John McCain and his second wife, Cindy, own 13 cars, while the Obamas have one. Among the McCain's cars are a Volkswagen convertible and a Honda sedan. The McCains also own three '00 NEV Gem electric vehicles, the bubble-shaped cars popular in retirement communities.
But even though this is more cars than they have homes, it is not enough for them. There is also a Lexus used by the second Mrs. McCain but registered to her beer-distributor business (the plates read MS BUD).
Ron Gettelfinger, a devout Catholic and International President of the UAW pointed out that this contradicts McCain's claim in a recent TV interview that he has proudly bought American-made cars all his life. President Gettelfinger stated: "'Buy American' can't just be a slogan John McCain rolls out when he's in Michigan."
Personally, every car I have ever owned was American made and I would never buy an import. But regardless of how one feels, they always have an obligation to tell the truth. John McCain can buy whatever and how many cars he wants. He should not say he only buys American when he does not.
32 comments:
Unless you wrote the quote down wrong, he did not say he only bought American made cars. He said he has been proud to buy American cars. There is a big difference. Now if he would have said, I have never bought an import car that would be a contradiction. BTW Hondas are made in the U.S. They employ American workers and are a superior product to most of the stuff coming out of Detroit.
You forgot to mention that John McCains car, according to Car and Driver magazine which profiled which vehicles politicians drive, was the Cadillac CTS.
Those GEM cars are made in Fargo, ND. Isn't that still in America?
I'm having a hard time finding out where he's lied. Maybe you can help me out.
If I said I bought American-made cars all my life, I would certainly mean that is what I buy, period. Particulary if I was not just a comment in causual conversation but a proclamation I was making suggesting some importance.
Of course, I guess few of us thing of this statement in the context of a stable of 13 cars.
With the McCain's 13 cars and 7 homes, there is a problem with his ability to relate to average Americans.
With the McCain's 13 cars and 7 homes, there is a problem with his ability to relate to average Americans.
Really? I have no problem relating to him even though I am nowhere near that.
If I said I bought American-made cars all my life, I would certainly mean that is what I buy, period.
As a former English teacher let me help you out there. What you mean and what you say are not necessarily related. That is why preciseness in language is so important. There is nothing untrue about his statement. He doesn't qualify it by saying I only buy American, I've never bought an import etc. Now if you want to interpret his statement your way because that is how you think it should be doesn't make it true.
BTW, why was Mr. Gettelfinger (a devout Catholic) really angry when the story leaked about negotiations that would have required the automakers to pay for abortions and birth control for UAW members? Fortunately it did and because of the pressure from pro-life members the measure failed. It would seem that as a "devout Catholic" he would have been opposed to such a measure and made it public on his own, not keep it a secret. And so you don't accuse me of bias that story was on the world socialists web site.
“What you mean and what you say are not necessarily related.”
This is what one would call Republican double speak. Not necessarily new!
So once again we see that McCain is not a maverick. He is just the same old tired Republican bearing false witness. McCain and his minions will say and do anything to get elected and continue the Bush policies. God help us all!
Actually, according to CNN (of all stations) ONE of the cars is registered to JOHN, the rest are registerd to Cindy and other family members.
Actually, according to CNN (of all stations) ONE of the cars is registered to JOHN, the rest are registerd to Cindy and other family members.
What! You mean a family that large has multiple cars? Outrageous.
“What you mean and what you say are not necessarily related.”
I mean that just because Katherine wants to interpret it that way doesn't mean that is the way it is. His words speak for themselves. If you or Katherine want to read into them meaning that isn't there that doesn't not make John McCain a liar.
McCain wins on a techincality. The average American is not thinking a family has 13+ cars, so when a man makes the claim he buys American made cars, they are not thinking it means he sometimes buys American made cars.
Sort of like if McCain were to tell a group of environmentalist "I recycle in my home" when he recycles in one of his seven homes.
Since Katherine is censoring my comments on the older articles I am force to post in the newer ones.
DEMO SAID: CatholicsForDemocracy said...
"Well you keep forgetting the conversation we just had. Now tell me about your position on evolution since you can't comment on what I have said about your nitwit degree."
Sorry, those who invoke "Intelligent Design Theory" will have to find another in, besides me, to enter conversation in this forum.
That's a really great dodge Demo. I never invoked ANY theory. I asked you about evolution. I told you that it is like Political Science, an non-science. I also told you I could prove it. That does not mean that I intend to discuss or prove any form of Creation. It means I can prove that Evolution is not scientific. Now tell us your postition on evolution. What are you afraid of?
No swear words or pornography, Rustler.
"That's a really great dodge Demo. I never invoked ANY theory."
You didn't have to invoke any theory. You were getting ready to. And I'm still not budging. But, His Holiness John Paul II had some things to say on evolution.
