Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » "Fact checking for thee, but not for me" (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: "Fact checking for thee, but not for me"
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
washingtonpost.com

quote:
As Buzzfeed reports this morning, top Romney advisers say their most effective ads are the ones attacking Obama over welfare, and that they will not allow their widespread denunciation by fact checkers as false slow down their campaign one little bit:

“Our most effective ad is our welfare ad,” a top television advertising strategist for Romney, Ashley O’Connor, said at a forum Tuesday hosted by ABCNews and Yahoo! News. “It’s new information.”...

The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” awarded Romney’s ad “four Pinocchios,” a measure Romney pollster Neil Newhouse dismissed.

“Fact checkers come to this with their own sets of thoughts and beliefs, and we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers,” he said.

That’s a very interesting admission. But it gets better. Reading this brought to mind Romney’s own remarks about fact-checking and political advertising not long ago. Needless to say, he has a different standard for the Obama campaign:

“You know, in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad,” Romney said on the radio. “They were embarrassed. Today, they just blast ahead. You know, the various fact checkers look at some of these charges in the Obama ads and they say that they’re wrong, and inaccurate, and yet he just keeps on running them.”

Wait, what?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know right? You think when someone adds "fact checker" to their title it would be for reals!

Let's back up a bit. Greg Sargent, WaPo, facts? Here's what Media Matters (dedicated to the liberal agenda) says about them:
quote:
"Greg Sargent [of the Washington Post] will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff." "We’ve pushed stories to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne [at the Washington Post]." "they knew they could dump it at Plum Line [Greg Sargent’s Washington Post blog], so that’s where they sent it.”
He "will write anything you give him" and that giving comes from Democrats and their allies. Greg Sargent is a propagandist in every sense of the word.

Now, what about this "fact" thing. The problem is that liberals have a different definition of "fact" than most other people. Most of us think a "fact" means it's a true piece of information. Liberals think "facts" are pieces of information that supports their ideology. Anything contradicting the ideology is a lie. Let's take a case from current headlines to demonstrate:

Obama's campaign manager sends out this email last night:
quote:
He [Ryan] even dishonestly attacked Barack Obama for the closing of a GM plant in his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin — a plant that closed in December 2008 under George W. Bush.
Whoa! What did Ryan say? This:
quote:
My own 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 no where in sight.

So when did that Janesville plant close? From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal:
quote:
The Janesville plant stopped production of SUVs in 2008 and was idled in 2009 after it completed production of medium-duty trucks.
Ohh, so it quit building SUV's in 2008 but was in business still producing trucks, finally idling in 2009. So Ryan is absolutely, 100% factually correct. But liberals, such as in the Obama campaign, do their "fact check" and conclude he must be lying.

You gotta understand, liberals believe anything that makes Barry or the liberal ideology look bad is not a fact; it must be a lie. That's why you now see and will see a growing number of threads here talking about dishonesty of Republicans and how they lie all the time, etc, etc as nauseum. Liberals have a different definition of honesty and it has nothing to do with the truth.

[ August 30, 2012, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: G3 ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So does that mean we should ignore any reports of Republicans lying?

Does that mean this report from PolitiFactCheck is untrue? That Obama really did waive the welfare work requirement, not enact a program (requested by many Republican governors, including Romney IIRC), which is intended to increase employment? That this entire report is a lie, simply because you have labelled it "liberal" and say that "liberals have a different definition of "fact" than most other people."

Or do you admit that Santorum and the Republicans are lying about this?

You have a good example of "liberals" lying, G3. But does that mean that everything anyone called "liberal" says is a lie? If a liberal lies once, does that mean that everything Republicans say must be true?

I don't think so, and I believe you don't think so, either. And if you truly do, then you need to look closely in the mirror when you say "liberals believe anything that makes Barry or the liberal ideology look bad is not a fact; it must be a lie." Because you probably are when you make such a wild accusation. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
So when did that Janesville plant close? From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal:
quote:
The Janesville plant stopped production of SUVs in 2008 and was idled in 2009 after it completed production of medium-duty trucks.
Ohh, so it quit building SUV's in 2008 but was in business still producing trucks, finally idling in 2009. So Ryan is absolutely, 100% factually correct. But liberals, such as in the Obama campaign, do their "fact check" and conclude he must be lying.
Actually things are more complicated than you are presenting them.

From Politifact:
quote:
The plant was effectively shut down on Dec. 23, 2008, when GM ceased production of SUVs there and laid off 1,200 workers. (Several dozen workers stayed on another four months to finish an order of small- to medium-duty trucks for Isuzu Motors.)

So, the plant closed while Bush was still in office, about a month before Obama was inaugurated.

So 1200 workers get laid off in 2008 and a few dozen stick around into 2009 to finish an order.

Let me ask you: if I close the front door of my shop, send everyone home, won't take new orders, and am sitting in the back finishing an order with one or two staffers - would you call that being still "open"?

Or am I distorting reality here, being one of these godless liberals who don't understand facts.

[ August 30, 2012, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Actually things are more complicated than you are presenting them.

...

So 1200 workers get laid off in 2008 and a few dozen stick around into 2009 to finish an order.

Let me ask you: if I close the front door of my shop, send everyone home, won't take new orders, and am sitting in the back finishing an order with one or two staffers - would you call that being still "open"?

Or am I distorting reality here, being one of these godless liberals who don't understand facts.

Yes, you do appear to be distorting reality here, though I won't speculate as to why.

quote:

1. On February 13, 2008 Obama said in Janesville : “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.”

2. In June 2008 GM announced that the Janesville plant would stop production of medium-duty trucks by the end of 2009, and stop production of large SUVs in 2010 or sooner.

3. In October 2008 Obama doubled down on his promise to keep Janesville plant 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.”

4. In December 2008 GM idled production of GM SUVs at the Janesville plant. Medium-duty truck assembly continued.

5. In April 2009, four months after Obama was inaugurated, GM idled production of medium-duty trucks.

Link

The plant stayed open to April producing an entirely different vehicle. You can certainly make the case that most of the line workers left before Obama took office, but classifying line workers producing vehicles on an entirely different line as "a few dozen stick around into 2009 to finish an order." is a distortion of reality. Your wording, not mine.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:

The plant stayed open to April producing an entirely different vehicle. You can certainly make the case that most of the line workers left before Obama took office, but classifying line workers producing vehicles on an entirely different line as "a few dozen stick around into 2009 to finish an order." is a distortion of reality. Your wording, not mine.

Are you kidding me? The wording was "(Several dozen workers stayed on another four months to finish an order of small- to medium-duty trucks for Isuzu Motors.)", and it was Politifact reporting it, so you can go prove them wrong if you'd like.

What part of "to finish an order" is unclear to you? Other than for partisan purposes, who would characterize such an activity as still being salvageable, let alone "open"?

It's like a second-to-last relay runner ran a terrible race, tripped just before the finish line, and hurled the baton at the final racer and now blames THEM for failing to keep their promise to win the race!

[ August 30, 2012, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
So does that mean we should ignore any reports of Republicans lying?

No, it means you should think a little about it before blindly accepting liberal talking points.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Does that mean this report from PolitiFactCheck is untrue? That Obama really did waive the welfare work requirement, not enact a program (requested by many Republican governors, including Romney IIRC), which is intended to increase employment? That this entire report is a lie, simply because you have labelled it "liberal" and say that "liberals have a different definition of "fact" than most other people."

Or do you admit that Santorum and the Republicans are lying about this?

I don't know what you're talking about here, have not followed that so I don't know if it's true or not. Sometimes liberal "facts" coincide with reality - this is known as a lucky coincidence.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
You have a good example of "liberals" lying, G3. But does that mean that everything anyone called "liberal" says is a lie? If a liberal lies once, does that mean that everything Republicans say must be true?

