The Odd Lies of Paul Ryan - Page 9

Kaosium · 8th September 2012, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

The Janesville plant closed a month before Obama took office but there was a single shift still at the plant for a further few months to finish off an order and close up the plant. The decision was made and the workers paid their severance before Obama was president.

How come it didn't open back up with government's help so it could still be there in a hundred years? It's not a life form, it can't die and be beyond resuscitation!

JoeTheJuggler · 9th September 2012, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by Kaosium

How come it didn't open back up with government's help so it could still be there in a hundred years? It's not a life form, it can't die and be beyond resuscitation!

Wait a second. So when Obama said that if the industry received government support that plant could stay open a hundred years, what he meant was even if the industry didn't get the government support that future government support would re-open closed plants?

Are are you just moving goalposts?

Ryan has been hawking this as a broken promise by Obama. What was the promise made?

Kaosium · 9th September 2012, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Wait a second. So when Obama said that if the industry received government support that plant could stay open a hundred years, what he meant was even if the industry didn't get the government support that future government support would re-open closed plants?

Are are you just moving goalposts?

How did those 'goalposts' get set in cement by those criticizing his speech? That's a neat trick there!

If I could move goalposts I'd have done them in Lambeau, all it would have taken would have been inches and Akers wouldn't have tied Demsey's record. Actually come to think of it I wouldn't have, it was just three points and it was cool to see it happen!

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Ryan has been hawking this as a broken promise by Obama. What was the promise made?

Here's what Obama said, according to the Detroit Free Press:

Originally Posted by Obama quoted in DFP 8/31/12

"I know how hard your governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant. But I also know how much progress you've made -- how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles you're churning out. And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years."

All I was getting at is the plant is still there, there's been layoffs and new contracts (making different vehicles) before, thus just because the plant got closed down doesn't inherently mean it has/had to be closed forever. Why couldn't it have re-opened? Either under GM or someone else lured there with the help of government?

Here's a paradox I wonder if some people get. Imagine for a moment that some worthless scum of a rich guy were to decide he could make green widgets or whatever at that plant, but would only take the risk if he didn't have to pay anything more than what the income tax rates are now on his profits. So he comes in, retools the factory to make greenidgets, and hires 6k people, the historical maximum at that plant (though I think it was down to 1k or so by the end) making an average of $15.00 an hour.

That would mean there'd be a lot more people in Janesville working, some moving up from lower paying (or less palatable) jobs, allowing others to take those and some coming from the ranks of the unemployed. That might not be a great wage, but all of a sudden there'd be a lot more disposable income in that area, allowing for more people to buy things from other local businesses, helping them to greater profits too, and all of them paying more in taxes to government, the lower wage workers paying sales taxes to state and local governments and payroll taxes to the Feds.

The worthless scum of a rich guy is no doubt diddling whatever he lays eyes on when he's not torturing bunnies, his wife no doubt wears fur and just gives those charity fundraisers simply to gossip about how much she hates the 'little people' and has one of those annoying little dogs yip-yipping all the time--and of course they hide all this behind their gated mansion that's twenty times the space anyone should really need.

The worst thing of course would be the rich got richer, and probably more so than the poor got richer, as that's the way it usually works. So we can't do this, or anything like it, instead we must raise the rate on the rich, which might lead to more short term government revenues, but others? They might not invest where they otherwise could have or seeing the handwriting on the wall just leave. There will always be Scarlet Pimpernels ('Sink me!') and of course in this day and age it can also be done with a push of a button, which is why they're considering or implementing a wealth tax in the United Kingdom and France.

Greed, envy and hate might be motivating factors for individuals, and their often deleterious effects mitigated by the fact no one individual has much power, but when they become government policy it can often be disastrous and there's those who just do not understand the 'Law of Unintended Consequences' and that you don't control the future by thinking you control the past, you're just doomed to do the same things over and over again.

Sorry! Packers were losing and I got a trifle annoyed and way off on a tangent and a bit snarky--though not aimed at you in the slightest. It actually makes sense to me, but I'm sure that's just because I'm weird! Just having a little fun, too, I wouldn't want anyone to take it seriously. After all, just exactly when that plant closed (so we know if he lied!) is one of the only things that really matter and I must be just dissembling shamelessly of course because while what he said makes perfect sense to me, if deconstructed 'correctly' he must be lying as no 'promises' were ever made, after all it appears Obama didn't even know that plant made SUV's and not hybrids so we all should have known better than to think maybe it could someday.