Pope John Paul II:
"Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
You know how I hate cross-blog posting. I did attack Intelligent Design in my personal blog. That is where a discussion of evolution would be more relevant, since that is where I brought it up. Go there and debate if you want to debate that matter.
DEMOMARXIST: "You didn't have to invoke any theory. You were getting ready to."
So you're a mind reader now. Just stick to the facts. I told you that I am not here to talk about a theory other than evolution. My point is that it isn't scientific.
I don't care to discuss Intelligent Design or any other Creation theories. I already told you that. Problem is you are afraid that I am right about evolution. You know you'll lose the argument. Fear really gets you doesn't it.
You need not tell me what the popes or the Church says about evolution. I knew what it said before you were born. I know what's compatible. I am not interested in discussing the religious aspects of it. Only the quasi-scientific aspects.
DEMO: "Go there and debate if you want to debate that matter."
As I said, I don't care to debate that issue. You'd lose anyway if I did.
DEMO: "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis."
Whoa, more than a hypothesis? Really. New knowledge? Strange how the evolutionists are always saying that, but can't come up with more than "There's just tons of evidence," but they just can't seem to tell us what it is.
But I am not here to discuss the theory. I am here to discuss that it isn't scientific.
You don't know what I have to say and it scares you doesn't it?
BTW While we're on it do you know the proofs of the existence of God? Just wondering.
"DEMO: 'Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.'
Whoa, more than a hypothesis? Really. New knowledge? Strange how the evolutionists are always saying that, but can't come up with more than 'There's just tons of evidence,' but they just can't seem to tell us what it is."
Excuse me, sir, the quote you're denouncing is from Pope John Paul II, a man many are pushing to be put in the Canon of Saints.
I understand that you may disagree with him, but you can't say I'm somehow not Catholic for agreeing with him.
Or have you forgotten? This is a Catholic forum, not a fundamentalist forum.
"BTW While we're on it do you know the proofs of the existence of God? Just wondering."
Aquinas is not running to be President of the United States, Barack Obama and John McCain are. So, unless you have something to contribute from Aquinas that is relevant to this election, I am not engaging you on him either.
I am staying focused on what is relevant to the blog posts of those contributing to this blog.
John McCain is too busy support Bermuda off-shore tax havens to care about American auto workers.
John McCain is too busy support Bermuda off-shore tax havens to care about American auto workers.
And you have proof of that?
http://www.royalgazette.com/siftology.royalgazette/Article/article.jsp?sectionId=48&articleId=7d78baf3003000b
Earlier this year, Premier Ewart Brown and Premier Paula Cox discussed the tax haven legislation in Washington with influential Democrat politician, Congressman Charles Rangel, chairman of the powerful financial House Ways and Means Committee.
He told the Government delegation that Bermuda was not on the list of jurisdictions that could suffer from the proposed clampdown on offshore US business operations.
Maybe we should be more concerned with the tax evader Mr. Rangel
Ray,
Why don't you get some current info. I see that article you quoted is over a year old.
DEMOMARXIST SAID: "This is a Catholic forum, not a fundamentalist forum."
NO, IT IS NEITHER. IT IS A LIBERAL FORUM. LIBERAL IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH CATHOLIC.
"Excuse me, sir, the quote you're denouncing is from Pope John Paul II, a man many are pushing to be put in the Canon of Saints."
Hey Dunceboy, nothing in that statement is Ex Cathedra. The pope can be mistaken in many areas and still be a saint. Is your knowledge of theology THAT limited?
Of course it is you're a liberal. You pick and choose what you want to believe.
The point still, is the fact that evolution is not scientific. I don't blame you for your fear of arguing that point with me. You know you'll lose.
DEMO SAID: "Aquinas is not running to be President of the United States, Barack Obama and John McCain are. So, unless you have something to contribute from Aquinas that is relevant to this election, I am not engaging you on him either."
Hey, you're the one who brought up Intelligent Design.
"Hey Dunceboy, nothing in that statement is Ex Cathedra. The pope can be mistaken in many areas and still be a saint. Is your knowledge of theology THAT limited?"
Oh, snap! Rustler is suddenly interested in parsing what's "ex cathedra!" He must be, *cough* *cough* *choke *choke*, a liberal!
Guess the cafeteria isn't closed after all!
Sean,
Get real!
I made a statement about McCain's support. (McCain is the Republican nominee against Barack Obama, the topic of this blog). You asked for proof, and I provided it. He spent three days while in the midst of a presidential campaign in Bermuda (no electoral votes) meeting with a number of political (both government and opposition) and corporate leaders. He promosed to look after their interests.
