The Odd Lies of Paul Ryan

[BenBurch]

Exaggerating one's sports accomplishments seems to be something of a tradition for politicians. Anybody remember John Kerry claiming that he once ran the Boston Marathon?

I recall the American people didn't elect Mr. Kerry.

 

[Puppycow]

An exaggeration about running when he was twenty is important because? What does this have to do with anything?

It's the question I highlighted in the OP:

Is the potential Vice President the sort of person who lies congenitally?

 

[Dorian Gray]

No, it's not, not even the person who reported it got the impression he was trying to hide anything. He may have just been mistaken, he never ran a marathon again, or anything close to it as the article also points out.



No, he's being smeared and you're sucking it up.



No, he didn't. He was lied about and you didn't catch it and continue to spread it.

Incidentally the plant did close during the Obama presidency, but that's not what he was getting at.



I already answered all four of those dishonest claims in the GOP convention thread. Hopefully you will learn something about the credulity of certain elements in the media to a smear if they're still 'all over the news.'

If you've run ONE friggin marathon, it is reasonable for us to expect you to remember what your time was in that marathon and not to lie about it.

And the announcement of the plant closure happened in June of 2008. And let's not forget that it was a GM plant - and GOPs are bitching about the GM bailout, up to and including Wrongney who said "let GM fail."

I've certainly learned a lot about your willingness to stretch the truth. How about Ryan voting against the same thing he claimed Obama didn't do? How about Ryan voting for the Medicare prescription bill and the Iraq war, yet being all Budgetary Reform Man? How about Ryan attacking Obama for Medicare, when his budget removes the same amount of money?

Furthermore, if someone lies about something that is so totally easy to check, particularly in this day and age, then what else will he lie about? And what does that say about the person who chose him as a running mate? Oh, right, Wrongney, the candidate that never met a position he didn't hold.

 

[Puppycow]

This is what's called a 'smear.' There's no lies in his convention speech,

FactCheck.org says otherwise:

Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention contained several false claims and misleading statements.

 

[Caper]

I feel you guys are right impressed with yourselves because you've discovered politicians lie...... That's quite the news flash.

 

[angrysoba]

I feel you guys are right impressed with yourselves because you've discovered politicians lie...... That's quite the news flash.

I don't know why someone always makes this non-defence defence when a politician lies.

 

[Kaosium]

If you've run ONE friggin marathon, it is reasonable for us to expect you to remember what your time was in that marathon and not to lie about it.

From twenty years before? He never ran another one, perhaps he remembered he was shooting to finish in the 'threes' and came close and got mixed up about it? That would be an eight minute or so mile, which for someone running shorter differences doesn't sound all that impressive and it had been twenty years. What purpose would this 'lie' serve? Why would he do it and blithely tell people where they could find the results?

And the announcement of the plant closure happened in June of 2008.

Ryan acknowledged in his speech he knew the plant was going to close. How did that escape your attention? You still do not understand the very simple point he was trying to make? Obama came to the plant we all knew was going to be closed down, he made a speech saying this was the sort of thing government could help with, and maybe that plant would be there in a hundred years. It's still closed and Janesville has not recovered. Ryan didn't blame anyone he just illustrated how things hadn't gotten better in his home district. Now read what he actually said and not what others have 'inferred' from it:

President Barack Obama came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two. Those were very tough days, and any fair measure of his record has to take that into account. My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville,where we were about to lose a major factory.
A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.” That’s what he said in 2008.

Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.

Everything he said is true and it's not like he dwelt overmuch on it, it was a few lines from a speech about the nature of this 'economic recovery.' Calling him a 'liar' and trying to make it sound like he made a big deal about it is one of the most dishonest tactics I've seen in politics, there's no defense for it. That might be why none of them (in the media) will fess up to being duped and keep lying and misdirecting about it. Sad.

And let's not forget that it was a GM plant - and GOPs are bitching about the GM bailout, up to and including Wrongney who said "let GM fail."

Ryan supported the GM bailout, Wisconsin politicians of both parties have a long tradition of being mavericks and independent sometimes. We kinda like that.

I've certainly learned a lot about your willingness to stretch the truth.

