Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Right, but isn't that negated by the October statement he made--after the meltdown?

If the crash negated it, then surely you need to drop it from your 'evidence' of a promise, then?

Oy. Take 2.

The promise of October 2008 came after the meltdown. So, isn't that problematic for your defense that you were "referring to February 2008?" In other words, Obama doubled-down in October, after the crash, then did not follow through. Why is that not breaking a promise?

Because October's statement is not a promise to keep Janesville open. It's a promise to help plants like it, at most. It was still 'negated' by the December announcement and closures.

And no, a President cannot pick one factory and re-open it. He could not do anything until the bailout was agreed (because GM was independent until then), and even then (as quick as it was), things had moved on quickly, and it would have been a pretty big ask.

Perhaps if something had been done several months beforehand, but that was for the previous incumbent.

Old-fashioned trolling.

No, it was a question (a series of them), followed by my opinion on how McCain had been treated by political opponents within and without his party.

Anyway, what did your 'One word: McCain' mean? I presume it wasn't just some driveby throwaway comment, because that's the kind of trick that trolls pull and we all know that just isn't you. So...?

Here is what Ryan could have said if he was not being deceptive:

"I want to talk about differences in economic philosophy between our campaign and president Obama. We believe in the free market; president Obama believes in government intervention. We believe that in this free country a person can achieve great things; president Obama believes that if you made it here that :"you didn't build that". In my home town of Janesville these contrasting phjlosophies can be seen. In my hometown a GM plant was going to close in 2008, a plant that had been a central part of Janesville since 1919. Then candidate Obama in 2008 said that with government intervention this plant could last for 100 years. Unfortunately later that year GM decided to close that plant as private companies are entitled to do. Shortly before the election (and after the plant was headed for closure) Obama came back and said he would lead efforts to retool plants like the one like the ones in Janesville so that they could compete. Of course the president did not say he was going to save Janesville in particular, but his words gave hope to workers in Janesville that this president with his promises of government aid would somehow help the Janevillle plant to survive or reopen. The plant ws closed in December, 2008 and it has not reopened. No one in Janesville blames president Obama for the plant closure. However, the workers in Janevilles who voted for president obama (some ot those workers were high school classmates of mine) must ask whether the president's goverment interventionist policies have restored their jobs? Has his economic phjilosophy made them better or worse off than they were four years ago? The workers in Janesvilles ask as many unemployed workers in America ask--where are the jobs, Mr. preisdent, where are the jobs?

How's that?

freeman2 wrote:I don't see any promise to reopen plants--that isnt there at all. Please point to any language where Obama said he would reopen the plant if it closed. Really, come on, he is supposed to go to gm and say I know u basically closed the plant already but I made some vague promise that I would keep the plant open so please take some government money and reopen. Come on,really?

Now who's parsing? "Reopen?" Nice move of the old goalposts!

Look, he shafted bondholders, do you believe he could not have forced a thing or two more on GM? He did the unions a solid. He could have done it for Janesville too.

As for the bankruptcy, if Romney-Ryan thought that argument was a winner they would make it. Sure we would be better off if gm and chrysler went through regular bankruptcy-American auto companies sold to foreign auto companies, large job cuts, pension and wage cuts.

Questions about the "bailout":

1. Who owns Chrysler? Why?

2. No jobs were cut?

3. No wages were reduced?

4. Were pensions kept precisely the same?

Whereas, now American auto companies are doing just fine. A little cash from the government to keep America in the auto making business--well worth the price Go ahead make those arguments in the mid-west---just give us the election

Just fine?

1. Do they still owe taxpayers money?

2. How's the Volt doing?

3. How's GM's stock doing?

danivon wrote:Because October's statement is not a promise to keep Janesville open. It's a promise to help plants like it, at most. It was still 'negated' by the December announcement and closures.

So, he went there and subsequently talked about it, but it was just an example?

Spin.

No, it was a question (a series of them), followed by my opinion on how McCain had been treated by political opponents within and without his party.

No, it was trolling. You knew it did not refer to Bush/McCain.

Trolling.

freeman2 wrote:Here is what Ryan could have said if he was not being deceptive:

"I want to talk about differences in economic philosophy between our campaign and president Obama. We believe in the free market; president Obama believes in government intervention. We believe that in this free country a person can achieve great things; president Obama believes that if you made it here that :"you didn't build that". In my home town of Janesville these contrasting phjlosophies can be seen. In my hometown a GM plant was going to close in 2008, a plant that had been a central part of Janesville since 1919. Then candidate Obama in 2008 said that with government intervention this plant could last for 100 years. Unfortunately later that year GM decided to close that plant as private companies are entitled to do. Shortly before the election (and after the plant was headed for closure) Obama came back and said he would lead efforts to retool plants like the one like the ones in Janesville so that they could compete. Of course the president did not say he was going to save Janesville in particular, but his words gave hope to workers in Janesville that this president with his promises of government aid would somehow help the Janevillle plant to survive or reopen. The plant ws closed in December, 2008 and it has not reopened. No one in Janesville blames president Obama for the plant closure. However, the workers in Janevilles who voted for president obama (some ot those workers were high school classmates of mine) must ask whether the president's goverment interventionist policies have restored their jobs? Has his economic phjilosophy made them better or worse off than they were four years ago? The workers in Janesvilles ask as many unemployed workers in America ask--where are the jobs, Mr. preisdent, where are the jobs?

How's that?

Not a speech.

That is a rambling mess, not a speech.

Doctor Fate wrote:No, it was trolling. You knew it did not refer to Bush/McCain.

did I? What did it refer to then? Why do you deflect the question with accusations of trolling?

No deflection and you're continuing.

If you are not deflecting a simple question, why are you:

a) not answering it?
b) replying to say something else?

danivon wrote:If you are not deflecting a simple question, why are you:

a) not answering it?
b) replying to say something else?

Unless you are willing to be honest, there can be no communicating with you. So, either admit it and we can move on, or keep up the charade.

Sorry, but I am being honest. I wanted to know what you meant by 'McCain', and I do not assume I can read your mind. Clearly it's not worth bothering any more.

To get back on track with this thread I think that in spite of the Ryan choice my president will trounce Romney afterall.

Is 261 to 206 a trouncing? Not really but once New Hampshire, Virginia, Michigan and Colorado come to their senses, this thing is over.

I also predict, THE ONE, will win with impressive ease in the popular vote as well.

http://core.talkingpointsmemo.com/election/scoreboard

Um, no. THE ONE will be under 47%. No one has ever lost the popular vote by more than 3% and then won the electoral college. THE ONE will not be the exception.

I love your irrational exuberance for the worst President since Andrew Johnson.

Good Doctor,

I believe you were the one who initially mocked me for thinking he would win against Hillary in the first place and then against what's his name for the presidency?

And why take a shot at Andy? He's is one of my favorites from history. You obviously have a problem with us (mid) westerners taking over the white house?

I find it very difficult to believe that you take that position. Besides, I thought Jimmy Carter wore that crown?

The last Bush will go down as the worst president in US history And Dag is right--Obama is going to win. I don't think Romney is going to win the popular vote by three points, he is barely leading in the real clear politics average. What should be clear is that he is losing the key battleground states I am sure Df will be wondering after the election about why the right-wing spin about all the polls being wrong (except Rasmussen) was just that