Ted Cruz, running for President?

[FiredMotorCompany]

And one that I could expect to called a racist for pointing out.

 

Where I find the hypocrisy is (from where I'm standing) voting FOR someone because he's black is just as bad as voting against him for the same reason.

Preaching to the choir, brother!

[phil1336]

A factor that was beyond his control. As opposed to his character, behavior, record as a student,community organizer, church affiliation, state senator or president, things he should be judged on

Like admitting that he had experimented with Marijuana,Cocaine, possibly Hashish, and unlike Bill Clinton, he (admitted) he inhaled the substance on either Jay Leno or Dave Letter saying what was the purpose if "not to inhale"? You never smoked a Joint, huh? As one who served in Vietnam, attended Woodstock, and still smokes a "Doobie" occasionally, does that make me Un-American, A Socialist, A Moslem, A Birther Suspect, or a Felon with the exception of living in enlightened States like TX and FL? And your point is...? Admit it, its all about his Permanent`s (Tan) and Post Racial America, period! Since when is "Church Affiliation" a "litmus test" for holding any Political Office, no less the Presidency? Most of our "Founding Fathers" were watered down Christians and Universal/Unitarians at the best or simply "Deists", including Ben Franklin. Thomas Jefferson had the gall to write his own version of The Holy Scripture with his Jeffersonian Bible. With our supposed separation of Church and State, what would exclude and agnostic or atheist from holding office simply because they choose not to believe in Fairytales? Must one adhere to forever believing in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny or The Tooth Fairy to be qualified for holding Office? The Neocons, Chicken Hawks and the Military Industrial Complex as well as our DEpartment of War are simple pissed off at him for not getting us into our next "conflict" that Mitt Romney promised them with his tough talk with Iran and North Korea. Bring back the Draft before we begin our next adventure in Nation Building and advancing our Imperialism. Easy for Fox News Chicken Hawks and most of our Militant Politicians to be ready to spend someone else`s Blood and Treasure just as long as its not themselves or a Family member.

[phil1336]

Preaching to the choir, brother!

Almost like Voting (for) someone simply because they are idiots, lack intelligence and could`nt hold Office as Dog Catcher do to their stupidity. Sara Palin, Louie Gohmert, Steve King, Michelle Bachmann, etc. They got rid of Voter Suppression laws that used literacy tests to disqualify people from their right to Vote. How about bring them back to qualify people before they are allowed to run for political office? Think Honey Boo Boo`s Family could pass the old Jim Crow Literacy tests themselves? What about using Family Values and Old Time Religion as a qualifier? Would former disgraced SC Gov Mark Sanford been able to run and win his Senate seat back again? Hypocrisy can be blinded and overlooked just as long as you can see only out of ones (Right) Eye! Can I have an Amen?

[FiredMotorCompany]

Admit it, its all about his Permanent`s (Tan) and Post Racial America, period!

 

Take a moment and try to visualize the possibility that it has nothing to do with the 50% black, the 50% white or anything to do with race. Can you open your mind to that? If so, can you deny there could be reasonable cause to object to his actions, regardless of his race?

 

Since when is "Church Affiliation" a "litmus test" for holding any Political Office, no less the Presidency? Most of our "Founding Fathers" were watered down Christians and Universal/Unitarians at the best or simply "Deists", including Ben Franklin. Thomas Jefferson had the gall to write his own version of The Holy Scripture with his Jeffersonian Bible. With our supposed separation of Church and State, what would exclude and agnostic or atheist from holding office simply because they choose not to believe in Fairytales? Must one adhere to forever believing in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny or The Tooth Fairy to be qualified for holding Office?

 

Go to church, or not. I don't care. but, if you go to a church that supports wife abuse, incest, rape, lashing, theft, hatred, or terrorism, that becomes a factor in qualifications to sit in the White House. Would it not? And therefore, the fact Obama sat in a church for "20 years" and yet didn't ever hear his preacher say things similar to what was recorded....by his own church.....make you a hypocrite for going only for the "image" of being a member of that church....or a liar. Or he truly DID accept such preaching and was shamed by the rest of the country so he threw his pastor of 20 years under the bus to save his own presidency....which he never dared to think would be a possibility, so he had no problem until the 2008 campaign.