Not quite, you've failed to learn something about discerning truth from dishonest spin. Just poking around it appears this is going to be a tactic in certain quarters, just calling people 'liars' when in fact it's them who are misrepresenting another person's position and creating dishonest strawmen. The chief amongst them appear to be the activists sending their crap to the 'fact checkers' who don't even bother to see if the 'fact check' is even accurate. It must have tested well as a strategy and is being implemented. Wonderful.

This isn't going to fix any problems, and 'winning' with these tactics will just scorch the earth more and ensure that Obama and friends won't get any cooperation (how could they expect it doing crap like this?) and be left holding the bag when the economic mess explodes again. Hurrah.

How about Ryan voting against the same thing he claimed Obama didn't do?

How is his vote relevant? Maybe he thought Obama could have done more/worked harder on it? Did he mention his vote in the speech? Who brought that vote into the discussion, do you honestly think that was the only way to handle it?

How about Ryan voting for the Medicare prescription bill and the Iraq war, yet being all Budgetary Reform Man?

The budget has to be reformed, regardless of past votes, that's something (just about) every Congressman is going to have to face, I don't understand why you single out Ryan?

How about Ryan attacking Obama for Medicare, when his budget removes the same amount of money?

He changed his mind on it after speaking to party leaders, as per Newt Gingrich's appearance on PBS the day (or day before) he gave his speech. At the convention he was not representing his plan, but Romney's because Mitt Romney is at the top of the ticket. Does that make sense?

It would actually be in everyone's interest if Medicare is completely overhauled and replaced, however some people (like my 85 year-old grandmother for instance) just don't want to deal with having to pick a plan that would allow them more options. Letting people keep what they have (if they want to) even if it's not as good is better politics, though perhaps you can see why Ryan wanted to push a plan that would actually be better for them and didn't want to give up on it easily.

Furthermore, if someone lies about something that is so totally easy to check, particularly in this day and age, then what else will he lie about? And what does that say about the person who chose him as a running mate? Oh, right, Wrongney, the candidate that never met a position he didn't hold.

It's a credulity check, you're not the only one who failed. Naturally it would be idiotic for him to lie about something so easily checked, so either he's a psychopathic liar and no one ever noticed or some people are going to have admit they were duped fairly easily (and some of them that they lied) and I guess that's gonna be beyond the power of a lot of people.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Can you imagine how this would play out if it were Obama?

His Kenyan family would disown him if he ran anything over 2:10.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The presidential race is like a marathon, in that it's long, and easy for Paul Ryan to lie about.

... and that he will finish behind at least one other party.

 

[Kaosium]

FactCheck.org says otherwise:

Then that pretty much sums it up for 'factcheck's' credibility. Reality doesn't change because someone decided they could call themselves 'fact check' and thus be the Final Word on everything.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Kaosium,
I was a long distance runner back when. I ran a few marathons and I actually did three hours or just about. You know if you can do a three hour marathon, believe me. Just as you know if you can do 2 1/2. Those are based on training paces of the more serious runners. I trained at 7 minute miles for my distance workouts and built up so that I could do the 26 miles at the same pace. That's how certain I am that I ran a 3:03... It was exactly on pace. And if I was a notch above at 6 minute miles (I never trained hard enough and I was already in my 30s when I was doing my serious running), I'd have hit the 2.5 hour mark. And I'd know it.

If he was serious about running (and fast when he was young), then he'd well know the difference between 9 minute pace and 7 minute pace. If you can do 7 minutes consistently, you'll finish in the top couple of hundred runners. That's pretty respectable when the top 50 are usually pros and the next 50 are likely to be club runners trying to get to that level,... and that's why so many people target exactly that pace; there a dozens of programs written for people who want to break that barrier. Sub-3 is the target of the dedicated amateur/hobbyist. I do not buy that he slipped up. He's probably been claiming this for ages and no one's ever taken him up on it.

There's too much just plain b.s.-ing in his speeches. He has a rather cavalier relationship with the truth. If you have to repeatedly pull out "well, technically..." then there's a problem.

 

[Puppycow]

Then that pretty much sums it up for 'factcheck's' credibility. Reality doesn't change because someone decided they could call themselves 'fact check' and thus be the Final Word on everything.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

And reality doesn't change because you refuse to accept it.

Here's another Ryan lie that fits the pattern:

“I never asked for stimulus,” Mitt Romney’s new running mate said. “I don’t recall… so I really can’t comment on it. I opposed the stimulus because it doesn’t work, it didn’t work.”