I think you need to lay off the logical fallacies.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I don't think so, and I believe you don't think so, either. And if you truly do, then you need to look closely in the mirror when you say "liberals believe anything that makes Barry or the liberal ideology look bad is not a fact; it must be a lie." Because you probably are when you make such a wild accusation. [Smile]

Let's just watch over the next few months shall we ... hmmm?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I live 28 miles from Janesville and have several friends who worked at the plant. Its closing was announced internally in 2007, and almost everyone was laid off in 2008; the plant remained open with drastically reduced staff to complete one outstanding project -- and to be nominally "open" through 2010, since terms of a state grant of over $100 million required that the plant not shutter operations until that date. By keeping a skeleton crew around, GM legally avoided that consequence.

[ August 30, 2012, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Are you kidding me? The wording was "(Several dozen workers stayed on another four months to finish an order of small- to medium-duty trucks for Isuzu Motors.)", and it was Politifact reporting it, so you can go prove them wrong if you'd like.

You probably shouldn't rely on Politifact for both sides of a given issue.

From an article in the local paper:
quote:

Thursday is last day of production as Isuzu line comes to end

By JIM LEUTE Tuesday, April 21, 2009

JANESVILLE — Exactly four months after General Motors ended sport utility vehicle production in Janesville, the automaker will shut down its medium-duty assembly line.

Production will end Thursday on the local plant's Isuzu line that dates back to 1994. Fifty-seven production workers will lose their jobs.

GM spokesman Chris Lee said another 40 to 50 employees in skilled trade will work to decommission the plant that after nearly 90 years is no longer in the automaker's immediate production plans.

GM said last June it would end local production of light-duty trucks—Suburbans, Tahoes and GMC Yukons—by the end of 2010 at the latest. It also said it would shut down the medium-duty Isuzu line sometime in 2009.

SUV production ended in Janesville on Dec. 23, a little more than five months after the plant lost a second shift of production.

Gazette

Characterizing 50+ line workers as several dozen is a stretch. I doubt it's the kind of stretch the Liberal's on this board would tolerate from Romney or Ryan. However, the second part is well beyond a stretch.

quote:

Actually, the plant closed before he even took office.
...
The plant was effectively shut down on Dec. 23, 2008, when GM ceased production of SUVs there and laid off 1,200 workers. (Several dozen workers stayed on another four months to finish an order of small- to medium-duty trucks for Isuzu Motors.)

So, the plant closed while Bush was still in office, about a month before Obama was inaugurated.

Politifact is a partisan source. The first sentence and fourth sentences directly contradict the third sentence "Several dozen workers stayed on another four months to finish an order". Furthermore the phrasing "several dozen" is completely misleading.

If I personally made such a poor argument on this site the Liberal's here would rightly pound the crap out of my logic. So why am I supposed to give this statement a pass?

And just for the record CNN did what I consider a reasonably balanced assessment of Ryan's comments on the subject. CNN

Their conclusion? "Verdict: True, but incomplete."

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can '5' be considered 'several'? Is 'several' more or less than 'a couple'?

I think 4 to 5 is right in the wheelhouse of 'several' and if you had been asked, in a different context, whether 4 or 5 could be considered as 'several', I doubt you would have disagreed. Here are several definitions:

sev·er·al (svr-l, svrl)
adj.
1. Being of a number more than two or three but not many: several miles away.
2. Single; distinct: "Pshaw! said I, with an air of carelessness, three several times" (Laurence Sterne).
3. Respectively different; various: They parted and went their several ways. See Synonyms at distinct.
4. Law Relating separately to each party of a bond or note.
pron. (used with a pl. verb)
An indefinite but small number; some or a few: Several of the workers went home sick.

-------------------------------------------------
several [ˈsɛvrəl]
determiner
a. more than a few; an indefinite small number several people objected
b. (as pronoun; functioning as plural) several of them know

By the dictionary definition 'several dozen' is at least 48. Are you suggesting that 'several dozen' overstates the number of workers kept on?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:

classifying line workers producing vehicles on an entirely different line as "a few dozen stick around into 2009 to finish an order." is a distortion of reality. Your wording, not mine.