He's a "post turtle".

 

 

The Neocons, Chicken Hawks and the Military Industrial Complex as well as our DEpartment of War are simple pissed off at him for not getting us into our next "conflict" that Mitt Romney promised them with his tough talk with Iran and North Korea. Bring back the Draft before we begin our next adventure in Nation Building and advancing our Imperialism. Easy for Fox News Chicken Hawks and most of our Militant Politicians to be ready to spend someone else`s Blood and Treasure just as long as its not themselves or a Family member.

 

Good ole Republican president Eisenhower warned us of the Military Industrial Complex. Wasn't that so nice of him?

Edited August 21, 2013 by FiredMotorCompany

[phil1336]

The proof is in the fact that Obama was re-elected; largely based on undermining Romney and not on promoting Obama who essentially had one thing going for him--being black.

Like there was very little material to work with to undermine Mitt Romney. A ultra-moderate Republican that was (never) Conservative and could`nt have been elected Gov of one of the most Liberal and Educated States in the Nation, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts if he actually was. A person who had (zero) convictions on any issue except the bottom line on a profit and loss statement. Someone who "etch -a-sketch" a change of position on every issue and matter quicker then he would shower and change his clothing. Flip-flopper personification. The architect of Massachusetts "RomneyCare" that was latter used by Obama and the Democrats as a blueprint for the Affordable Healthcare Act that was later renamed "ObamaCare". Mitt did himself a lot of favors by advancing some very popular ideas such as Self-Deportation and his infamous Fund Raiser at the St Andrews Country Club in Posh, Boca Raton FL where he made such elitist and disparaging remarks showing utter and complete contempt towards the few remaining middle class, ae: working poor as well as the poor ,elderly and less fortunate certainly gave him the (boost) he was counting on. Blame that on the Dems and Libs, right. Like Flip Wilson used to say, "The Devil made me do it ", with Mitt, "My magic Mormon underwear made me say it". Unlike a CFO, CEO, COB, he never once took person responsibility for any of his miss-steps. Man Up!

[grbeck]

It wasn't a communist country when they left. Castro wasn't even in the country when his family left.

 

Funny, they do the same thing with Cuba. They return to see family and friends even thought they are exiles (some are, some are just emigrants)

 

Please provide proof that Rubio's family only returned to Cuba after Castro took power to see "family and friends." They intended to stay, but left when they realized the direction that Castro was taking the country.

 

The simple fact is that Rubio's family are exiles, despite the desperate fact-bending and half-truths used by his critics.

[RangerM]

Like there was very little material to work with to undermine Mitt Romney. A ultra-moderate Republican that was (never) Conservative and could`nt have been elected Gov of one of the most Liberal and Educated States in the Nation, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts if he actually was. A person who had (zero) convictions on any issue except the bottom line on a profit and loss statement. Someone who "etch -a-sketch" a change of position on every issue and matter quicker then he would shower and change his clothing. Flip-flopper personification. The architect of Massachusetts "RomneyCare" that was latter used by Obama and the Democrats as a blueprint for the Affordable Healthcare Act that was later renamed "ObamaCare". Mitt did himself a lot of favors by advancing some very popular ideas such as Self-Deportation and his infamous Fund Raiser at the St Andrews Country Club in Posh, Boca Raton FL where he made such elitist and disparaging remarks showing utter and complete contempt towards the few remaining middle class, ae: working poor as well as the poor ,elderly and less fortunate certainly gave him the (boost) he was counting on. Blame that on the Dems and Libs, right. Like Flip Wilson used to say, "The Devil made me do it ", with Mitt, "My magic Mormon underwear made me say it". Unlike a CFO, CEO, COB, he never once took person responsibility for any of his miss-steps. Man Up!

