Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Dishonest Romney Attack Ads

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 4:12:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 8:22:56 AM, blameworthy wrote:
Romney attempts to link Obama to Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro.

https://www.youtube.com...

I couldn't see the translation, but is he linking them or saying they endorse him? If these people endorse him, it says something about his policies, but still shouldn't be given much weight.

Guilt by association is a feeble argument, but it works with the average moron (read: voter/American). Aren't all republicans and the GOP as a whole racist because a few members of the Tea Party are?
My work here is, finally, done.
angrymen
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 4:46:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 8:22:56 AM, blameworthy wrote:
Romney attempts to link Obama to Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro.

https://www.youtube.com...

Oh no Romney released a false attack ad. Lets put it with the hundreds of others from both sides.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 4:50:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 4:46:34 PM, angrymen wrote:
Oh no Romney released a false attack ad. Lets put it with the hundreds of others from both sides.

+1

Stupidly negative campaigns from both sides this election. Not cool.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 5:02:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 4:46:34 PM, angrymen wrote:
At 11/4/2012 8:22:56 AM, blameworthy wrote:
Romney attempts to link Obama to Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro.

https://www.youtube.com...

Oh no Romney released a false attack ad. Lets put it with the hundreds of others from both sides.

It always irks me when people blur the line to make a stupid point.

Please first produce for us an ad by the Obama campaign which links Romney with Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, or any other unsavory figure, and then you can come back and make that annoying sarcastic comment.

Or, please first produce an ad by the Obama campaign which was actually corrected by an outside politically neutral party for lying,....like what happened with the Chysler ad.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 5:49:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 8:22:56 AM, blameworthy wrote:
Romney attempts to link Obama to Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro.

https://www.youtube.com...

Funny thing; Fidel Castro's Nephew dated my aunt for awhile, and when watching Obama's speech on TV he said "He is just like Castro". Obama reminded him allot of uncle Castro, which is scarey.

By the way; he was amazed by all the options we have at the supermarket, and by our technology (such as the iphone). God bless America!
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 5:51:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 5:02:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 4:46:34 PM, angrymen wrote:
At 11/4/2012 8:22:56 AM, blameworthy wrote:
Romney attempts to link Obama to Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro.

https://www.youtube.com...

Oh no Romney released a false attack ad. Lets put it with the hundreds of others from both sides.

It always irks me when people blur the line to make a stupid point.

Please first produce for us an ad by the Obama campaign which links Romney with Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, or any other unsavory figure, and then you can come back and make that annoying sarcastic comment.

Or, please first produce an ad by the Obama campaign which was actually corrected by an outside politically neutral party for lying,....like what happened with the Chysler ad.

Everyone calm the fvck down.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 5:53:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 5:02:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 4:46:34 PM, angrymen wrote:
At 11/4/2012 8:22:56 AM, blameworthy wrote:
Romney attempts to link Obama to Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro.

https://www.youtube.com...

Oh no Romney released a false attack ad. Lets put it with the hundreds of others from both sides.

It always irks me when people blur the line to make a stupid point.

Please first produce for us an ad by the Obama campaign which links Romney with Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, or any other unsavory figure, and then you can come back and make that annoying sarcastic comment.

Or, please first produce an ad by the Obama campaign which was actually corrected by an outside politically neutral party for lying,....like what happened with the Chysler ad.

For crying out loud. Chrysler clarified their position. Romney told the truth, he said exactly what the PRESIDENT of JEEP said.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
blameworthy
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 11:44:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 10:55:17 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Obama has been endorsed by Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Vladimir Putin. It's the diversity of the Left.

No comprende Espanol.

Obama has been endorsed by virtually every foreign leader because he is popular outside of the United States. No foreign leader wants to endorse Romney. Selectively picking three in order to associate Obama with leftism is dishonest. Instead, Romney should have revealed the truth: nobody likes him outside of the United States. Even Netanyahu has declined to back Romney's statements about Obama's foreign policy.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 11:50:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 11:44:50 AM, blameworthy wrote:
At 11/5/2012 10:55:17 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Obama has been endorsed by Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Vladimir Putin. It's the diversity of the Left.

No comprende Espanol.