Unabogie · 9th September 2012, 06:06 PM

Ryan lies again. This time he denies ever voting for the military cuts he voted for. Just flat out denies it.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...s-i-voted-for/

Quote:

O’DONNELL: Now you’re criticizing the President for those same defense cuts you’re voting for and called a victory.
RYAN: No, no — I have to correct on you this, Norah. I voted for a mechanism that says the sequester will occur if we don’t cut $1.2 trillion in government. … We can get into this nomenclature; I voted for the Budget Control Act. But the Obama Administration proposed $478 billion in defense cuts. We don’t agree with that, our budget rejected that, and then on top of that is another $500 billion in defense cuts in the sequester.
O’DONNELL: Right. A trillion dollars in defense spending, and you voted for it!
RYAN: No, Norah. I voted for the Budget Control Act.
O’DONNELL: That included defense spending!
RYAN: Norah, you’re mistaken.

Granted, this isn't as big a deal as lying about your marathon time, but it's close.

elbe · 9th September 2012, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Granted, this isn't as big a deal as lying about your marathon time, but it's close.

Obviously you're getting off topic. I think the important question is how big a fish has he caught.

DavidJames · 9th September 2012, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Ryan lies again. This time he denies ever voting for the military cuts he voted for. Just flat out denies it.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...s-i-voted-for/

Granted, this isn't as big a deal as lying about your marathon time, but it's close.

I just downed a couple of motion sickness pills because this thread will be spinning like a top shortly

Unabogie · 9th September 2012, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

I just downed a couple of motion sickness pills because this thread will be spinning like a top shortly

You should try Vodka.

Frank Newgent · 9th September 2012, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Kaosium

The worthless scum of a rich guy is no doubt diddling whatever he lays eyes on when he's not torturing bunnies, his wife no doubt wears fur and just gives those charity fundraisers simply to gossip about how much she hates the 'little people' and has one of those annoying little dogs yip-yipping all the time--and of course they hide all this behind their gated mansion that's twenty times the space anyone should really need.

Never could stand that dog:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Kaosium · 9th September 2012, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

I just downed a couple of motion sickness pills because this thread will be spinning like a top shortly

No need, he explains it himself.

He voted for an act to cut the budget, then proposed alternative spending cuts to the military ones. I don't happen to agree with his position, however I understand it. It appears she doesn't, she gets hung up on what would have happened automatically and doesn't take into account that they proposed alternative spending cuts. The link you provided also explains the additional Administration cuts she brought up that Ryan also opposed, to wit:

Originally Posted by Ben Armbruster 3/20/12

National Journal reported last week that the House GOP budget, which Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) unveiled today, would “pull the defense-spending cuts [of more than $500 billion] mandated by sequestration off the table.” How will the Republicans achieve this goal? They will ask 6 congressional committees to come up with reductions which means that food stamps and other social safety net programs are likely to face cuts.

But the new GOP budget not only prevents further military spending cuts at the expense of the less well-off, it actually increases funds for defense and other security related spending. Last year, the Obama administration and Congress agreed to $487 billion in military spending cuts as part of the Budget Control Act but the Republicans want to roll back about half of those reductions as well:

The Ryan plan also increases national defense spending to $554 billion in 2013, an increase of $8 billion over the $546 billion that was agreed to under the Budget Control Act.

That would reverse some of the $487 billion in cuts that the Pentagon has planned to implement over the next decade. Over 10 years, the Ryan budget would spend $6.2 trillion on defense, which is higher than the $5.97 trillion level set under the Budget Control Act.

When some people hear Paul Ryan talking about the budget, the best bet isn't to assume he's lying but that they need to listen to him so at least they can understand it. That would include this Armbruster dude as apparently he didn't realize when he linked his own piece from March criticizing Ryan for wanted the Pentagon's cuts restored in favor of other cuts elsewhere it revealed he wasn't correct, and Ryan was, in what he said to that rather attractive young lady.