Re: "etch-a-sketch", et al.

 

Like I said before, unsurpassed.

[phil1336]

Re: "etch-a-sketch", et al.

 

Like I said before, unsurpassed.

Just saying...While Governor, was Pro-Choice, later, Pro-Life and Anti-Womens`s Choice on Abortion under all situations. While Gov of MA, receptive to Same-Sex Unions/ Marriage, later, Anti. Previously believed in Man-Made Global warming and Carbon Issues, flipped flopped under Tea party pressure to saying it was a hoax and a Liberal lie. Other then believing that the worshipped "Job Creators" and former "Robber Barons" deserved to pay lower or no Income Tax compared to the Slugs who punched a Time Clock everyday and felt that having Healthcare is a benefit and entitlement that should not be considered a right of all American Citizens regardless of Social and Income status but something to be (negotiated) between management and labor was very interesting. Guess when your born and endowed with a Sterling Silver or Platinum Spoon in your mouth, you see things differently. Mitt Romney`s dream for America is ultimately a "Caste" system like in India. Just deal with it. The "shining Nation sitting on the mountain"will have full employment that`s to staff the Service and Restaurant Industry minimum-wage, non--union, Part Time Jobs. Walmart will lead the parade. Beware of Socialism! You see the misery it caused Canada! Our Nation of haves and have nots with little hope of advancement due to unbridled corporate greed will lead us down the same path that South Africa traveled. America`s only answer to full employment and prosperity is through constantly looking to engage in yet another War for some good cause. Mostly helping Halliburton Shareholders with more no-bid contracts. Henry Ford paid his assembly line workers higher wages then anyone did in his era. Why? He wanted them to able to (afford) to buy one of (his) Vehicles. When all the major U.S. Auto manufacturers embraced Robots to replace Union Workers on the assembly lines because they don`t go on Strike, don`t require Health, Holiday or Vacation benefits, don`t need to be paid overtime wages and host of other pluses. UAW President Walter Ruthers rebutted by saying, all the above is irrrefutable and true, (BUT) the Robots "don`t" purchase Cars either!

[grbeck]

Henry Ford paid his assembly line workers higher wages then anyone did in his era. Why? He wanted them to able to (afford) to buy one of (his) Vehicles. When all the major U.S. Auto manufacturers embraced Robots to replace Union Workers on the assembly lines because they don`t go on Strike, don`t require Health, Holiday or Vacation benefits, don`t need to be paid overtime wages and host of other pluses. UAW President Walter Ruthers rebutted by saying, all the above is irrrefutable and true, (BUT) the Robots "don`t" purchase Cars either!

 

This is not correct. Ford paid the higher wage to prevent turnover on the assembly line. Workers were not used to doing the same job, repeatedly, all day, so turnover was approaching 90 percent. Ford was spending lots of money hiring and training new workers.

 

He paid the higher wage to keep workers on the job. He could afford to do this because he was exploiting a completely new market - working class people and farmers who had never before owned a car. He intially had little, if any competition for these buyers (other manufacturers were selling higher price cars).

 

Ford didn't employ enough workers to make a real difference in his total sales, even if they all bought a new Model T in the same year.

 

Through the mid-1920s, the market for first-time car buyers was not saturated, so Ford was ensured increasing sales, which meant that he could raise wages AND lower prices. Once the market for first-time buyers was saturated, which it was by the mid-1920s, this strategy was no longer feasible.

 

Now we get lower prices (adjusted for inflation and standard equipment) through IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY. Which means the use of those dreaded robots, along with the superior production processes used by the Japanese transplant operations. Toyota, for example, by the late 1990s, could build the same number of vehicles as GM could, but with 1/3 the number of workers.