Obama has been endorsed by virtually every foreign leader because he is popular outside of the United States. No foreign leader wants to endorse Romney. Selectively picking three in order to associate Obama with leftism is dishonest. Instead, Romney should have revealed the truth: nobody likes him outside of the United States. Even Netanyahu has declined to back Romney's statements about Obama's foreign policy.

Poland endorsed Romney, Israel obviously prefers it.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
blameworthy
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 11:56:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 11:50:08 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 11/5/2012 11:44:50 AM, blameworthy wrote:
At 11/5/2012 10:55:17 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Obama has been endorsed by Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Vladimir Putin. It's the diversity of the Left.

No comprende Espanol.

Obama has been endorsed by virtually every foreign leader because he is popular outside of the United States. No foreign leader wants to endorse Romney. Selectively picking three in order to associate Obama with leftism is dishonest. Instead, Romney should have revealed the truth: nobody likes him outside of the United States. Even Netanyahu has declined to back Romney's statements about Obama's foreign policy.

Poland endorsed Romney, Israel obviously prefers it.

No, Poland did not endorse Romney. A former Polish president endorsed Romney, but he (Lech Walesa), is not the current leader. Lech Walesa is an anti-leftist who obtained power towards the end of the Cold War. He is currently a meaningless figure.

Israel has openly refused to endorse Romney despite the fact that Netanyahu is one of Romney's closest allies.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 1:21:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 11:56:51 AM, blameworthy wrote:
At 11/5/2012 11:50:08 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 11/5/2012 11:44:50 AM, blameworthy wrote:
At 11/5/2012 10:55:17 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Obama has been endorsed by Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Vladimir Putin. It's the diversity of the Left.

No comprende Espanol.

Obama has been endorsed by virtually every foreign leader because he is popular outside of the United States. No foreign leader wants to endorse Romney. Selectively picking three in order to associate Obama with leftism is dishonest. Instead, Romney should have revealed the truth: nobody likes him outside of the United States. Even Netanyahu has declined to back Romney's statements about Obama's foreign policy.

Poland endorsed Romney, Israel obviously prefers it.

No, Poland did not endorse Romney. A former Polish president endorsed Romney, but he (Lech Walesa), is not the current leader. Lech Walesa is an anti-leftist who obtained power towards the end of the Cold War. He is currently a meaningless figure.

Poland did denounce Obama after Obama refered to the Nazi death camps as "Polish death camps".
Prime Minister Donald Tusk referred to the remark as "ignorance, lack of knowledge, bad intentions".
The former President of Poland, the anticommunist icon, Lech Walesa, told Romney, "I wish you to be successful because this success is needed to the United States, of course, but to Europe and the rest of the world, too." He also refused to meet with Obama.

Prime Minister Tusk also met with Romney last July, during his trip to Poland.

Israel has openly refused to endorse Romney despite the fact that Netanyahu is one of Romney's closest allies.

The reason Netanyahu has publicly told Obama that he will not endorse anyone, is because he has grown increasingly critical of the Obama administration, causing his opposition to claim that he might be looking to help Mitt Romney get elected. His refusal to endorse a candidate has more to do with Israeli politics, than US politics.
Imagine if Obama became increasingly critical of David Cameron, and Romney claimed Obama was trying to help the labour party become the new British Prime Minister. The isolationists would be up in arms calling Obama an imperialist who installs puppet regimes. Romney would end up gaining support from the isolationists.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 1:45:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Most world leaders are uninteresting because they want the US to just spend all the money fighting terrorism and propping up the world economy while they do little. The leftist dictators are more interesting. They know they can always talk and talk while acting in opposition to US interests, and that Obama is unlikely to intervene.
blameworthy
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 1:53:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 1:21:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/5/2012 11:56:51 AM, blameworthy wrote:
At 11/5/2012 11:50:08 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 11/5/2012 11:44:50 AM, blameworthy wrote:
At 11/5/2012 10:55:17 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Obama has been endorsed by Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Vladimir Putin. It's the diversity of the Left.

No comprende Espanol.

Obama has been endorsed by virtually every foreign leader because he is popular outside of the United States. No foreign leader wants to endorse Romney. Selectively picking three in order to associate Obama with leftism is dishonest. Instead, Romney should have revealed the truth: nobody likes him outside of the United States. Even Netanyahu has declined to back Romney's statements about Obama's foreign policy.

Poland endorsed Romney, Israel obviously prefers it.

No, Poland did not endorse Romney. A former Polish president endorsed Romney, but he (Lech Walesa), is not the current leader. Lech Walesa is an anti-leftist who obtained power towards the end of the Cold War. He is currently a meaningless figure.

Poland did denounce Obama after Obama refered to the Nazi death camps as "Polish death camps".
Prime Minister Donald Tusk referred to the remark as "ignorance, lack of knowledge, bad intentions".
They denounced Obama for one statement. That does not equate to endorsing Romney.
The former President of Poland, the anticommunist icon, Lech Walesa, told Romney, "I wish you to be successful because this success is needed to the United States, of course, but to Europe and the rest of the world, too." He also refused to meet with Obama.

Lech Walesa is a national icon because his Solidarity Movement expelled the Soviets, but he is not the leader of his nation and does not conduct the foreign policy. He endorsed Romney based on his personal beliefs.
Prime Minister Tusk also met with Romney last July, during his trip to Poland.

Meeting with Romney is not equivalent to endorsing him. The same people met with Obama and McCain when they were running, but they endorsed Obama.
Israel has openly refused to endorse Romney despite the fact that Netanyahu is one of Romney's closest allies.

The reason Netanyahu has publicly told Obama that he will not endorse anyone, is because he has grown increasingly critical of the Obama administration, causing his opposition to claim that he might be looking to help Mitt Romney get elected. His refusal to endorse a candidate has more to do with Israeli politics, than US politics.
Imagine if Obama became increasingly critical of David Cameron, and Romney claimed Obama was trying to help the labour party become the new British Prime Minister. The isolationists would be up in arms calling Obama an imperialist who installs puppet regimes. Romney would end up gaining support from the isolationists.

This does not make any sense. Why does he care about what different factions think about the candidates in the United States?
blameworthy
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 1:55:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 1:45:59 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Most world leaders are uninteresting because they want the US to just spend all the money fighting terrorism and propping up the world economy while they do little
You do realize that we have been funneling the profits from production in most areas of the world to the United States since the 60s, correct? We have not been contributing to the economy. We have been funding deficits on the back of the labor of other nations.
. The leftist dictators are more interesting. They know they can always talk and talk while acting in opposition to US interests, and that Obama is unlikely to intervene.

Why should Obama intervene? Do we intervene against the rightist dictators? (Hint: we actually install them).
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 2:09:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 1:55:45 PM, blameworthy wrote:
You do realize that we have been funneling the profits from production in most areas of the world to the United States since the 60s, correct? We have not been contributing to the economy. We have been funding deficits on the back of the labor of other nations.

The US has a chronic trade deficit, so no. the financial burden of the World Bank, the UN, and bailing out weak foreign economies through trade has been a US job.

Why should Obama intervene? Do we intervene against the rightist dictators? (Hint: we actually install them).

Because he swore a oath to protect and defend the United States, and not to look out for anyone else's interests. If it's in the US interest to have a right-wing dictator than we should support one. Right-wing dictators tend to transition into democracies (Taiwan, South Korea, etc.) whereas left-wing dictators tend to go totalitarian for a long time. South America as a whole is now prospering by having dumped the leftist dictators. (Chavez aside.)

It's a judgment call as to what is in the US interest, but if you want the rule to be that the glorious workers' revolution should always be supported, the presidential oath has to be changed.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 2:19:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 1:53:57 PM, blameworthy wrote:
At 11/5/2012 1:21:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/5/2012 11:56:51 AM, blameworthy wrote:
At 11/5/2012 11:50:08 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 11/5/2012 11:44:50 AM, blameworthy wrote:
At 11/5/2012 10:55:17 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Obama has been endorsed by Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Vladimir Putin. It's the diversity of the Left.

No comprende Espanol.

Obama has been endorsed by virtually every foreign leader because he is popular outside of the United States. No foreign leader wants to endorse Romney. Selectively picking three in order to associate Obama with leftism is dishonest. Instead, Romney should have revealed the truth: nobody likes him outside of the United States. Even Netanyahu has declined to back Romney's statements about Obama's foreign policy.

Poland endorsed Romney, Israel obviously prefers it.