Oh, it could also be they're entirely clueless about how Congress works. Just because that sequestration would happen were nothing else done, doesn't mean they're inevitable. They can always pass other bills too, which is what they do.

After all, the 'debt ceiling' wasn't set in stone, was it?

KoihimeNakamura · 14th September 2012, 03:09 AM

OR he could be lying and you're spinning like a top.

Jekyll's Guest · 14th September 2012, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

I invented the internet whilst dodging Bosnian snipers.

I invented physics whilst dodging Higgs boson snipers.

Kaosium · 14th September 2012, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura

OR he could be lying and you're spinning like a top.

It's actually not that difficult to figure out.

BenBurch · 14th September 2012, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Kaosium

It's actually not that difficult to figure out.

You must be quite dizzy.

Kaosium · 14th September 2012, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

You must be quite dizzy.

Nope, but I do hold out hope that all those smearing Paul Ryan (or were--haven't seen much lately but haven't gone looking for it either) aren't actually stupid enough to believe it and are just trying to win an election.

Otherwise we're in even worse trouble.

Olowkow · 14th September 2012, 04:59 PM

"Smearing Ryan?" Which story was that? To me the meaning of "smear" is that the story was a falsehood....or an unsubstantiated rumor.

Olowkow · 16th September 2012, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Olowkow

"Smearing Ryan?" Which story was that? To me the meaning of "smear" is that the story was a falsehood....or an unsubstantiated rumor.

It wasn't a trick question. Ryan is a compulsive liar, plain and simple. How does one smear a compulsive liar? It's like libeling a whore.

Quote:

A compulsive liar is defined as someone who lies out of habit. Lying is their normal and reflexive way of responding to questions. Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large and small. For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right.

Magyar · 16th September 2012, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Nope, but I do hold out hope that all those smearing Paul Ryan (or were--haven't seen much lately but haven't gone looking for it either) aren't actually stupid enough to believe it and are just trying to win an election.

Otherwise we're in even worse trouble.

I think that there are some people in this thread who were actually referenced by a politician today. And surprisingly he even actually told the truth.

Quote:

Santorum: "We will never have the elite, smart people on our side

http://www.americablog.com/2012/09/s...ite-smart.html

iknownothing · 17th September 2012, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I knew a liar that said she could run a mile in about one minute.
"Really? You can run 60 miles per hour?!"

She was quiet after that for about 30 minutes, at which point she started to talk about how Playboy wanted her as a model when she was 13yrs old and how she saw the set where they faked the moon-landing when she was in the AF reserves....

Maybe Paul Ryan is like this.

Maybe!

Article today about a couple of Paul Ryan's maybe-suspect claims; mostly about his 6-8% body fat, but also mentions his claimed 38 trips up mountains 14,000 feet and higher:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...body_fat_.html

I really didn't think the marathon thing was that big of a deal; people's memories can get screwed up. But if it's part of a pattern of making exaggerated claims about himself...well, it's entertaining anyway. I'm not voting for him regardless so I don't really care.

Tricky · 3rd October 2012, 04:20 PM

Not worth its own thread, but this "Bad Lip Reading" video of Paul Ryan has me feeling the need for a keyboard spit shield.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

carlitos · 3rd October 2012, 04:27 PM

My my. He made a video diary with a poster of Nickelback in the background?

Skeptic Ginger · 3rd October 2012, 04:30 PM

I'm guessing it's probably in the thread somewhere already but I'm posting it anyway:

"We're going to broaden the tax base" is so deceitful it deserves special mention. The working poor with incomes who pay no income tax, all pay a greater % of their income than Romney because they pay FICA taxes. Ryan and Romney's call to "broaden the tax base" is specifically geared to play on the redistribution lie. It's sad these Republics would misdirect their base with this lie. Ryan and Romney have to know it's the same as saying "we're going to tax the poor because the rich need tax cuts if they are going to create jobs."

8th September 2012, 09:32 PM	#321
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,332	Originally Posted by squealpiggy The Janesville plant closed a month before Obama took office but there was a single shift still at the plant for a further few months to finish off an order and close up the plant. The decision was made and the workers paid their severance before Obama was president. How come it didn't open back up with government's help so it could still be there in a hundred years? It's not a life form, it can't die and be beyond resuscitation!
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,332	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense."

9th September 2012, 08:11 AM	#322
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by Kaosium How come it didn't open back up with government's help so it could still be there in a hundred years? It's not a life form, it can't die and be beyond resuscitation! Wait a second. So when Obama said that if the industry received government support that plant could stay open a hundred years, what he meant was even if the industry didn't get the government support that future government support would re-open closed plants? Are are you just moving goalposts? Ryan has been hawking this as a broken promise by Obama. What was the promise made?
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 9th September 2012 at 08:12 AM.

9th September 2012, 05:32 PM	#323
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,332	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler Wait a second. So when Obama said that if the industry received government support that plant could stay open a hundred years, what he meant was even if the industry didn't get the government support that future government support would re-open closed plants? Are are you just moving goalposts? How did those 'goalposts' get set in cement by those criticizing his speech? That's a neat trick there! If I could move goalposts I'd have done them in Lambeau, all it would have taken would have been inches and Akers wouldn't have tied Demsey's record. Actually come to think of it I wouldn't have, it was just three points and it was cool to see it happen! Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler Ryan has been hawking this as a broken promise by Obama. What was the promise made? Here's what Obama said, according to the Detroit Free Press: Originally Posted by Obama quoted in DFP 8/31/12 "I know how hard your governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant. But I also know how much progress you've made -- how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles you're churning out. And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years." All I was getting at is the plant is still there, there's been layoffs and new contracts (making different vehicles) before, thus just because the plant got closed down doesn't inherently mean it has/had to be closed forever. Why couldn't it have re-opened? Either under GM or someone else lured there with the help of government? Here's a paradox I wonder if some people get. Imagine for a moment that some worthless scum of a rich guy were to decide he could make green widgets or whatever at that plant, but would only take the risk if he didn't have to pay anything more than what the income tax rates are now on his profits. So he comes in, retools the factory to make greenidgets, and hires 6k people, the historical maximum at that plant (though I think it was down to 1k or so by the end) making an average of $15.00 an hour. That would mean there'd be a lot more people in Janesville working, some moving up from lower paying (or less palatable) jobs, allowing others to take those and some coming from the ranks of the unemployed. That might not be a great wage, but all of a sudden there'd be a lot more disposable income in that area, allowing for more people to buy things from other local businesses, helping them to greater profits too, and all of them paying more in taxes to government, the lower wage workers paying sales taxes to state and local governments and payroll taxes to the Feds. The worthless scum of a rich guy is no doubt diddling whatever he lays eyes on when he's not torturing bunnies, his wife no doubt wears fur and just gives those charity fundraisers simply to gossip about how much she hates the 'little people' and has one of those annoying little dogs yip-yipping all the time--and of course they hide all this behind their gated mansion that's twenty times the space anyone should really need. The worst thing of course would be the rich got richer, and probably more so than the poor got richer, as that's the way it usually works. So we can't do this, or anything like it, instead we must raise the rate on the rich, which might lead to more short term government revenues, but others? They might not invest where they otherwise could have or seeing the handwriting on the wall just leave. There will always be Scarlet Pimpernels ('Sink me!') and of course in this day and age it can also be done with a push of a button, which is why they're considering or implementing a wealth tax in the United Kingdom and France. Greed, envy and hate might be motivating factors for individuals, and their often deleterious effects mitigated by the fact no one individual has much power, but when they become government policy it can often be disastrous and there's those who just do not understand the 'Law of Unintended Consequences' and that you don't control the future by thinking you control the past, you're just doomed to do the same things over and over again. Sorry! Packers were losing and I got a trifle annoyed and way off on a tangent and a bit snarky--though not aimed at you in the slightest. It actually makes sense to me, but I'm sure that's just because I'm weird! Just having a little fun, too, I wouldn't want anyone to take it seriously. After all, just exactly when that plant closed (so we know if he *lied!) is one of the only things that really matter* and I must be just dissembling shamelessly of course because while what he said makes perfect sense to me, if deconstructed 'correctly' he must be lying as no 'promises' were ever made, after all it appears Obama didn't even know that plant made SUV's and not hybrids so we all should have known better than to think maybe it could someday.
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,332	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense." Last edited by Kaosium; 9th September 2012 at 05:48 PM.

