• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Odd Lies of Paul Ryan

W.D.Clinger said:
No, Kaosium, your response (and your repetition of that question, which I have already answered) made it perfectly clear that you have no interest in what I think.
Click to expand...

Actually I did, however I was hoping for a more substantive reply to the last one rather than...nevermind. That question would seem remarkably germane, and if you answered it (in this thread) I didn't see it, or understand it how it applied.
 
I look forward with glee for PaulRyansLies.com


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/paul-ryans-silent-but-deadly-lie/

Paul Ryan’s Silent But Deadly Lie

“Well, I think the platform is– is silent on that particular issue,” Rep. Ryan replied. “Mitt Romney has a position on this. The president of the United States sets the policy. And Mitt Romney’s position is that there are exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.”

“There’s no exception in the platform,” Williams astutely, correctly pointed out.

“Well, I think the platform’s silent either one way or the other on that,” Ryan repeated. “The platform – of which I think is a great document. I’m proud of the platform – it’s something that was produced by the delegates, and the president of the United States sets policy on this issue. And Mitt Romney’s policy is well known.”
Click to expand...

but it’s news because if the media keeps doing this horrible a job, he will be a heartbeat away from the presidency
Click to expand...


In light of the above maybe the marathon boondoggle was told purposely to take attention away from the silent "real issue."



http://www.salon.com/2012/08/30/paul_ryans_brazen_lies/







Even more amusing.


http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...-ran-a-faster-marathon-than-paul-ryan/261895/

What's awe-inducing about Palin's feat is that she accomplished it at 41 after having four children, while Ryan's mark was set at 20 and Edwards' best came at 30. There are only about 40 thousand women who were that fast or faster in 2011. (More comparisons: The average marathon time for a woman aged 40-44 in 2011 was 4:47:34. The average for a man aged 20-24 was 4:22:48.)
Click to expand...
 
The great thing here, and it really gives me a lot of joy, is that here we are in the gap between the RNC and the DNC, and we are still talking about Romney's taxes, and now we are ALSO talking about the compulsive liar he selected as his running mate.

Nice job getting out your message, Republicans! (Heck of a job, Brownie!)
 
Is Kaosium still trying to tapdance around the Wrongney/Lyin' 2012 campaign?

Is he still trying to cry 'smear' when news organizations and fact checkers from across the entire political spectrum have called Ryan out?

I think the Republican strategy is to make Ryan look really bad in hopes of making Romney look good in comparison. Consider how this strategy would have worked if Marco Rubio had been chosen instead.
 
Last edited:
Kaosium said:
Did you suppose anyone ever actually thought the US was going to default? Simply raising the debt limit without fixing the budgetary problems that S&P also detailed will not fix the problem, it will make it worse.
Click to expand...
Apparently S&P saw something in the process that was enough to spook them. If Ryan had said that simply raising the ceiling and not fixing the [longer term] problems was not solving anything and added that threatening not to raise the ceiling might have negative consequences but was worth it anyway, then I could have agreed or respectfully disagreed. The problem is in what he did say.
 
lomiller said:
Yup



That's not a counter argument, it's the same argument as above.
Click to expand...

That's not quite what I'm getting at, at the very basic level it's the difference between whether the government rides on the back of the economy or the economy rides on the back of government.

This doesn't follow from the statements that preceded it. If the government had not taxed then the infrastructure would not exist nor would the business. Likewise if there are no current taxes to build and maintain new infrastructure future business will not exist.
Click to expand...

Most of the infrastructure is not the purview of the Federal government. There have been excellent federal infrastructure programs, the Interstate System for one, however most of that should be, and has, been funded through state and local taxes. We did not have a huge federal government for much of this nation's history, but we still had infrastructure. Note that I'm not suggesting that we return to the days of 1910, but that it was the quickly growing private sector economy that allowed us to afford a much larger government and more infrastructure. Much of that wealth was created not by government spending, but entrepreneurship.

What's really going on is that Republicans want to promise people something for nothing, a free ride as it were. They want to promise people they can have the the infrastructure, plus businesses and jobs that depend on that infrastructure without paying for it. This is why they have habitually tilted the US into debt for the last 32 years.
Click to expand...

The reason we have so much (federal) debt is that spending outpaces revenues each and every year, and has with few exceptions since 1964. That's a problem that must be addressed, and by and large it wasn't the GOP refusing (in Congress which actually controls the money though Presidents can have some influence if they try hard enough) to cut or even slow the rate of that growth, but I'm not much interested in arguing it, that's not going to solve any problems.
 
Kaosium said:
John Maynard Keynes would not have agreed, and in fact found many things to agree with and was quite complimentary of "The Road to Serfdom." I could even dig up some quotes if you want!
Click to expand...

