The third and final debate

[Mayhem]

Here is Obama's remarks during the debate:

“But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

From TGP:

Now here’s the truth…
Marines still use bayonets.
Horses were used by the military during the Iraq invasion.

Obama also does not know the difference between a ship and a boat.
Submarines are boats – not ships.
What an embarrassment.


Read more at http://www.reagancoalition.com/arti...obama-military-gaffe.html#J712qvPk6QE2sdw2.99

Hey dumbass, try waking the fuck up and reading your own post. Jeezus Christ on a pogostick, when do you just plain start being embarrassed for being this dumb?

P.S. Allen West isn't exactly a password to credibility.

 

[Johan]

Here is Obama's remarks during the debate:

“But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

From TGP:

Now here’s the truth…
Marines still use bayonets.
Horses were used by the military during the Iraq invasion.

Obama also does not know the difference between a ship and a boat.
Submarines are boats – not ships.
What an embarrassment.


Read more at http://www.reagancoalition.com/arti...obama-military-gaffe.html#J712qvPk6QE2sdw2.99

Obama didn't said "We don't us horses and bayonets anymore", he sais "We have less horses and bayonets"

Obama also does not know the difference between a ship and a boat.
Submarines are boats – not ships.
What an embarrassment.

Haven't you notice the tone he used ? He said these things as if he was talking to a 7 years old boy. A 7 years old boy don't know the difference between a boat and a ship.

 

[Mayhem]

Y'know, I wanted the hick dumbass to burn brain cells figuring it out for himself.

No soup for you. :nono:

 

[mikexmoran]

All the nonsense of making fun of what people say and how they say it aside, we need to cut spending. The military should not be a sacred cow. There is no reason why we can trim billiions and still keep a strategy to protect the country. A strategic cut in military spending is a good budget move.

 

[larss]

Here is Obama's remarks during the debate:

“But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

From TGP:

Now here’s the truth…
Marines still use bayonets.
Horses were used by the military during the Iraq invasion.

Obama also does not know the difference between a ship and a boat.
Submarines are boats – not ships.
What an embarrassment.

" Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed"

As for Submarines being ships - well they are...
The Navy considers all vessels ships; however, submarines are historically referred to as boats due to the nature of the first submarines. A boat in Naval terminology is a vessel that is launched or tended from a larger ship. The earliest submarines required support vessels to maintain and launch them, hence they were termed boats.

 

[Supafly]

I admire everybody who still wants to vote republican... this clown club is so beyond reason, and after their wtrategy of filibustering everything... I would say only total anti americans could vote for them

 

[Johan]

 

[Johan]

 

[Sam Fisher]

Even David Letterman Wakes Up and Smells the Coffee

Apparently even a moonbat like David Letterman can only be fed so many lies before he starts to choke:

“Here’s what upset me [about the last debate] … this playing fast and loose with facts. And President Obama cites the op-ed piece that Romney wrote about Detroit, ‘Let them go bankrupt, let them go bankrupt.’ And [in the debate] he brings it up again, ‘Oh no, Governor, you said let them go bankrupt, blah blah blah, let them go bankrupt, blah.’ And Mitt said, ‘No, no, check the thing, check the thing, check the thing.’

“Now, I don’t care whether you’re Republican or Democrat, you want your president to be telling the truth, you want the contender to be lying. And so when we found out today or soon thereafter that, in fact, the President Obama was not telling the truth about what was excerpted from that op-ed piece, I felt discouraged. …

“The fact that the President is invoking it and swearing that he was right and that Romney was wrong and I thought, well, he’s the president, of course he’s right. Well, it turned out no, he was taking liberties with that.”

“Taking liberties” means Obama was lying through his teeth regarding Romney’s approach to GM’s bankruptcy, which would have been much more beneficial for the company in the long run than Obama’s because he would not have sold out the company to the union that had crippled it. Maybe this is why the Detroit News endorses Romney, who has caught up with Obama in Michigan despite Obama’s bogus smears.



moonbattery.com

 

[Sam Fisher]

Or, watch it here ----> http://www.ijreview.com/2012/10/200...ons-obamas-integrity-concerning-auto-bailout/

 

[Mayhem]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

By MITT ROMNEY

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

 

[Sam Fisher]

Obama was lying through his teeth regarding Romney’s approach to GM’s bankruptcy, which would have been much more beneficial for the company in the long run than Obama’s because he would not have sold out the company to the union that had crippled it. Maybe this is why the Detroit News endorses Romney, who has caught up with Obama in Michigan despite Obama’s bogus smears.

What you (mayhem) and the others in here don't seem to understand is, GM would have benefited better had they gone through a bankruptcy, versus a "bailout" from the government. GM would have come out much leaner and they would have had more flexibility to re-think their business strategies.

Example: Shit canning many of the under-producing employees who are "saved by the unions" and, the healthcare plan that the unions refused to pay for, even a small portion every month, versus GM having to cover all the costs.

By the way... how's the VOLT working out?

But the biggest problem I have with the bailout of GM is... the government has NO business running a major car manufacturer.

 

[Mayhem]

I Googled the reviews of the Volt and they are as positive as any other car, In a car sense, every model is going to have things that the reviewer don't like. In a Hybrid sense, all new technologies take time. I remember when CD players were hit and miss. Other than that, everything seems to be going as well as can be expected with the Volt and Hybrids in general.

In terms of the bailout, everyone has their opinion. If I know I'm not smart enough to know for certain one way or the other, I sure as shit know that you ain't either.

Your assertion (and Letterman's) was that Obama was lying when he said that Romney said "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". Bang, there you go. He wasn't.

 

[Johan]

Obama was lying through his teeth regarding Romney’s approach to GM’s bankruptcy, which would have been much more beneficial for the company in the long run than Obama’s because he would not have sold out the company to the union that had crippled it. Maybe this is why the Detroit News endorses Romney, who has caught up with Obama in Michigan despite Obama’s bogus smears.

What you (mayhem) and the others in here don't seem to understand is, GM would have benefited better had they gone through a bankruptcy, versus a "bailout" from the government. GM would have come out much leaner and they would have had more flexibility to re-think their business strategies.

Example: Shit canning many of the under-producing employees who are "saved by the unions" and, the healthcare plan that the unions refused to pay for, even a small portion every month, versus GM having to cover all the costs.

By the way... how's the VOLT working out?

But the biggest problem I have with the bailout of GM is... the government has NO business running a major car manufacturer.

Let GM go bakrupt may have been better in the long-run for the company. But not for the people who would have lost their job.

 

[xfire]

Obama was lying through his teeth regarding Romney’s approach to GM’s bankruptcy, which would have been much more beneficial for the company in the long run than Obama’s because he would not have sold out the company to the union that had crippled it. Maybe this is why the Detroit News endorses Romney, who has caught up with Obama in Michigan despite Obama’s bogus smears.

What you (mayhem) and the others in here don't seem to understand is, GM would have benefited better had they gone through a bankruptcy, versus a "bailout" from the government. GM would have come out much leaner and they would have had more flexibility to re-think their business strategies.

Example: Shit canning many of the under-producing employees who are "saved by the unions" and, the healthcare plan that the unions refused to pay for, even a small portion every month, versus GM having to cover all the costs.

By the way... how's the VOLT working out?

But the biggest problem I have with the bailout of GM is... the government has NO business running a major car manufacturer.

Everything you just posted is bullshit, no surprise because everything you post is bullshit. Romney would have done with GM what Bain Capital has done with so many other companies- sold them in pieces, "harvesting profit", and destroying jobs. It's what he made his fortune doing.