jobs in Wisconsin and across the U.S. However you’d like to characterize his promise. he stated that his efforts would lead to the creation of “good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.” There was nothing qualified about the portion in quotes. He didn’t say, “we’ll create jobs in places like Wisconsin all across this great land.” You can’t ignore that portion of his statement if you’re part of the gang here insisting we parse his words to show what he intended.
First I was a partisan douche, now I’m a liar. The rules for this forum must have changed when I wasn’t looking. Anyway, we’re running around and around the same track, and I have no hope at this point that anyone will acknowledge that the words even existed in his sentence, that any other interpretation is even possible, so I’ll move on.
You don’t “re-tool” a closed plant. It’s too late.
Says who? What makes you think that?