While for some reason you think that this is untimely (is everything Obama said before August 2007 old news?), you try to change the subject to an even earlier incident where the Prime Minister came to Washington, met with Rangel and was told that the provisions Bermuda objected to were not in the draft legislation (its not clear if this is a draft from the White House as tax bills often are or Rangel's draft and Rangel makes no promises as to his position).
I'm not voting for Rangel (I don't live in NY). The topic is the presidential campaign and you were given the proof you asked for about a McCain campaign statement.
Ray,
Let me help you out. The topic concerns recent comments (made within the past few days) made in Detroit regarding the auto industry. You said, "John McCain is too busy support Bermuda off-shore tax havens to care about American auto workers."
I asked you for proof of that and you drag out an article from Aug. 2007. An article which by the way merely states that there is bi-partisan support for an issue affecting Bermuda. There is no correlation between those comments and his current comments in Detroit. Now if Sen. McCain was in DC proposing legislation in favor of Bermuda while ignoring legislation related to the auto industry then you might have something to criticize. But that is not the case here.
As an aside, do any of you have a problem with the plants that GM and Ford operate overseas, employeeing non-US workers.
Sean2,
If your point is that McCain's support for Bermuda tax havens does not distract from his ability to address concerns in the domestic auto industry, I accept that contrary to the current evidence the Senator has a problem with multi-tasking.
My point is I disagree with John McCain's support for Bermuda tax havens.
DEMOMARXIST SAID: "Oh, snap! Rustler is suddenly interested in parsing what's "ex cathedra!" He must be, *cough* *cough* *choke *choke*, a liberal!"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA
OH SO YOU THINK THAT EVERYTHING COMING FROM THE POPE'S MOUTH IS INFALLIBLE????
Since when did you ever give an xxxx about what's infallible and what's not. I'll tell you. It's when it suits your purpose. And yes the cafeteria is still open.
That quote from you above. That's the best reply you can come up with. Just proves what a know nothing nincompoop you are.
"OH SO YOU THINK THAT EVERYTHING COMING FROM THE POPE'S MOUTH IS INFALLIBLE????"
Stop shouting.
No, I do not everything coming from the Pope's mouth is infallible. I think everything coming from Pope's mouth deserves respect, even if you disagree with him. The tone of your response was disrespectful, regardless of whether or not you agreed with him.
DEMO SAID: "The tone of your response was disrespectful, regardless of whether or not you agreed with him."
DEMO, THERE WAS NOTHING DISRESPECTFUL ABOUT ANYTHING I SAID CONCERNING THE POPE. I SAID IT ABOUT EVOLUTIONISTS. THE TONE OF YOUR POSTS IS NOTHING BUT DISRESPECT. YOU HAVE BIG MOUTH, BUT CANNOT BACK IT UP.
PROBLEM IS YOU ARE DODGING THE QUESTION I POSED TO YOU. EVOLUTION IS YOUR LITTLE BABY AND YOU WANT TO PROTECT IT. YOU'RE AFRAID I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION WHILE ALL I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC.
BOTHERS YOU DOESN'T IT?
I'LL MAKE IT SIMPLE. IT'S ALL A LIE. YOU AND ALL OTHER EVOLUTIONISTS BELIEVE IT BECAUSE IT'S ALL YOU HAVE. YOU CANNOT TELL ME THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST EVOLUTION. I ALREADY KNOW THAT.
TO BE SCIENTIFIC, SCIENTISTS HAVE TO BE OPEN TO ALL POSSIBLE PROBLEMS WITH THEIR THEORY. EVOLUTIONISTS ARE MERELY POLITICAL. THEY HIDE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL PROBLEMS THAT THEY CANNOT SOLVE. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THOSE PROBLEMS ARE DO YOU? THAT'S BECAUSE YOU AREN'T INTERESTED IN SCIENCE.
SEE WE DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AFTERALL IF YOU'D JUST ANSWERED MY SIMPLE QUESTION.
"PROBLEM IS YOU ARE DODGING THE QUESTION I POSED TO YOU. EVOLUTION IS YOUR LITTLE BABY AND YOU WANT TO PROTECT IT. YOU'RE AFRAID I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE THEORY...:
No. Evolution is not my baby. I'm dodging the question because it is irrelevant to the blog post and consequent comment thread. Also, because I will not allow a politically-motivated so-called, scientific-theory argument, to take over the thread and re-route the discussion.
"YOUR SNIDE COMMENT ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN INDICATES THAT YOU MUST HAVE NOT STUDIED APOLOGETICS BECAUSE ID IS NOT SOMETHING NEW. IT IS ONE OF THE PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD."
No. The watchmaker theory was one of the proofs of the existence of God, despite the attempts of the Intelligent Design theorists to take over the theory.
I'm still not going to go there with you in this blog.
Post a Comment