9th September 2012, 06:13 PM	#325
elbe Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: near a man named leroy brown Posts: 3,591	Originally Posted by Unabogie Granted, this isn't as big a deal as lying about your marathon time, but it's close. Obviously you're getting off topic. I think the important question is how big a fish has he caught.
	__________________ "If ever I stray from the path I follow take me down to the english channel, throw me in where the water is shallow, and then drag me on back to shore." realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...

9th September 2012, 06:22 PM	#326
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,088	Originally Posted by Unabogie Ryan lies again. This time he denies ever voting for the military cuts he voted for. Just flat out denies it. http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...s-i-voted-for/ Granted, this isn't as big a deal as lying about your marathon time, but it's close. I just downed a couple of motion sickness pills because this thread will be spinning like a top shortly
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

9th September 2012, 06:06 PM	#324
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,857	Ryan lies again. This time he denies ever voting for the military cuts he voted for. Just flat out denies it. http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...s-i-voted-for/ Quote: O’DONNELL: Now you’re criticizing the President for those same defense cuts you’re voting for and called a victory. RYAN: No, no — I have to correct on you this, Norah. I voted for a mechanism that says the sequester will occur if we don’t cut $1.2 trillion in government. … We can get into this nomenclature; I voted for the Budget Control Act. But the Obama Administration proposed $478 billion in defense cuts. We don’t agree with that, our budget rejected that, and then on top of that is another $500 billion in defense cuts in the sequester. O’DONNELL: Right. A trillion dollars in defense spending, and you voted for it! RYAN: No, Norah. I voted for the Budget Control Act. O’DONNELL: That included defense spending! RYAN: Norah, you’re mistaken. Granted, this isn't as big a deal as lying about your marathon time, but it's close.

9th September 2012, 06:34 PM	#327
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,857	Originally Posted by DavidJames I just downed a couple of motion sickness pills because this thread will be spinning like a top shortly You should try Vodka.

9th September 2012, 07:42 PM	#329
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,332	Originally Posted by DavidJames I just downed a couple of motion sickness pills because this thread will be spinning like a top shortly No need, he explains it himself. He voted for an act to cut the budget, then proposed alternative spending cuts to the military ones. I don't happen to agree with his position, however I understand it. It appears she doesn't, she gets hung up on what would have happened automatically and doesn't take into account that they proposed alternative spending cuts. The link you provided also explains the additional Administration cuts she brought up that Ryan also opposed, to wit: Originally Posted by Ben Armbruster 3/20/12 National Journal reported last week that the House GOP budget, which Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) unveiled today, would “pull the defense-spending cuts [of more than $500 billion] mandated by sequestration off the table.” How will the Republicans achieve this goal? They will ask 6 congressional committees to come up with reductions which means that food stamps and other social safety net programs are likely to face cuts. But the new GOP budget not only prevents further military spending cuts at the expense of the less well-off, it actually increases funds for defense and other security related spending. Last year, the Obama administration and Congress agreed to $487 billion in military spending cuts as part of the Budget Control Act but the Republicans want to roll back about half of those reductions as well: The Ryan plan also increases national defense spending to $554 billion in 2013, an increase of $8 billion over the $546 billion that was agreed to under the Budget Control Act. That would reverse some of the $487 billion in cuts that the Pentagon has planned to implement over the next decade. Over 10 years, the Ryan budget would spend $6.2 trillion on defense, which is higher than the $5.97 trillion level set under the Budget Control Act. When some people hear Paul Ryan talking about the budget, the best bet isn't to assume he's lying but that they need to listen to him so at least they can understand it. That would include this Armbruster dude as apparently he didn't realize when he linked his own piece from March criticizing Ryan for wanted the Pentagon's cuts restored in favor of other cuts elsewhere it revealed he wasn't correct, and Ryan was, in what he said to that rather attractive young lady. Oh, it could also be they're entirely clueless about how Congress works. Just because that sequestration would happen were nothing else done, doesn't mean they're inevitable. They can always pass other bills too, which is what they do. After all, the 'debt ceiling' wasn't set in stone, was it?
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,332	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense." Last edited by Kaosium; 9th September 2012 at 07:43 PM.

14th September 2012, 03:09 AM	#330
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,862	OR he could be lying and you're spinning like a top.
	__________________ Don't mind me.

