The Odd Lies of Paul Ryan

[Tricky]

Think about if for a minute: why in the hell would a speechwriter write, or Ryan approve, a bunch of lies for his Convention appearance?

Do you buy every product that makes wild claims in its advertisements? After all, they couldn't say those things if they weren't true, right?

That's about the same level of naivety that it takes to believe that speechwriters wouldn' load up his talk with lies.

 

[Puppycow]

It looks like they did a better job then.

That's it? You spend hundreds of words critiquing their analysis of the Ryan speech, but this is all you have to say about the Joe Soptic ad? I mean, they rated it "False" and "Four Pinnochios" despite the fact that nothing in the ad was strictly false. I think they gave it bad ratings mostly because they considered it "stretches the bounds of decency," and because it was misleading, not because it was untrue, strictly speaking.

The same goes for what Ryan said in his speech. It may be technically true, but it is misleading. And hypocritical.

 

[Kaosium]

I've seen the light.

Ryan's personal best in the marathon was ~2:50

So what?

Ryan didn't accept stimulus money

Did Wisconsin-1 actually get any of those grant proposals? Wouldn't they have made a big fuss out of that instead of the form letters he forwarded with the requests?

Obama did close that plant

How could Obama have closed the plant?

Obama did cause the lower rating

You know a 'debt ceiling' is named that for a reason. It's not an invitation to break it! Now Ryan came up with a budget proposal to address those problems, what was the Administration's budget proposal to solve the concerns that S&P detailed?

and if Ryan should tell me up is down and water isn't wet, I will believe that as well.

No, I'd suggest you think for yourself.

 

[varwoche]

He has a reputation for honesty because he is.

Now that's convincing.

Meanwhile, the facts are the facts and the mockery is the just desert.

 

[Kaosium]

Do you buy every product that makes wild claims in its advertisements? After all, they couldn't say those things if they weren't true, right?

That's about the same level of naivety that it takes to believe that speechwriters wouldn't load up his talk with lies.

No, I'm not 'naive' about politics.

I am very skeptical about at least some of these 'fact-checkers' now. If they misrepresent what he said he didn't lie, they did. The speechwriters and Ryan knew those guys were out there, outright lying like (some) pretend would have been counter-productive when it was entirely unnecessary. There's plenty of things to criticize about how things are going, there's certainly no point in lying.

 

[Kaosium]

Now that's convincing.

Meanwhile, the facts are the facts and the mockery is the just desert.

You're right, the facts don't change, but the interpretation of them is subject to mockery when the self-entitled 'fact-checkers' do so this dishonestly.

 

[BenBurch]

The squirming reminds me of the time this spring when I pried up part of the stone floor that is 6" under my back yard and there were hundreds of worms in a ball under it writhing in the sudden sunlight.

 

[Mike!]

RE: the plant, No, it did not close during Obama's presidency. Obama was elected in November. That made him President - elect, not President. Bush (the slime) was still president when the plant closed in December and for the majority of days in January - after the plant closed. It was still closed when Obama became President. Not under Obama, under Bush (the pile of fecal matter).

I'm pretty sure the plant actually closed in April 2009 when it finished the Isuzu truck production... Not that it matters here.

 

[Kaosium]

That's it? You spend hundreds of words critiquing their analysis of the Ryan speech, but this is all you have to say about the Joe Soptic ad? I mean, they rated it "False" and "Four Pinnochios" despite the fact that nothing in the ad was strictly false. I think they gave it bad ratings mostly because they considered it "stretches the bounds of decency," and because it was misleading, not because it was untrue, strictly speaking.

Yes, I'd agree with them that it stretches the bounds of decency, as does trying to pretend it is anything like Ryan's speech.

The same goes for what Ryan said in his speech. It may be technically true, but it is misleading. And hypocritical.

No, I disagree. I'd say that it takes obtuseness to a new level to think there's only one interpretation of what he said and that one has to ignore his words and the context to 'mislead.'

Maybe they should just roll a clip of Obama's speech with the background of the deserted plant and let people decide for themselves if even if he had said Obama had promised he'd do something for that factory and those workers just who is trying to be 'misleading' about whether he did?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

No, I'm not 'naive' about politics.