 

Given that those robots and better production processes have resulted in superior products (one hopes and prays, for example, that no one is clueless enough to say that an early 2000 domestic car was better than a comparable Honda or Toyota), customers haven't complained. Neither, by the way, have workers in the transplant operations, who have enjoyed decent wages and working conditions that have been BETTER than those enjoyed by UAW workers in the supposedly wonderful 1950s and 1960s. So, for that matter, do the remaining workers in Ford, GM and Chrysler plants.

 

I know that this is hard to believe for many on the left in general, and union members in particular, but most of us aren't pining for the 1960s, and we aren't going to buy a Fusion or a Malibu instead of an Accord so that UAW members can pretend it's still 1965. We've seen what happened to GM and Chrysler, not to mention Detroit, and realize that the final outcome in each case wasn't because of free-market ideology run amok or too much time spent reading Ayn Rand novels. Quite the opposite.

Edited August 21, 2013 by grbeck

[RangerM]

Henry Ford paid his assembly line workers higher wages then anyone did in his era. Why? He wanted them to able to (afford) to buy one of (his) Vehicles. When all the major U.S. Auto manufacturers embraced Robots to replace Union Workers on the assembly lines because they don`t go on Strike, don`t require Health, Holiday or Vacation benefits, don`t need to be paid overtime wages and host of other pluses. UAW President Walter Ruthers rebutted by saying, all the above is irrrefutable and true, (BUT) the Robots "don`t" purchase Cars either!

By that logic, shouldn't H. Ford have paid his workers even more, so they could purchase more cars, or even Lincolns?

 

It's true that robots don't buy cars, but the people who design, build, and maintain them do.

[phil1336]

This is not correct. Ford paid the higher wage to prevent turnover on the assembly line. Workers were not used to doing the same job, repeatedly, all day, so turnover was approaching 90 percent. Ford was spending lots of money hiring and training new workers.

 

He paid the higher wage to keep workers on the job. He could afford to do this because he was exploiting a completely new market - working class people and farmers who had never before owned a car. He intially had little, if any competition for these buyers (other manufacturers were selling higher price cars).

 

Ford didn't employ enough workers to make a real difference in his total sales, even if they all bought a new Model T in the same year.

 

Through the mid-1920s, the market for first-time car buyers was not saturated, so Ford was ensured increasing sales, which meant that he could raise wages AND lower prices. Once the market for first-time buyers was saturated, which it was by the mid-1920s, this strategy was no longer feasible.

 

Now we get lower prices (adjusted for inflation and standard equipment) through IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY. Which means the use of those dreaded robots, along with the superior production processes used by the Japanese transplant operations. Toyota, for example, by the late 1990s, could build the same number of vehicles as GM could, but with 1/3 the number of workers.

 

Given that those robots and better production processes have resulted in superior products (one hopes and prays, for example, that no one is clueless enough to say that an early 2000 domestic car was better than a comparable Honda or Toyota), customers haven't complained. Neither, by the way, have workers in the transplant operations, who have enjoyed decent wages and working conditions that have been BETTER than those enjoyed by UAW workers in the supposedly wonderful 1950s and 1960s. So, for that matter, do the remaining workers in Ford, GM and Chrysler plants.

 

I know that this is hard to believe for many on the left in general, and union members in particular, but most of us aren't pining for the 1960s, and we aren't going to buy a Fusion or a Malibu instead of an Accord so that UAW members can pretend it's still 1965. We've seen what happened to GM and Chrysler, not to mention Detroit, and realize that the final outcome in each case wasn't because of free-market ideology run amok or too much time spent reading Ayn Rand novels. Quite the opposite.