No, Poland did not endorse Romney. A former Polish president endorsed Romney, but he (Lech Walesa), is not the current leader. Lech Walesa is an anti-leftist who obtained power towards the end of the Cold War. He is currently a meaningless figure.

Poland did denounce Obama after Obama refered to the Nazi death camps as "Polish death camps".
Prime Minister Donald Tusk referred to the remark as "ignorance, lack of knowledge, bad intentions".
They denounced Obama for one statement. That does not equate to endorsing Romney.
They called him ignorant with bad intentions. That is pretty much denouncing Obama. It's a negative endorsement in favor of Romney. If you denounce one candidate but stay silent in regards to the other, you grant a negative endorsement for the other candidate.
The former President of Poland, the anticommunist icon, Lech Walesa, told Romney, "I wish you to be successful because this success is needed to the United States, of course, but to Europe and the rest of the world, too." He also refused to meet with Obama.

Lech Walesa is a national icon because his Solidarity Movement expelled the Soviets, but he is not the leader of his nation and does not conduct the foreign policy. He endorsed Romney based on his personal beliefs.
Didn't say he was the leader of his nation, only that he was a national icon for his stance against communism.
Prime Minister Tusk also met with Romney last July, during his trip to Poland.

Meeting with Romney is not equivalent to endorsing him. The same people met with Obama and McCain when they were running, but they endorsed Obama.
didn't say the meeting equated to endorsement only that they did meet. Someone said earlier that Romney didn't visit foreign countries.
Israel has openly refused to endorse Romney despite the fact that Netanyahu is one of Romney's closest allies.

The reason Netanyahu has publicly told Obama that he will not endorse anyone, is because he has grown increasingly critical of the Obama administration, causing his opposition to claim that he might be looking to help Mitt Romney get elected. His refusal to endorse a candidate has more to do with Israeli politics, than US politics.
Imagine if Obama became increasingly critical of David Cameron, and Romney claimed Obama was trying to help the labour party become the new British Prime Minister. The isolationists would be up in arms calling Obama an imperialist who installs puppet regimes. Romney would end up gaining support from the isolationists.

This does not make any sense. Why does he care about what different factions think about the candidates in the United States?

Are you illiterate? I said his opposition within Israel claimed his increased criticism of Obama was so that he can prop up Romney. He refused to endorse any candidate because of political attacks by his opposition within Israel.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
blameworthy
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 2:33:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 2:09:51 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/5/2012 1:55:45 PM, blameworthy wrote:
You do realize that we have been funneling the profits from production in most areas of the world to the United States since the 60s, correct? We have not been contributing to the economy. We have been funding deficits on the back of the labor of other nations.

The US has a chronic trade deficit, so no. the financial burden of the World Bank, the UN, and bailing out weak foreign economies through trade has been a US job.

The Cato Institute notes that economies grow more strongly in years with trade deficits because large trade deficits represent high foreign confidence in the economy.

http://www.cato.org...
Why should Obama intervene? Do we intervene against the rightist dictators? (Hint: we actually install them).

Because he swore a oath to protect and defend the United States, and not to look out for anyone else's interests.
1. Looking out for everybody's interests =/= harming US defense. Leftist dictators in other nations do not pose a threat to US citizens.

2. Intervening in other nations spawns terrorism. Al Qaeda became active against the US as a result of our interference in the Middle East. Non-intervention provides no incentive to attack the United States.

3. Even if he swore an oath, he is not permitted to use that violate the rights of people outside the United States. He has general obligations to those individuals. The reason that oaths and promises matter is because we have natural rights. Without rights to bind people to carrying out their promises, oaths become meaningless. "Words are wind" describes this aptly.
it's in the US interest to have a right-wing dictator than we should support one. Right-wing dictators tend to transition into democracies (Taiwan, South Korea, etc.) whereas left-wing dictators tend to go totalitarian for a long time. South America as a whole is now prospering by having dumped the leftist dictators. (Chavez aside.)

This is highly misleading. The only reason that this is true is that right-winged dictators tend to benefit a subset of the elite and thus cause the people to revolt. Leftist dictators, such as Castro, are popular because they provide social services for the people.