Two years ago, during an interview on WBZ’s NewsRadio he was asked by a caller if he “accepted any money” into his district. Ryan said he did not.

“I’m not one [of those] people who votes for something then writes to the government to ask them to send us money. I did not request any stimulus money,” the congressman answered.

But as we’ve now learned, Ryan did write letters. He did request stimulus funds.

The facts are the facts. He lied.

 

[Kaosium]

And reality doesn't change because you refuse to accept it.

Here's another Ryan lie that fits the pattern:




The facts are the facts. He lied.

Nope. Ryan writes budgets, he knows how it works. So do all the big boys in Congress. If you want stimulus money you have it written it into the bill. ('earmarks') Forwarding legitimate requests for the Energy Center from the Energy Department is not 'requesting' stimulus money, it's a constituent service. Should he tell them 'no?' He's their congressman! It's his job.

Incidentally, did any of that $500 billion (in spending) 'stimulus' end up in the First district of Wisconsin? I couldn't find any evidence of that, though I did find that Ron Paul had $96 million or so earmarked for his district.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Nope. Ryan writes budgets, he knows how it works. So do all the big boys in Congress. If you want stimulus money you have it written it into the bill. ('earmarks') Forwarding legitimate requests for the Energy Center from the Energy Department is not 'requesting' stimulus money, it's a constituent service. Should he tell them 'no?' He's their congressman! It's his job.

You're tacitly ignoring what he said. Did he or did he not say that he's not the kind of guy who writes to get money for the folks at home? It's there in the quote. Did he or did he not then write a letter on behalf of a constitutent organization?

Do you have a "Well, technically..." answer. Because you just turned it around and explained THE OTHER WAY that people get funds for their districts - by earmarking. But he said nothing about earmarking. He said he wasn't the sort of person to write off for government money and clearly he did.

Incidentally, did any of that $500 billion (in spending) 'stimulus' end up in the First district of Wisconsin? I couldn't find any evidence of that, though I did find that Ron Paul had $96 million or so earmarked for his district.

This question wasn't raised. I don't know the answer, but it's not really germane as the question is whether or not Paul Ryan is just another politician who pulls facts and stances out of his butt when the occasion suits.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium,
I was a long distance runner back when. I ran a few marathons and I actually did three hours or just about. You know if you can do a three hour marathon, believe me. Just as you know if you can do 2 1/2. Those are based on training paces of the more serious runners. I trained at 7 minute miles for my distance workouts and built up so that I could do the 26 miles at the same pace. That's how certain I am that I ran a 3:03... It was exactly on pace. And if I was a notch above at 6 minute miles (I never trained hard enough and I was already in my 30s when I was doing my serious running), I'd have hit the 2.5 hour mark. And I'd know it.

If he was serious about running (and fast when he was young), then he'd well know the difference between 9 minute pace and 7 minute pace. If you can do 7 minutes consistently, you'll finish in the top couple of hundred runners. That's pretty respectable when the top 50 are usually pros and the next 50 are likely to be club runners trying to get to that level,... and that's why so many people target exactly that pace; there a dozens of programs written for people who want to break that barrier. Sub-3 is the target of the dedicated amateur/hobbyist. I do not buy that he slipped up. He's probably been claiming this for ages and no one's ever taken him up on it.

According to the article he doesn't run marathons, he did it once. Twenty years ago, and he runs far shorter distances. Don't you see that in both the article itself and your experience requires the assumption that this was a major part of his life (at the time) therefore he 'must' have information/experiences that he might not?

At any rate memory works like that sometimes, naturally. People sometimes assume they did better at something or remember something better than they actually do--there's been like studies and everything! They weren't lying and it doesn't indicate a 'cavalier relationship with the truth' it's just being human.

There's too much just plain b.s.-ing in his speeches. He has a rather cavalier relationship with the truth. If you have to repeatedly pull out "well, technically..." then there's a problem.