I am very skeptical about at least some of these 'fact-checkers' now. If they misrepresent what he said he didn't lie, they did. The speechwriters and Ryan knew those guys were out there, outright lying like (some) pretend would have been counter-productive when it was entirely unnecessary. There's plenty of things to criticize about how things are going, there's certainly no point in lying.

This would be the reason I am disinclined to respond to your request.

 

[DavidJames]

No, I'm not 'naive' about politics.

On this point I agree with you completely. You are very knowledgeable in how politics works.

That wasn't a compliment.

 

[BenBurch]

Some actual facts; http://www.freep.com/article/201208...The-facts-about-Janesville-GM-plant-s-closure

 

[Upchurch]

Which businesses contribute to by providing not only taxes themselves but jobs for workers which lead to more taxes and even government jobs!

Which is part of "all of us", is it not?

A business has had that necessary infrastructure provided to them, built by those who came before. That those businesses, along with everyone else, help provides services and infrastructure for the next generation of new businesses, so to speak, is how it is sustainable.

The point is that no business is built entirely independently.

It's a philosophical difference.

I don't see how. Based on what you've said above, you agree with what Obama was saying.

 

[BenBurch]

On this point I agree with you completely. You are very knowledgeable in how politics works.

That wasn't a compliment.

Vyacheslav Molotov was similarly knowledgable.

 

[A'isha]

'Some people got duped.'

You did indeed.

 

[Kaosium]

Which is part of "all of us", is it not?

A business has had that necessary infrastructure provided to them, built by those who came before. That those businesses, along with everyone else, help provides services and infrastructure for the next generation of new businesses, so to speak, is how it is sustainable.

The point is that no business is built entirely independently.

I agree on one level, of course. However I would argue that infrastructure is the legacy of successful entrepreneurship mainly.

I don't see how. Based on what you've said above, you agree with what Obama was saying.

Not quite, I'm arguing that it's (mainly) the taxes and jobs and then more taxes from thriving businesses that build/built all that infrastructure and maintain it. There's some that think that business rests on the shoulders of government, others like myself think that government rests on the shoulders of business. (and the such--tax generating operations) That's what I meant by a philosophical difference. It's a 'big picture argument' not a literal one.

 

[Kaosium]

Some actual facts; http://www.freep.com/article/201208...The-facts-about-Janesville-GM-plant-s-closure

Thank you Ben. I posted that one yesterday. That's much more accurate than some other things that have been said.

Note that on medicare I basically agree, but since Dems have been hammering the GOP on that using the same argument for twenty years it's kinda funny that some in the press only figured it out when a Republican used it!

 

[Kaosium]

This would be the reason I am disinclined to respond to your request.

Then don't. I don't actually understand what you're getting at but I don't think you understand what I was so we're equally ignorant on that score.

 

[Foolmewunz]

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?



Of course he did, it's his job!



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.




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?'

You really should submit this to So You Think You Can Dance for the Season 9 tryouts. You are avoiding the question. Why won't you answer it? Did he or did he not say, rather specifically, that he's not the kind of guy who votes for something and then writes letters to try to get money for the home district? Yes or No.

Answer that and then change over to whether or not his district or the locals on whose behalf he appealed actually gained anything. Hint: They did. He wrote letters of recommendation/support and they got part of the bailout money - those two companies that we know of got $21,000,000. Certainly small potatoes in the world of Bridges to Nowhere and Trent Lott pork barreling, but no exactly Tea Party Chump Change, either.

And, again, this is the guy who said he didn't write those sorts of letters, but quite obviously wrote them and didn't exactly rush forward with the information that he had sidled up to the trough with the other little piggies. At east Ron Paul is straightforward about his stuff and earmarks bills blatantly. Ryan quietly "played the game" but pretends his poop doesn't smell.

And, by the way, there is no requirement that you get your applications forwarded by a Congressman or Senator. This isn't an appointment to Annapolis or West Point. You can submit your applications and back them up. Cronyism is still cronyism, whether it's under the guise of our new Tea Party superheroes or old warhorses like Lott, Long, Byrd, et al

 

[elbe]

I like the "I wouldn't doubt them if they agreed with me" defense. That seems to be Kaosium's MO this thread.