Could`nt have been stated and presented any better by Ayn Rand`s biggest advocate and Fan, Paul Ryan himself, Congratulations ! If purchasing a "quality" Shirt, Pants, or Shorts sold by Orvis, Lands End, Eddie Bauer, or LL Bean with superior fabric and tailoring at inflated obscene prices that were made in Bangladesh, Sir Lanka, India,China, etc where workers toil in sweat shop conditions for $2.00 a day pay makes you feel better then buying similar garbage at a fraction of the cost at Walmart, enjoy. Keep supporting the outsourcing of Manufacturing to the sub-continent of cheapest labor regardless of the product. Its all about the "bottom line". Hundreds of people and children loosing their lives recently in the devastating fire recently in Bangladesh is just a sound bite on the Lefties News and just collateral damage of the cost of doing business. True, the Japanese, Koreans, and Germans forced Detroit to improve quality control to survive. Who`s fault was that? If Management and Supervision were doing their job, they would have made sure that the UAW workers on the line were building quality Cars instead of just encouraging Productivity Quotas and how many Units per hour could roll of the line per hour. Management determined to "just let the Dealers" fix the water leaks, squeaks/rattles, etc once the Vehicles reached the Dealerships or the Customers complained and brought their cars back for repair and adjustment. As far as reliability goes, other then Rolls and Bentley, any other British Vehicles that lead by example of reliability and being trouble free? Triumph, MG, Alpine Sunbeam, Austin-American,etc? GM thought by moving their new Saturn Manufacturing Plant from the Ghetto`s of the "Hood" in the inner City of Detroit to the (white) countryside community of Spring Hill, TN would be the answer. You see how that turned out for them, including the unique concept of a "Fixed" no haggle pricing and the No Dicker Sticker way of selling Cars. That too must be placed at the feet of Labor, not Management, correct?

[phil1336]

By that logic, shouldn't H. Ford have paid his workers even more, so they could purchase more cars, or even Lincolns?

 

It's true that robots don't buy cars, but the people who design, build, and maintain them do.

My point exactly! Those that "BUILD" them must be paid a livable wage and benefit package to be able to purchase a "New" Vehicle instead of having to buy a used Junk at a Sled Lot where you Buy Here- Pay here.

[RangerM]

My point exactly! Those that "BUILD" them must be paid a livable wage and benefit package to be able to purchase a "New" Vehicle instead of having to buy a used Junk at a Sled Lot where you Buy Here- Pay here.

What goes into the cost of building a car?

[grbeck]

Could`nt have been stated and presented any better by Ayn Rand`s biggest advocate and Fan, Paul Ryan himself, Congratulations ! If purchasing a "quality" Shirt, Pants, or Shorts sold by Orvis, Lands End, Eddie Bauer, or LL Bean with superior fabric and tailoring at inflated obscene prices that were made in Bangladesh, Sir Lanka, India,China, etc where workers toil in sweat shop conditions for $2.00 a day pay makes you feel better then buying similar garbage at a fraction of the cost at Walmart, enjoy. Keep supporting the outsourcing of Manufacturing to the sub-continent of cheapest labor regardless of the product. Its all about the "bottom line". Hundreds of people and children loosing their lives recently in the devastating fire recently in Bangladesh is just a sound bite on the Lefties News and just collateral damage of the cost of doing business. True, the Japanese, Koreans, and Germans forced Detroit to improve quality control to survive. Who`s fault was that? If Management and Supervision were doing their job, they would have made sure that the UAW workers on the line were building quality Cars instead of just encouraging Productivity Quotas and how many Units per hour could roll of the line per hour. Management determined to "just let the Dealers" fix the water leaks, squeaks/rattles, etc once the Vehicles reached the Dealerships or the Customers complained and brought their cars back for repair and adjustment. As far as reliability goes, other then Rolls and Bentley, any other British Vehicles that lead by example of reliability and being trouble free? Triumph, MG, Alpine Sunbeam, Austin-American,etc? GM thought by moving their new Saturn Manufacturing Plant from the Ghetto`s of the "Hood" in the inner City of Detroit to the (white) countryside community of Spring Hill, TN would be the answer. You see how that turned out for them, including the unique concept of a "Fixed" no haggle pricing and the No Dicker Sticker way of selling Cars. That too must be placed at the feet of Labor, not Management, correct?

All I can say is that, if you believe that the quality of various items sold by Walmart is equal to that of more expensive brands, you obviously have never performed a direct comparison between these various items. I have, and, yes, there is a real difference.