A "distortion of reality?" What reality are you talking about? This statement is perfectly factually true. There number of workers was 57, and they were indeed finishing an order, as the closing of the Isuzu line was announced in June of 2008:

"GM said last June it would end local production of light-duty trucks—Suburbans, Tahoes and GMC Yukons—by the end of 2010 at the latest. It also said it would shut down the medium-duty Isuzu line sometime in 2009."

verified by wiki, and wiki's cited source, an April 2009 story in the Jainesville Gazette. The Politifact article also cites every single one of its claims with original sources. They rated Ryan's claim a lie for a reason, and its not a question of interpretation. Honestly, its too easy these days to check sources for simple facts like this to be disputed. :frustrated:

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When my office of 650 closed down several years ago, the "skeleton crew" that stayed on for a few months to manage the closure would be reasonably described as "several dozen" and was maybe 100 people altogether. The official closure date of our facility was when the headcount went from 650 to ~100.

A group of about half that for a plant which previously staffed at over 1200 people would be even more negligible and wouldn't by any means be considered to be maintaining ongoing operations and the eventual complete shutdown would have been scheduled long before.

[ August 30, 2012, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Characterizing 50+ line workers as several dozen is a stretch.
Um...Four to five of something is pretty much the definition of the low end of "several."

--------

quote:
A group of about half that for a plant which previously staffed at over 1200 people would be even more negligible and wouldn't by any means be considered to be maintaining ongoing operations.
As a side note: except when determining whether GM had to give money back to the state, sadly. [Frown]

[ August 30, 2012, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Are you suggesting that 'several dozen' overstates the number of workers kept on?

I'm saying that Politifact knew the exact number (57) and that their phrasing was misleading. If you are going to be a non-partisan conveyor of facts you use the actual numbers, not a euphemism that down plays the number. You'll also note they only reported the Line workers. There were undoubtedly dozens more in Admin, Maintenance, Janitorial and maybe the Paint Shop.

However, as I said that's merely a stretch. The big whopper was to say the plant closed a month before Obama took office when it clearly was still building cars and then coming up with the conclusion that Ryan lied.

In essence Ryan was far closer to the Truth than Politifact was.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, it means you should think a little about it before blindly accepting liberal talking points.
Good, because I don't, and I come here for you guys to help inform me about them.

quote:
I don't know what you're talking about here, have not followed that so I don't know if it's true or not.
You might want to look into it, since it happens to be the subject of this thread. [Wink]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[FootInMouth]

My apologies on reporting the 57 figure. Apparently that figure was incorrect. The correct figure:
quote:

By ASSOCIATED PRESS Sunday, April 19, 2009

JANESVILLE — As first announced in February, production at the General Motors plant in Janesville will end this week, a GM official said.

GM spokesman Christopher Lee confirmed operations at the southern Wisconsin plant will cease Thursday.

About 1,200 employees were let go just before Christmas when GM ended SUV production at the plant. Some 100 workers were retained to finish an order of small- to medium-duty trucks for Isuzu Motors.

Gazette

I suspect the 57 was the number directly on the production line and the 100 includes everyone.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm saying that Politifact knew the exact number (57) and that their phrasing was misleading. If you are going to be a non-partisan conveyor of facts you use the actual numbers, not a euphemism that down plays the number.
As was mentioned before, "several dozen" in no way "down plays the number".

Why do you repeat this when it has been pointed out to you several times that several dozen can in no way be interpreted to mean less than 4 dozen, and could also correctly describe 5, 6 or 7 dozen? (Seriously, answer this question, to yourself if to nobody else)
quote:
I'm saying that Politifact knew the exact number (57) and that their phrasing was misleading. If you are going to be a non-partisan conveyor of facts you use the actual numbers <snip> You'll also note they only reported the Line workers. There were undoubtedly dozens more in Admin, Maintenance, Janitorial and maybe the Paint Shop
Do you not see the humour here? How many dozen? You've just explained why Politifact may have used a non-determinate number: in addition to the 57 line workers, there may also have been an uncertain number of other workers. Even if we accept your 'dozens' estimate (how many - 2? 3?) that brings the number up to 6-8 dozen. Yup, that is 'several' any way you cut it.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Why do you repeat this when it has been pointed out to you several times that several dozen can in no way be interpreted to mean less than 4 dozen, and could also correctly describe 5, 6 or 7 dozen?

