Are you suggesting that Ryan just forgot how he helped block the president's deficit plan when he complained about how the president didn't do anything about it? If so, I think Ryan has bigger issues.
Maybe Paul Ryan thought the President could have done more or done it differently? Maybe he opposed it
because they weren't doing more or something better? Perhaps he was hoping for more leadership from the President to get a better plan done?
Setting up a 'bi-partisan commission' is not the only, or even probably the best (in some cases) way of solving a problem. Sometimes it's better to just take the facts that something like this can generate and find better solutions. A lame-duck (meaning some members won't be returning) Congress is sometimes the only way very tough decisions can be made because some members wouldn't have to take the political 'hit' for the (mainly) unavoidable consequences and may be more inclined to vote for something politically unpalatable but in the best interests of the nation.
At any rate what he said isn't a
lie--which is the title of this thread and what I'm contesting. Assuming that because nothing was done is the
only way it could have turned out and implying that Paul Ryan bore complicity for that is inherent in the assumption that he 'lied.' That may very well be Obama's position, (or his supporters--dunno actually) but that doesn't make it correct nor does it make Paul Ryan a liar for thinking differently!
Paul Ryan (and others--
including me) think this is a damned serious problem and (at least in my case and from what I've seen his) one that has to be addressed, one that should take precedence over
everything else at this point in our nation's history. The longer we wait the more painful it will be for everyone and while I and others may be
wrong we're not 'lying' when we say that!
How long ago was it that
report was issued? What has Obama done about it since?
If our choices are lying for political gain or too incompetent to factcheck his speech, I don't find him to be a very good person to support.
Which is precisely why a smear like this is so effective. Once the accusation is made (especially
these days for some reason) it's almost impossible to dissuade some people it isn't true.
Like I said, all the evidence suggests lying by omission.
That's ridiculous.
This was a
convention speech not a detailed representation of every single position he was taking and the pro and cons of each. By your definition (just about) everything that is said at those could be considered 'lying by omission' if it didn't take this or that into account. That would have bored everyone to death, like his budget presentations do to most people.
What's actually dishonest is assuming because he didn't say something he was 'lying by omission' when the context of a convention speech isn't taken into account. Those are supposed to be rousing speeches, sometimes just laying out positions, philosophies and critiques of opponents; other times 'introducing' oneself to the party and the nation. Perhaps even placating opponents in their own party.
To believe he was just "mistaken" is, I believe, a poor conclusion.
The only thing I'm pretty certain he was mistaken (or whatever) about that has been raised in this thread is his marathon time. I do suspect he was employing Dem spin on Medicare, but that actually gets very complicated (and boring as
hell!) and there might be a point there I missed.
But then to automatically distrust anyone who's facts differ from your opinion? That's a pretty clear sign of partisan blinders.
I don't, I evaluate what is being said and employ
different methods. I understand why you might think differently due to my off the cuff responses to you in this thread, but it just so happens while I am rusty I know a
great deal about how this game is played, and how to evaluate sources and information in politics especially. I also know that sometimes activists have the right of it, including 'progressives' and David Brock (I have one of his books!) but I also know sometimes they're just belching forth...whatever.
That would be the case in this instance, and one good thing about this episode is it...enlightened...me on the danger these 'fact-checkers' can be to the political debate.