14th September 2012, 06:21 AM	#331
Jekyll's Guest Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,948	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha I invented the internet whilst dodging Bosnian snipers. I invented physics whilst dodging Higgs boson snipers.

14th September 2012, 07:24 AM	#332
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,332	Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura OR he could be lying and you're spinning like a top. It's actually not that difficult to figure out.
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,332	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense."

14th September 2012, 08:27 AM	#333
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,195	Originally Posted by Kaosium It's actually not that difficult to figure out. You must be quite dizzy.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

14th September 2012, 04:19 PM	#334
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,332	Originally Posted by BenBurch You must be quite dizzy. Nope, but I do hold out hope that all those smearing Paul Ryan (or were--haven't seen much lately but haven't gone looking for it either) aren't actually stupid enough to believe it and are just trying to win an election. Otherwise we're in even worse trouble.
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,332	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense."

14th September 2012, 04:59 PM	#335
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,827	"Smearing Ryan?" Which story was that? To me the meaning of "smear" is that the story was a falsehood....or an unsubstantiated rumor.
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,827	__________________ Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie, which we ascribe to heaven. --Shakespeare Last edited by Olowkow; 14th September 2012 at 05:06 PM. Reason: Add text

16th September 2012, 03:22 PM	#336
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,827	Originally Posted by Olowkow "Smearing Ryan?" Which story was that? To me the meaning of "smear" is that the story was a falsehood....or an unsubstantiated rumor. It wasn't a trick question. Ryan is a compulsive liar, plain and simple. How does one smear a compulsive liar? It's like libeling a whore. Quote: A compulsive liar is defined as someone who lies out of habit. Lying is their normal and reflexive way of responding to questions. Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large and small. For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right.
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,827	__________________ Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie, which we ascribe to heaven. --Shakespeare Last edited by Olowkow; 16th September 2012 at 03:26 PM. Reason: Add quote

16th September 2012, 04:52 PM	#337
Magyar Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: the edge of reason Posts: 1,546	Originally Posted by Kaosium Nope, but I do hold out hope that all those smearing Paul Ryan (or were--haven't seen much lately but haven't gone looking for it either) aren't actually stupid enough to believe it and are just trying to win an election. Otherwise we're in even worse trouble. I think that there are some people in this thread who were actually referenced by a politician today. And surprisingly he even actually told the truth. Quote: Santorum: "We will never have the elite, smart people on our side http://www.americablog.com/2012/09/s...ite-smart.html
	__________________ "There is no heresy or no philosophy which is so abhorrent to the church as a human being." James Joyce Due to recent cutbacks the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.

17th September 2012, 09:25 PM	#338
iknownothing Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,160	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken I knew a liar that said she could run a mile in about one minute. "Really? You can run 60 miles per hour?!" She was quiet after that for about 30 minutes, at which point she started to talk about how Playboy wanted her as a model when she was 13yrs old and how she saw the set where they faked the moon-landing when she was in the AF reserves.... Maybe Paul Ryan is like this. Maybe! Article today about a couple of Paul Ryan's maybe-suspect claims; mostly about his 6-8% body fat, but also mentions his claimed 38 trips up mountains 14,000 feet and higher: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...body_fat_.html I really didn't think the marathon thing was that big of a deal; people's memories can get screwed up. But if it's part of a pattern of making exaggerated claims about himself...well, it's entertaining anyway. I'm not voting for him regardless so I don't really care.
	Last edited by iknownothing; 17th September 2012 at 09:27 PM.

3rd October 2012, 04:27 PM	#340
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,554	My my. He made a video diary with a poster of Nickelback in the background?

3rd October 2012, 04:30 PM	#341
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,609	I'm guessing it's probably in the thread somewhere already but I'm posting it anyway: "We're going to broaden the tax base" is so deceitful it deserves special mention. The working poor with incomes who pay no income tax, all pay a greater % of their income than Romney because they pay FICA taxes. Ryan and Romney's call to "broaden the tax base" is specifically geared to play on the redistribution lie. It's sad these Republics would misdirect their base with this lie. Ryan and Romney have to know it's the same as saying "we're going to tax the poor because the rich need tax cuts if they are going to create jobs."
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)