 

Now, whether the quality differential justifies the level of PRICE differential is a question worthy of debate, but that doesn't mean that the quality differential does not exist.

 

You also realize that, for those people in various countries, working in a factory is a STEP UP from their lives (generally as dirt-poor farmers or slum dwellers who begged for money). In many cases, their wages really do help improve the lives of their families.

 

This may come as a shock, but for these workers, the choice isn't, "Work in factory or sit at home and collect welfare or take cushy office job."

 

The choice is, "Work in factory and make more money or continue to exist at near-starvation levels while performing back-breaking labor."

 

As for the fire at the factory in Bangladesh - there was an explosion at the Ford plant in the early 2000s, which killed several people. Now, applying your logic to this situation, I had better never buy a Ford, I had better buy a Toyota instead. Correct?

 

Regarding the auto industry, was management partially to blame for poor quality? Absolutely. I certainly don't blame the union completely. And Ford, to its credit, has maintained a better working relationship with the UAW than either GM or Chrysler. Although, in one of those ironies that makes life interesting, it is largely because the family heirs that have run the company have made this a priority.

 

But the union doesn't get off scot-free here. One reason that Detroit was hindered in its effort to upgrade quality was because of the higher costs caused by work rules zealously protected by the union, along with the Jobs Bank. (Actual wages are roughly similar among the Big Three and the transplant operations.) This raised the costs for the Big Three, and forced them to skimp in various ways.

 

I'm a little perplexed as to why you are bringing up the various British automobile brands, given that. a. I never mentioned them (I specifically limited my examples to Honda and Toyota for a reason) and b. the very militant British unions played a key role in decimating the old-line British manufacturers (although, again, they were not the SOLE reason).

 

As for Saturn - the quality of early Saturn cars was good. The problem was that GM never made money on Saturn, as it didn't offer vehicles that S-Series owners could "trade up" to, and Saturn didn't have enough volume to justify its many unique components.

 

Are you aware that line workers at the Spring Hill facility have always been represented by the UAW? The plant did operate under a unique union contract for several years, but that was abandoned. In the mid-1990s, I had the privilege of speaking with the UAW leader who initially worked on the Saturn project, and he was concerned for the future of the contract and the plant, given that both GM and UAW management hated Saturn's status and unique labor contract.

Edited August 21, 2013 by grbeck

[grbeck]

My point exactly! Those that "BUILD" them must be paid a livable wage and benefit package to be able to purchase a "New" Vehicle instead of having to buy a used Junk at a Sled Lot where you Buy Here- Pay here.

 

 

I don't know of any autoworkers in this country - at either the Big Three or the transplant operations - who have to buy a vehicle at the Buy Here, Pay Here lot because they can't afford anything else (unless they have financial problems related to spending too much money on other things).

 

At any rate, there are more options available to car shoppers than, "brand-new vehicle" and "junker at Buy Here, Pay Here lot."

[Langston Hughes]

The proof is in the fact that Obama was re-elected; largely based on undermining Romney and not on promoting Obama who essentially had one thing going for him--being black.

 

And Romney being not black, which is essentially the one thing Romney, the slimy used car salesman had going for him, besides his attempts to undermine Obama on the ACA.

 

A factor that was beyond his control. As opposed to his character, behavior, record as a student,community organizer, church affiliation, state senator or president, things he should be judged on

 

You forgot Law professor. He was as judged on the content of his character as much as Romney was, that's why Mitt lost.

[FiredMotorCompany]

And Romney being not black, which is essentially the one thing Romney, the slimy used car salesman had going for him, besides his attempts to undermine Obama on the ACA.

 

 

You forgot Law professor. He was as judged on the content of his character as much as Romney was, that's why Mitt lost.

Law professor? That's a stretch. LAW LECTURER is more accurate. The irony runs thick when I consider he current dismissals of constitutional abuses he has a finger in....correction whole FIST.