Yeah, 'technically' what Ryan said is the truth. It's also actually a ridiculous 'technicality' to pretend that Obama didn't break a promise when he went to a depressed area and said what he did and then had a chance to help Janesville and did not. That was the oldest GM plant in existence still (I think) there's no other goddamn reason for a presidential candidate to go to Janesville WI (trust me I've been there!) and it was his choice to go there and say that, it's not like we dragged him there. Ryan doesn't even twist the screws on it, could you imagine if Reagan had gone to Flint MI in '84 and said the same thing and the plant didn't re-open? He'd have had fat men with microphones stalking him for years! Dead bunnies skinned alive! p) No one would be parsing the words of Reagan's critics looking for ways to infer they were lying for crissakes!

Read this article from a reporter who was also at the plant when Obama spoke.

Oh, and if Republicans aren't allowed to disagree on philosophies, tactics and programs without the assumption that the Democrats are always right and the GOP must be lying if they dare criticize, then the United States might as well pack it in as far as having a representative democracy. Incidentally, haven't you wondered why instead of boasting about accomplishments, proposing new plans or detailing a vision they're just 'fact checking' everything in a way that assumes Republicans are 'lying?'

 

[icerat]

Everything he said is true and it's not like he dwelt overmuch on it, it was a few lines from a speech about the nature of this 'economic recovery.

Kaosium, if we accept your thesis that "everything he said is true", do you believe it's OK for people to say things that are technically true but said in such a way as they they will clearly mislead people who take the statements at face value?

 

[BenBurch]

I hear he also swam the Florida Strait and punched out a Great White shark with one blow when halfway across.

No less ridiculous than the lie he has already been caught in!

BTW, some of my "fact checker" friends in the news media are checking every recorded utterance and written statement he has ever made. W shall hear more about Ryan's lack of honestly.

 

[Kaosium]

You're tacitly ignoring what he said. Did he or did he not say that he's not the kind of guy who writes to get money for the folks at home?

Do you honestly think there's no difference between getting a project definitely funded and forwarding a request to the Energy Department? How could he not do that if the proposal is within the parameters of the grant?

It's there in the quote. Did he or did he not then write a letter on behalf of a constitutent organization?

Of course he did, it's his job!

Do you have a "Well, technically..." answer. Because you just turned it around and explained THE OTHER WAY that people get funds for their districts - by earmarking. But he said nothing about earmarking. He said he wasn't the sort of person to write off for government money and clearly he did.

Do you actually understand what we're talking about here?

He forwarded requests with basically a form letter and signature (notice that?) from (mainly--I think one ended up with Labor) the WI Energy something or another to the Energy Department. They're the ones that make the decision, not Paul Ryan. The Energy Department will be headed by an appointment from the Obama Administration. He would be remiss in his duties as a Representative for the First District if he didn't do so, regardless of what he thinks of the stimulus package.

What's dishonest is attempting to conflate an earmark and a constituent service because they would both require writing letters. What's even more dishonest is if they ordered it not funded because he voted against the stimulus package, and then attacked him for forwarding the proposal. I don't know if the latter part happened, I do know when I looked into it at least one was turned down (which might have been perfectly just) and I couldn't find any evidence that any were funded, which is rather curious because you'd think if they funded one they'd have trumpeted that rather than just accusing him of 'lying' for forwarding the request.

This question wasn't raised. I don't know the answer, but it's not really germane as the question is whether or not Paul Ryan is just another politician who pulls facts and stances out of his butt when the occasion suits.

I think if $500 billion got spent on this stimulus package and they're attacking Paul Ryan for forwarding grant requests through normal channels for (relatively) paltry sums there's something wrong with that picture. If he'd tried to get earmarked sums that would another thing, but even then the First District of Wisconsin is just as deserving of that money (you know they pay federal taxes too?) as anywhere else and it would be perfectly legitimate for him to insist on something (guaranteed) for his district even though he opposed the bill.

However he didn't insist on anything, he merely fulfilled his duties and left it up to the Energy Department. Don't you care at all if $500 billion was spent, the First District (WI) got nothing (or very little) and they tried to pretend him fulfilling his duties as a Congressman was somehow evidence he was a 'liar?'

 

[Kaosium]

BTW, some of my "fact checker" friends in the news media are checking every recorded utterance and written statement he has ever made. W shall hear more about Ryan's lack of honestly.

Thank you for admitting to the smear tactics.

 

[BenBurch]

Thank you for admitting to the smear tactics.

Truth is never a smear. Ever.

What YOU are doing now, however, is grossly dishonest and very much a smear.