Ok, DonaldD. Let's assume your right about this and using the phrase "several dozen" to describe 100 (over 8 dozen, per the correction) is perfectly acceptable for a Fact Checker. You'll note I characterized that as misleading or a stretch, not a lie. I did also re-use the reality distortion phrase, but again I didn't mean to imply a direct lie, just that the phrasing is misleading.

That being said would you like to address the much more important point involving Politifact's egregious statements:

1) Actually, the plant closed before he (Obama) even took office.

2) So, the plant closed while Bush was still in office, about a month before Obama was inaugurated.

3) Several dozen workers stayed on another four months (April/June 2009) to finish an order of small- to medium-duty trucks for Isuzu Motors.


In what reality can facts 1, 2 & 3 be reconciled? They are mutually exclusive.

The Liberal point of view seems to be: Well, of course Ryan lied, and if we ignore a small part of the truth (item 3) we can safely reach that verdict. When you ignore the truth in order to reach for the bigger TRUTH, you won't get there.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In what reality can facts 1, 2 & 3 be reconciled? They are mutually exclusive
Only if you take "closed" and "finished production obligations" to be necessarily equivalent. Closing a facility like that is not a light switch type of operation; the fact that it took a few months to finish closing out doesn't mean that it didn't actually close when they irrevocably declared the plant to be closed and laid off the bulk of the workers.

The process of closing it started in Dec '08. The fact that it didn't finish closing until Apr '09 doesn't mean that the official closing date was marked at the end, rather than the beginning of the process.

By the time Obama took office, the process of closing the plant was underway and not reversible; the plant was closed, even if it was still finishing up the process of winding it down.

[ August 30, 2012, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The process of closing the plant actually started in 2007. Again, I know people who worked there.

The plant was "closed" in 2008, except for a small crew kept on to finish one job and, non-trivially, prevent the state from legally reclaiming monies to which they would have been entitled had the plant not remained officially open until 2010.

[ August 30, 2012, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
By the time Obama took office, the process of closing the plant was underway and not reversible; the plant was closed, even if it was still finishing up the process of winding it down.

You haven't been following along have you?

The sequence of events:
quote:

1. On February 13, 2008 Obama said in Janesville : “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.”

2. In June 2008 GM announced that the Janesville plant would stop production of medium-duty trucks by the end of 2009, and stop production of large SUVs in 2010 or sooner.

3. In October 2008 Obama doubled down on his promise to keep Janesville plant 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.”

4. In December 2008 GM idled production of GM SUVs at the Janesville plant. Medium-duty truck assembly continued.

5. In April 2009, four months after Obama was inaugurated, GM idled production of medium-duty trucks.

Obama made his second speech after the closings were announced. It's fair to say that Obama didn't actually promise to keep the plant open. I would even give Obama the benefit of the doubt if he just said it's a campaign promise that he couldn't keep.

But for Politifact to ignore all of this and to call Ryan a Liar for merely chastising the President about the issue is partisan. For Politifact to go one step further and pretend the actual facts don't matter is absurd.

By their own admission the plant was still producing vehicles months after Obama took office, but still they wrote the following:

"Actually, the plant closed before he (Obama) even took office." & "So, the plant closed while Bush was still in office, about a month before Obama was inaugurated.".

Those are indisputably incorrect and Politifact absolutely knew they were incorrect. There is absolutely no avoiding the conclusion that Politifact Lied.

[ August 30, 2012, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would agree that the wording was sloppy, but since the analysis was not meant to be taken one sentence at a time (this whole trend to take single sentence 'gotchas' out of context seems to be a symptom of broader political problems in the USA) it doesn't really move me.

Should Politifact have stated, rather, that the plant effectively closed? Sure. But since the sentence in question was part of a broader analysis, and that statement was further explained immediately afterwards (where PF pointed out the several dozen remaining workers, as compared to the 1200 that were laid off in December) then anyone actually reading the analysis would have been absolutely clear.

But what was this in response to again - Ryan's claim, correct? And putting aside the speech where he misrepresented Obama's actual words, what was Ryan's point in his later convention speech?