[FiredMotorCompany]

And Romney being not black, which is essentially the one thing Romney, the slimy used car salesman had going for him, besides his attempts to undermine Obama on the ACA.

 

 

You forgot Law professor. He was as judged on the content of his character as much as Romney was, that's why Mitt lost.

Law professor? That's a stretch. Senior Lecturer is more accurate. The irony runs thick when I consider the current dismissals of constitutional abuses he has a finger in....correction whole FIST. Edited August 22, 2013 by FiredMotorCompany

[Langston Hughes]

This is not correct. Ford paid the higher wage to prevent turnover on the assembly line. Workers were not used to doing the same job, repeatedly, all day, so turnover was approaching 90 percent. Ford was spending lots of money hiring and training new workers.

 

He paid the higher wage to keep workers on the job. He could afford to do this because he was exploiting a completely new market - working class people and farmers who had never before owned a car. He intially had little, if any competition for these buyers (other manufacturers were selling higher price cars).

 

Ford didn't employ enough workers to make a real difference in his total sales, even if they all bought a new Model T in the same year.

 

Through the mid-1920s, the market for first-time car buyers was not saturated, so Ford was ensured increasing sales, which meant that he could raise wages AND lower prices. Once the market for first-time buyers was saturated, which it was by the mid-1920s, this strategy was no longer feasible.

 

Actually your both right and wrong. Ford did do it to slow attrition but he also stated that he wanted to increase wages so the workers would be able to afford the product they made. If your buying the product you make then you will do a better job in terms of quality right. a double win. And everyone has read that Forbes artlcle.

 

Now where your wrong is in the fact that much of the 5 dollar day has to do with a very strange and pretty evil social engineering experiment that Ford conducted. To receive the 5 dollars, you had to be married, you had to meet a certain number of criteria and you had to lead what Hank though of as a clean life. The company had a dept that would come around and check up on you.

 

See that's the problem with the Forbes article is that Ford did a number of things that had little to do with making money and more to do with his own beliefs. To suggest that he did it all for money is not in line with what Henry Ford was completely about.

[Langston Hughes]

Law professor? That's a stretch. Senior Lecturer is more accurate. The irony runs thick when I consider the current dismissals of constitutional abuses he has a finger in....correction whole FIST.

Double post.

 

Besides we went over that before. The university of Chicago considered him a professor so he's a professor.

[Langston Hughes]

Please provide proof that Rubio's family only returned to Cuba after Castro took power to see "family and friends." They intended to stay, but left when they realized the direction that Castro was taking the country.

 

The simple fact is that Rubio's family are exiles, despite the desperate fact-bending and half-truths used by his critics.

 

Please provide the context in which I suggested Rubio's family did that?

 

Here's Cal50's post and my reply to his post. Look for context. Underline to underline and bold to bold.

 

 

You should look up the definition of the word "exile" because his parents did leave their native communist country.

Its the same one Mike Moore and celebs like to visit but not live or work there.

 

Makes more sense that giving visa's to people like the Boston bombers who filed for asylum here but then went on vacation to the same country they supposedly fled from.

All getting the "OK" from our state department.

 

 

It wasn't a communist country when they left. Castro wasn't even in the country when his family left.

 

Funny, they do the same thing with Cuba. They return to see family and friends even thought they are exiles (some are, some are just emigrants)

 

So Cal50 was wrong, because the Rubio's fled Cuba when it was under Bautista and not communist. That is factual. Castro was in Mexico at the time his family fled having been released from prison.

 

And many Cuban's do return each year to a country that their families fled just like the eldest Tsarneyev brother did.

[cal50]

Law professor? That's a stretch. Senior Lecturer is more accurate. The irony runs thick when I consider the current dismissals of constitutional abuses he has a finger in....correction whole FIST.

 

 

Chicago is a shining example of success so its natural to elect someone / people with extensive background in success to do the same for the nation.