You are also assuming that democracy is the best form of government.
It's a judgment call as to what is in the US interest, but if you want the rule to be that the glorious workers' revolution should always be supported, the presidential oath has to be changed.
blameworthy
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 2:37:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 2:19:42 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/5/2012 1:53:57 PM, blameworthy wrote:
At 11/5/2012 1:21:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/5/2012 11:56:51 AM, blameworthy wrote:
At 11/5/2012 11:50:08 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 11/5/2012 11:44:50 AM, blameworthy wrote:
At 11/5/2012 10:55:17 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Obama has been endorsed by Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Vladimir Putin. It's the diversity of the Left.

No comprende Espanol.

Obama has been endorsed by virtually every foreign leader because he is popular outside of the United States. No foreign leader wants to endorse Romney. Selectively picking three in order to associate Obama with leftism is dishonest. Instead, Romney should have revealed the truth: nobody likes him outside of the United States. Even Netanyahu has declined to back Romney's statements about Obama's foreign policy.

Poland endorsed Romney, Israel obviously prefers it.

No, Poland did not endorse Romney. A former Polish president endorsed Romney, but he (Lech Walesa), is not the current leader. Lech Walesa is an anti-leftist who obtained power towards the end of the Cold War. He is currently a meaningless figure.

Poland did denounce Obama after Obama refered to the Nazi death camps as "Polish death camps".
Prime Minister Donald Tusk referred to the remark as "ignorance, lack of knowledge, bad intentions".
They denounced Obama for one statement. That does not equate to endorsing Romney.
They called him ignorant with bad intentions. That is pretty much denouncing Obama. It's a negative endorsement in favor of Romney. If you denounce one candidate but stay silent in regards to the other, you grant a negative endorsement for the other candidate.
Denouncing one candidate is not equivalent to supporting another. Poland clearly does not favor either Obama or Romney. The Polish people rallied in favor of Ron Paul the moment Romney landed on Polish soil.
The former President of Poland, the anticommunist icon, Lech Walesa, told Romney, "I wish you to be successful because this success is needed to the United States, of course, but to Europe and the rest of the world, too." He also refused to meet with Obama.

Lech Walesa is a national icon because his Solidarity Movement expelled the Soviets, but he is not the leader of his nation and does not conduct the foreign policy. He endorsed Romney based on his personal beliefs.
Didn't say he was the leader of his nation, only that he was a national icon for his stance against communism.
His endorsement is functionally meaningless if he is not leading the nation.
Prime Minister Tusk also met with Romney last July, during his trip to Poland.

Meeting with Romney is not equivalent to endorsing him. The same people met with Obama and McCain when they were running, but they endorsed Obama.
didn't say the meeting equated to endorsement only that they did meet. Someone said earlier that Romney didn't visit foreign countries.
Ok.
Israel has openly refused to endorse Romney despite the fact that Netanyahu is one of Romney's closest allies.

The reason Netanyahu has publicly told Obama that he will not endorse anyone, is because he has grown increasingly critical of the Obama administration, causing his opposition to claim that he might be looking to help Mitt Romney get elected. His refusal to endorse a candidate has more to do with Israeli politics, than US politics.
Imagine if Obama became increasingly critical of David Cameron, and Romney claimed Obama was trying to help the labour party become the new British Prime Minister. The isolationists would be up in arms calling Obama an imperialist who installs puppet regimes. Romney would end up gaining support from the isolationists.

This does not make any sense. Why does he care about what different factions think about the candidates in the United States?

Are you illiterate? I said his opposition within Israel claimed his increased criticism of Obama was so that he can prop up Romney. He refused to endorse any candidate because of political attacks by his opposition within Israel.

I would like evidence of this, please.

In addition, I highly doubt that any Israelis believes that Israel controls the United States government or that the president can become an Israeli puppet.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 12:07:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
In the category of outrageous falsehoods, Obama ads have claimed Romney would have let the auto companies go into bankruptcy rather than being saved. This overlooks the basic fact Obama did in factput the auto companies into bankruptcy, an illegal bankruptcy designed to pay off the unions.

In the Obama-arranged bankruptcy, bond holders that were supposed to receive top priority were screwed, white-collar workers lost all their pensions while union worker pensions were bailed out, and auto dealers were forced out of business just to punish them. Romney favored a legal bankruptcy in which the government would come in at the end if not enough private capital could be raised. The way it was done by Obama, the companies still have serious cost problems from the union payoffs. Taxpayers are out $25 billion.