Would it be fair to say that he blamed Obama for the closure or for not doing enough to keep that plant open? There are a few points that need to be understood regarding that plant closure:
  • The decision to close the plant far pre-dated Obama's inauguration
  • The vast majority of the plant's downsizing occured prior to Obama's inauguration
  • The process of shuttering the vast majority of the plant was in progress before his inauguration
  • The final closure of the plant occured before any policies that Obama proposed could have had any effect.
Basically, Ryan brings this up as an example of Obama's poor stewardship, but all the decisions regarding the closure of the plant, and much of the work of closing the plant occured or was in progress before Obama took office.

Was there anything that Obama could have done, once in office, that could have kept those 1200 workers at their stations, since they were no longer at those stations long before his inauguration? Was there anything he could have reasonably done to extend the employment of the 57 line workers that were only kept on in order to finish their one last contract (and arguably, avoid government penalties associated with previous grants and loans)?

Do you really believe that GM's decision, once made and once mostly implemented, could have been changed by any Obama policy that could only reasonably take effect months after the inauguration?

On a final note, do remember that Obama never even made a promise to keep that particular plant open as Ryan originally claimed. That was, I won't say a lie, but a misrepresentation that Ryan was fortunate not to repeat in front of a national audience.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts,

Do you concede that the plant was scheduled to close, and over 90% shutdown when Obama took office?

Be careful here, your credibility is already skating on very cold water.

If you concede that incontestable fact, then you should probably concede that Obama's policies and actions as President had no effect on the plant's closure.

That is the lie Ryan told, that Obama had any responsibility whatsoever for the closing. And if Ryan wasn't trying to get that point across, there was no purpose to his statement.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
On a final note, do remember that Obama never even made a promise to keep that particular plant open as Ryan originally claimed. That was, I won't say a lie, but a misrepresentation that Ryan was fortunate not to repeat in front of a national audience.

Yes, you are correct, it is fortunate that Ryan didn't Lie or misrepresent Obama. And I complement you on your willingness to admit the obvious truth. Whereas, PolitiFact deserves all the scorn I can heap on them.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
3. In October 2008 Obama doubled down on his promise to keep Janesville plant 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.”
JWatts, you do realize that Obama's statement in this quote is in no way a promise to keep the Janesville plant open, right? A promise "to lead efforts" is aspirational and not a promise of success, but more importantly, a promise to lead efforts to retool plants like Janesville is absolutely not a promise to retool the Janesville plant itself. Basically, this bullet point is a lie that actually calls itself out.

You can certainly argue whether Obama did enough to save or support the auto industry through the financial downturn (ironically, many on the right would argue that he has done far too much in this area) but the claim that he promised to save the Janesville is at best an unintentional misrepresentation.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, you are correct, it is fortunate that Ryan didn't Lie or misrepresent Obama. And I complement you on your willingness to admit the obvious truth. Whereas, PolitiFact deserves all the scorn I can heap on them.
You do realize that just because he did not repeat that particular misrepresentation (I did not use lie, since it is possible he is really dumb or was badly misinformed himself) at the convention, the rest of his statement is no more honest, right? (Well, I know you don't, but it was more of a rhetorical question).

[ August 30, 2012, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: DonaldD ]

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[edited]

[ August 30, 2012, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I kinda meant 'agree' not 'realize' but too late to change it now...
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How the local paper reported it in 2008. jsonline.com

quote:
Workers finished the final production shift and walked out of the General Motors plant Tuesday, personal belongings and unchecked emotions in tow, never again likely to see the inside of the sprawling industrial complex that provided a livelihood and a way of life for generations.

That the last vehicle rolled off the line on a gloomy late December day punctuated by snow and biting wind under a sodden gray sky seemed appropriate.

The world has known for months that this day was coming. That did little to deflect the gut-punch it delivered.

"The hardest thing is that it finally hit home for a lot of people, like a death in the family that you knew was coming," said Rick Banach, who spent the last few years working at the GM plant after living through another shutdown at the Delphi plant in Oak Creek.

"Today they pulled the plug. There were a lot of tears and hugs, but also a sense of pride," Banach said.


Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You all ignore the elephant in the room. Ryan didn't blame Obama for the plant closing. Read what Obama said:

"I believe that if our government is there to support you, this plant will be here for another 100 years."

Then read what Ryan said:

"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 no where in sight."

By no rational reading of Obama and Ryan's statements is it correct or accurate to state that Ryan blamed Obama for causing the plant to close. Rather, he blamed Obama for failing to fulfill a promise he (imprudently) made to save the plant.

There should be nothing controversial here.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except that Obama never made such a promise - which is the point.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If by a "rational" reading you mean a "literal" reading -- which is the only way your post makes sense -- it's worth noting that Obama did not literally promise to save the plant. In fact, the continued existence of the plant in Obama's quote is conditioned upon the support of the government, which was manifestly lacking in 2008 and did not manifest in time to save the plant. Although, oddly, Paul Ryan went hat in hand to the Bush Administration for federal handouts to save the plant, so there was at least some support from the government.

By the time Obama took office, there was no plant to save. Although he did try to make some of the GM money conditional on reopening the plant -- which gave some locals some hope -- only to see the Republicans in the House torpedo that attempt.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
By no rational reading of Obama and Ryan's statements is it correct or accurate to state that Ryan blamed Obama for causing the plant to close.

I think it's a pretty clear implication. Ryan said "that plant didn't last another year. it is locked up and empty to this day." immediately after Obama's quote that "this plant will be here for another 100 years." Why would he say those things in such close proximity if he weren't trying to imply that Obama is responsible for the plant being closed?

Our language isn't designed to only convey meaning through pure deduction. Context manners. Positioning statements near each other implies a connection between them even.

quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Rather, he blamed Obama for failing to fulfill a promise he (imprudently) made to save the plant.

Speaking of implication, Obama didn't promise that he would save the plant if he were elected but he certainly implied it. Unfortunately for him the plant was dead on arrival.

Do you think this story is newsworthy?

[ August 31, 2012, 04:33 AM: Message edited by: threads ]

Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think it's a pretty clear implication. Ryan said "that plant didn't last another year. it is locked up and empty to this day." immediately after Obama's quote that "this plant will be here for another 100 years." Why would he say those things in such close proximity if he weren't trying to imply that Obama is responsible for the plant being closed?
You may argue that he was blaming Obama for being responsible for the plant being closed, but you may just as well argue that he was blaming Obama for making promises that he had no way of keeping, or that he was blaming Obama for being an overoptimistic idiot, etc, etc...
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Great article on "fact checking" .
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
JWatts,

Do you concede that the plant was scheduled to close, and over 90% shutdown when Obama took office?

Be careful here, your credibility is already skating on very cold water.

If you concede that incontestable fact, then you should probably concede that Obama's policies and actions as President had no effect on the plant's closure.

That is the lie Ryan told, that Obama had any responsibility whatsoever for the closing. And if Ryan wasn't trying to get that point across, there was no purpose to his statement.

You got it totally wrong. Totally.

Here's the part Ryan was highlightling, " 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." Did Barry deliver on that?

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The problem was that the government was NOT there when GM made the decision to close the plant, and that decision was made before Obama was president.

So the question of what would have happened if the government had been there is moot - quite aside from the fact that you use the word "deliver" as if there was a promise made - which there was not, another misrepresentation that Ryan has made on many an occasion.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You do know this is GM right?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
Great article on "fact checking" .

Hummm... the conservative article says that the supposedly neutral organization is lying, and the supposedly neutral organization says that the conservatives are lying.

What a surprise. And no less than 3 "anecdotes" to prove it (out of how many? oh, that's right...)

My suggestion to conservatives is to find another "fair and balanced" fact checker who will rig things to make sure each side is lying just as much as the other. After all, we KNOW that to be true. In our hearts. It has the right ring of "truthiness". We just need to found some kind of organization to "prove" our conviction. At any cost.

There's just no way, NO WAY, one side is having to invent more "creative realities" during an election year. It's unpossible!

[ August 31, 2012, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
You do know this is GM right?

Yes. Does GM now (did GM then, will GM in the future) have a magic blue box that could take Obama and a trillion dollars back in time to before when GM made the decision?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1