No one really knows what that background is or amounts to in real terms but that is beside the point.

 

Like I have said before Carter was a dolt as president and to his credit he managed a state.

Obama is clueless and makes Carter look like a genius and that is hard to do.

[cal50]

No. That is not correct. Rubio is not a liar. Here is his statement on the matter:

 

What’s important is that the essential facts of my family’s story are completely accurate. My parents are from Cuba. After arriving in the United States, they had always hoped to one day return to Cuba if things improved and traveled there several times. In 1961, my mother and older siblings did in fact return to Cuba while my father stayed behind wrapping up the family’s matters in the U.S. After just a few weeks living there, she fully realized the true nature of the direction Castro was taking Cuba and returned to the United States one month later, never to return.

 

And, oops, Rubio has the documentation to back up these claims.

 

Breaking this down, we discover that...his parents were in the United States when Castro took over Cuba (this part is true).

 

But, they had planned to eventually return to Cuba. (It's hardly unbelievable that people would regularly travel between the two countries, given how close Cuba is to Florida. We aren't talking about Outer Mongolia here.)

 

His mother and older siblings did, in fact, return to Cuba AFTER Castro assumed power. Not being clueless, however, they realized the direction Castro was taking Cuba, and therefore got the heck out of Dodge, er, Cuba, as fast as possible, and never returned.

 

Now, based on those facts, I'd say that it's accurate to call Rubio the son of Cuban exiles.

 

Of course, another problem with your contention is that Rubio never said that he was the son of exiles, as shown by the Miami Herald's examination of what he actually said:

 

But the top of the story suggests Rubio himself has given this “dramatatic account:” that “he was the son of exiles, he told audiences, Cuban Americans forced off their beloved island after ‘a thug,’ Fidel Castro, took power.”

 

However, the story doesn’t cite one speech where Rubio actually said that.

 

To back up the lead, the Washington Post excerpts from a 2006 address in the Florida House where Rubio said “in January of 1959 a thug named Fidel Castro took power in Cuba and countless Cubans were forced to flee… Today your children and grandchildren are the secretary of commerce of the United States and multiple members of Congress…and soon, even speaker of the Florida House.”

 

The catch: If you listen to the speech, Rubio isn’t just talking about those who specifically fled Cuba after Castro took power. He doesn’t say that his parents fled Cuba. Instead, he was talking about “a community of exiles.” That is: He was talking about all the Cubans who live in Miami.

 

 

 

Rubio's parents considered themselves exiles because they could not return to their country after the revolution, as do many Cubans.

Now some want to define "exile" a different way, and call Rubio a liar. Pretty pathetic.

 

Double standard and selective outrage at best.

 

Now if you want to see a real documented liar........

 

http://www.bnd.com/2012/11/05/2384820/recalling-plagiarism-by-biden.html

[RangerM]

And Romney being not black, which is essentially the one thing Romney, the slimy used car salesman had going for him, besides his attempts to undermine Obama on the ACA.

 

 

You forgot Law professor. He was as judged on the content of his character as much as Romney was, that's why Mitt lost.

Actually Romney is a former governor and an accomplished CEO. Those are two things Obama didn't have going for him, at all. And the "Law Professor" thing would carry more weight, if Obama actually followed the law, rather than ignoring it as he has done (especially lately).

 

Obama could claim to have four years' experience as President. That is true. But, America's experience with him AS President wasn't something a white man would have been re-elected on.

 

(Edit) I didn't forget that Osama Bin Ladin was taken out. But, ANY President would have done that; even a President Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich.

Edited August 22, 2013 by RangerM

[FiredMotorCompany]

Double post.

 

Besides we went over that before. The university of Chicago considered him a professor so he's a professor.

Conveniently re-defining the title. Well they CERTAINLY wouldn't DARE to let his HIGHNESS be challenged on his claims.

I imagine the other "professors" felt just peachy-keen about their hard work, scholarly literature, degrees and accomplishments were made worthless since it took so little to earn such a title now.