The difference here is that Keynes is actually relevant in economics, Hayek is not. Economics has obviously moved on since Keynes, but mostly with things layered on top of Keynes work.

Hayek's ideas in contrast play no role in modern economics.


Kaosium said:
Is that all Obama was trying to say and just misspoke off the cuff? Why doesn't anyone just admit that? (or have they?)
Click to expand...

Yes that is what he WAS saying and there was no misspeaking involved. He is talking about the need for taxation and services it pays for in order to have a successful free market economy.

It's only when you start taking out of context like Republicans are doing that it sounds like he is saying anything else.
 
Kaosium said:
That's not quite what I'm getting at, at the very basic level it's the difference between whether the government rides on the back of the economy or the economy rides on the back of government.
Click to expand...


I know that's what you are getting at, but what you can't seem to understand that this is a false dichotomy. BOTH "sides" you are presenting are equally incorrect.

Government and free markets must go together to have a successful economy. The political issue here is that only the Democrats recognize that reality while Republicans lap up the notion that if you just stop paying for things everything will be ok.


Kaosium said:
Most of the infrastructure is not the purview of the Federal government.
Click to expand...

The Federal government transfers significant amounts of money to State and City governments for infrastructure.

Now, if you are trying to say most federal spending doesn't go to infrastructure, you would have a point.

In fact most Federal spending goes towards the following
Medicare/Medicare
Social Security/UI
Defense/homeland security.

All other departmental/discretionary spending makes up only ~12% of the US budget.

The political reality is that current taxation levels are not sufficient to pay for those big ticket items but Republicans continue to insist on cutting taxes even further while also insisting they will not cut any of these things or run a deficit. In short they are lying to voters in order to get elected and digging the US into a deeper and deeper hole by refusing to address reality.
 
Clayton Moore said:
I look forward with glee for PaulRyansLies.com


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/paul-ryans-silent-but-deadly-lie/

Paul Ryan’s Silent But Deadly Lie
Click to expand...

The platform committee rejected a proposal to add a rape exception:

GOP rejects rape exception in platform

The full committee later passed a measure opposing the FDA approval of drugs like RU-486, which North Carolina representative Mary Summa called “an abortion pill.” The platform would now effectively prevent the sale of “any drug that terminates life after conception.”

Not everyone liked the idea.

“In light of the recent comments by Congressman Todd Akin,” said Alabama platform representative Jacqueline Curtiss, “and in an attempt to reaffirm to the American people the party’s sensitivity on the subject of rape, I believe that we should not support an amendment which opposes approval of a method that has been proven effective in preventing the pregnancy of rape victims.”

She wound up on the losing end of the vote.
Click to expand...

Pro-life activists think that the Republican platform isn't "silent" on the issue of a rape exception:
GOP Grassroots Furious at Romney Over Akin, Abortion Rape Exception

Jennifer Mason, the communications director of Personhood USA and wife of the group’s cofounder Keith Mason, is very disappointed with the way Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have responded to the Todd Akin flap. She’s particularly incensed by the campaign’s insistence that a Romney-Ryan administration wouldn’t try to ban abortion for rape victims. “Romney and Ryan have turned their backs on the Republican Party platform in cases of rape,” she says. “That’s a huge problem.”
Click to expand...
 
Future Lies by Ryan?

Has anyone asked Ryan or Romney. if elected, did he expect to bring the manufacturing jobs we've lost back from "overseas/China?"
 
Last edited:
I have a question for Kaosium.

Let's assume Ryan wasn't lying. Let's assume his speech was 100% true and wasn't even misleading. Let's assume that hey, the guy is in this case whiter than white and squeaky clean.

Do you think this means we should support this vile scumbag? Remember, this is the anti-choice, anti-LGBT climate change denialist. Why is he a good candidate even if he didn't lie?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
I have a question for Kaosium.

Let's assume Ryan wasn't lying. Let's assume his speech was 100% true and wasn't even misleading. Let's assume that hey, the guy is in this case whiter than white and squeaky clean.

Do you think this means we should support this vile scumbag? Remember, this is the anti-choice, anti-LGBT climate change denialist. Why is he a good candidate even if he didn't lie?
Click to expand...

That's the scary part. The MSM has given him/them a pass on those. If you noticed neither party or the MSM has made fracking an issue.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
I have a question for Kaosium.

Let's assume Ryan wasn't lying. Let's assume his speech was 100% true and wasn't even misleading. Let's assume that hey, the guy is in this case whiter than white and squeaky clean.

Do you think this means we should support this vile scumbag? Remember, this is the anti-choice, anti-LGBT climate change denialist. Why is he a good candidate even if he didn't lie?
Click to expand...

[conspiracy]I think that´s intentional. He dished out these idiotic lies so that the media would not report his despicable views as broadly.[/conspiracy]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom