RNC Open Thread

Been busy, but I’ll put this up as a discussion point for the Republican National Convention and update it as events warrant. I might even, if I can figure out how, sticky it until the convention is over.

I have not been able to watch much so far. I saw bits of Ann Romney’s speech, which was quite nice. I’ve said before that she is one of the more appealing parts of Team Romney. And I saw Chris Christie’s speech, which was very good, although said little about Romney. Overall, I’m slightly very minimally cautiously optimistic maybe. Not about Election 2012 but about the GOP. They seem to have realized how crazy things have gotten and to be moving toward a more sane governing position. It’s easy to miss when idiots like Donald Trump are still being allowed to roam free. But last night’s lineup of Haley, Ann Romney and Christie point the way to a much more reasonable future for the GOP.

I’m cooking up some big posts about the election. Hope to have the first one up soon. In the meantime, discuss amongst yourselves.

Update: I’ve been harsh on the GOP platform, by Yglesias highlights some good stuff.

Comments are closed.

  1. Mississippi Yankee

    One mans reasonable is another mans ‘go along to get along’.

    Considering that neither abortion nor birtherism are part of the Tea party platform do you find their position “reasonable”? Gaia knows you weren’t too fond of them a year or two ago.

    Do you find any of their planks unreasonable?

    Thumb up 0

  2. Hal_10000 *

    I can save everyone some time and summarize Andrew Sullivan’s commentary: everything is racist. Huckabee’s tattoo joke was racist. Teleprompter jokes are racist. Jibes at Obama not having worked in private sector are racist. Everything is racist.

    Thumb up 1

  3. Hal_10000 *

    That’s not really a platform; it’s a statement of beliefs. Platform is actual concrete policy proposals.

    Saw more tonight. Pawlenty put me to sleep. Huckabee was OK. Rice was good although I disagree with a lot of her foreign policy ideas (Syria? Really?!). Ryan killed it though. His iPod joke was awesome. He connected to the voters and he really hit OBama hard on why they don’t want to talk about their record.

    Thumb up 5

  4. CM

    Actually there’s been very few mentions of the Tea Party (as far as I’ve heard anyway, I could be wrong).

    I can save everyone some time and summarize the Convention speakers: Obama hates businesses, wants to bankrupt the country, is soley responsible for the debt, thinks he owns everything, has never had a job, is going slash welfare, doesn’t care about the deficit, wants to dstroy the middle class, wants to regulate what doctors can do and can’t do, will raid Medicare to give to Obamacare, and stopped Keystone. Oh, and Mitt Romney is standing on the Republican ticket.

    Thumb up 2

  5. CM

    I didn’t see Susana Martinez but am told she was awesome. People were comparing to Obama’s 2004 speech.

    Hal is Andrew Sullivan….

    11.12 pm. For the record, I loved Susana Martinez – substantive, charming, gutsy, funny. She would have made a great veep candidate. And her speech strikes me as a portent, just as it once was for Barack Obama. And if the GOP loses this year, they could use a former Democrat Latina woman to save them in 2016.

    ;-)

    Thumb up 0

  6. Mississippi Yankee

    That’s not really a platform; it’s a statement of beliefs. Platform is actual concrete policy proposals.

    I guess I got bogged down by the web address and page header, now… Yanno Tea Party Platform.
    Instead of playing word games why don’t you show some intellectual honesty.
    Let me rephrase the question. Do you find their “statement of beliefs” unreasonable?

    Thumb up 0

  7. balthazar

    Wouldn’t have expected this from Fox.

    Why is that Sally?

    My guess would be because your too dense to realize the difference between a news OPINION show and an actual NEWS show. Must be all of that Al Sharpton Anchoring MSNBC you watch.

    Fox NEWS, print and video, calls out rep’s all the time. The OPINION shows dont, the NEWS areas do.

    Thumb up 4

  8. salinger

    Fox NEWS, print and video, calls out rep’s all the time.

    So I take it you are calling this piece factual news as opposed to opinion then?

    And secondly – what’s the point in insulting me? Why call me dense? What does that get you/do for you? I am really interested in an answer, Is it just a humor I am not getting when you guys name call or are you truly trying to say something hurtful? If the latter, why? I have been the recipient of some of the most vile aspersions I have ever heard in my life from folks who frequent this blog. I’d be really interested in the rationale behind the insults.

    Thumb up 2

  9. InsipiD

    Wouldn’t have expected this from Fox.

    The only surprise is that Fox employs someone so willing to express left partisan opinions. Several of these “lies” called out by the author are only lies if you choose to reassign blame to the GOP for things that Ryan blamed Obama for. Blaming the GOP for refusing to raise the debt ceiling to accommodate Obama’s reckless spending is weak sauce.

    Thumb up 5

  10. Hal_10000 *

    Let me rephrase the question. Do you find their “statement of beliefs” unreasonable?

    I can’t get it to come up, but no, I didn’t see anything objectionable. The devil, however, is always in the details. We’ll see if the Tea Party supports the cuts in Medicare and defense spending that are needed.

    Thumb up 0

  11. repmom

    Wouldn’t have expected this from Fox.

    Sally Kohn is a Fox News contributor and writer.

    Fox News has several liberal contributors. Part of their “fair and balanced” that so many insist on denying exists.

    Salinger – do you ever watch Fox News? (Not being snarky. Curious.)

    Thumb up 5

  12. salinger

    Salinger – do you ever watch Fox News?

    Yeah I do – I will even switch to them for breaking news because they do a good job with it due to their local affiliates. That being said I have just as much trouble with partisan crap at MSNBC as I do Fox. I hate the talking over guests and the lack of follow up questions from both networks when coddling their darlings.

    Thumb up 2

  13. repmom

    I would agree, Salinger – O’Reilly is the worst about talking over and interrupting his guests. It gets very annoying.

    Fox News is good with the breaking news, for sure. Sometimes I can find out more of what is happening in Houston from them than our local news channels.

    And, of course, if you’re into car chasing………

    Thumb up 0

  14. balthazar

    Fox shows all views, if you actually ever really watched it you would have realized that. Part of the news is offering BOTH sides of an issue. MSNBC and CNN especially do not do that. Hell look at CNN’s NEWS anchor Soledad O’brian for a prime example. Opinion pieces are fine, as long as you allow both sides to be portrayed. News anchors bringing their biases into an interview (notice I said NEWS anchors, not people like Hannity who say fklat out what they are.) are whats wrong with MSNBC and CNN and why thier ratings are and have been tanking, for months going on years.

    This piece is just another point of evidence that they DO have other opinions and views on their site.

    I called you dense because it seems to me you are being dense. A real news outlet should have all viewpoints reflected. Please direct me to a conservative piece that originated with an MSNBC, hell even CNN news employee.

    You will be hard pressed to find one.

    Thumb up 3

  15. Xetrov

    I didn’t see Susana Martinez but am told she was awesome. People were comparing to Obama’s 2004 speech.

    She was good. I found Condi’s speech better. Also she gave it from notes she wrote, no teleprompter, no pre-approval from the RNC. She’s a smart woman.

    As far as the Fox News link, that woman’s an idiot that doesn’t even read her own links.

    Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States’ credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling

    From her link –

    To put it in simple terms, Standard & Poor’s had two main reasons for the downgrade: First, that the size of the U.S. debt is very large and growing, and second, that politicians seem unable to agree on what steps to take to reduce it. It called the political process “contentious and fitful,” and said the firm was “pessimistic” that the White House and Congress would be able to agree on measures to significantly reduce the debt anytime soon.

    The rest of her link’s rational is speculation outside of the stated reasoning in the report.

    Thumb up 0

  16. salinger

    Please direct me to a conservative piece that originated with an MSNBC, hell even CNN news employee.

    Well that wouldn’t be too tough since Michael Steele, Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson. S.E. Cupp, Robert Novak, Lou Dobbs, David Gergen, Dana Loeschand and others have or currently work for one of these two networks. (this is just off the top of my head – I’m sure there are more) I know some of these guys are gone now or moved to other networks – but I am sure they have produced conservative pieces while in the employ of said networks which would meet your request. I have neither the time nor inclination to dig any up right now – but I’m sure if you Googled any of these folks within the date range of their employment with either network you’d come up with multiple examples.So I doubt it would be very hard to find one as you requested.

    Now – you might want to play the “but they aren’t real conservatives card – but I would counter this with the weak ass dimwits Fox throws into the camera lights as their liberal representations.

    Thumb up 1

  17. balthazar

    Produced while being employed there yes, produced FOR those entities, unlikely. And wow Scarburough? Really?

    Btw a quick search of CNN shows no actual articles authored by Buchanan, Tucker Carlson stopped working there in 2006, Dana Loesch is the ONLY one that even shows up recently. Meanwhile their GODDAMN NEWS ANCHORS spout lefty talking points all over the goddamn place.

    Try harder next time lazy one. It took me about 5 min to get that information.

    Thumb up 4

  18. Hal_10000 *

    She was good. I found Condi’s speech better. Also she gave it from notes she wrote, no teleprompter, no pre-approval from the RNC. She’s a smart woman.

    Condi was really good. When she talked about coming up from the Jim Crowe south, it was really moving. And all those Republicans who are supposed to be evil racist assholes stood up and cheered their lungs out.

    Thumb up 1

  19. salinger

    Produced while being employed there yes, produced FOR those entities, unlikely.

    Not what you asked for. But I get to it anyway below.

    Dana Loesch is the ONLY one that even shows up recently.

    And that’s ONE. Which is all you asked.

    More relevant though is the fact that S.E. Cupp is on every day as a panelist on MSNBC, has ended the segment with conservative commentary and word has it she is up for her own show. When do you think a comparable intellect on the left would be given either opportunity on Fox? Guess you were just too lazy to look into that – huh?

    So – to say MSNBC has no conservative voices is wrong. Plain and simple. This is not a defense of the network – I’ve got my own problems with the majority of their talking heads I’m just calling your assertion wrong.

    To bring things back to the original sentiment – folks do like to wander off the reservation here.

    My comment was that I was surprised to see that piece on the Fox blog – as was the obviously equally dense InsipiD – and I am sure others would have admitted the same if you hadn’t chimed in with your discussion ending insult. I still don’t get why providing that link deserved name calling. Just because I found something surprising?

    Should I have called you illiterate because you misused your instead of you’re? in your first reply? Not my style.

    Thumb up 2

  20. CM

    Yeah I thought Condi was good too – although I didn’t agree with everything she said, she’s clearly much smarter than most of the rest, and classier. On a different level really, didn’t just string together a series of lies and play to the lowest common denominator. But then I guess the speakers are picked to carry out different roles.
    I was quite disappointed with Ryan – it was basically just a retread of the same bare-faced lies. I thought there might be something else.
    Excellent comments Salinger. However balthazar just can’t take part in a discussion without hurling insults. No reason to think that’s going to change.

    Thumb up 2

  21. CM

    As far as the Fox News link, that woman’s an idiot that doesn’t even read her own links.

    Do you disagree with any of the other examples of lies?

    Thumb up 0

  22. repmom

    Yeah I thought Condi was good too – although I didn’t agree with everything she said, she’s clearly much smarter than most of the rest, and classier.

    She is an extremely classy woman.

    Even Chris Matthew’s tweeted that “Condi’s speech was presidential. Best address of the convention.”

    I wonder if he felt any tingling?

    Thumb up 1

  23. Xetrov

    More relevant though is the fact that S.E. Cupp is on every day as a panelist on MSNBC, has ended the segment with conservative commentary and word has it she is up for her own show.

    I’d watch that.

    Thumb up 0

  24. Xetrov

    Do you disagree with any of the other examples of lies?

    While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin,

    Where did Ryan blame Obama for the plant closing?

    Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government

    Transcript linked to above, where did he “insist” that Obama gave all credit to government? The fact is, Obama did claim Government deserved (some) credit for private enterprise successes.

    And I fail to see how taking money from Medicare to fund Obamacare (which is exactly what the law does) doesn’t equate to exactly what Paul Ryan said.

    BTW, I’ll bet anyone $100 that the day after Biden’s speech (or hell, even Obama’s) that a google search for “biden speech” doesn’t return all of the top results with headline words such as “lies” “hypocrisies”, “Not accurate” etc. from all of the major media sources, even though I’ll be able to point out as many if not more “lies” than were in Ryan’s speech.

    Thumb up 1

  25. salinger

    even though I’ll be able to point out as many if not more “lies” than were in Ryan’s speech.

    No sarcasm whatsoever – I would LOVE to see this. I would love someone to put the two speeches back to back and tear them both a new one sans party slant and let the chips fall as they may.

    Thumb up 0

  26. repmom

    even though I’ll be able to point out as many if not more “lies” than were in Ryan’s speech.

    No sarcasm whatsoever – I would LOVE to see this. I would love someone to put the two speeches back to back and tear them both a new one sans party slant and let the chips fall as they may.

    Sounds like a task for Hal, if he has the time.

    Thumb up 0

  27. CM

    Where did Ryan blame Obama for the plant closing?

    Ryan (from your linked transcript):

    My own 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 G.M. 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 100 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 where the recovery that was promised is no where in sight.

    You’re right, he didn’t use those exact words. He certainly made the implication though, especially by omitting:
    (a) the fact that it closed before Obama even become President, so it was impossible for him to have had any role in it staying open or closing
    (b) the fact that he sought federal assistance to keep the plant open
    (c) that the guy he’s VP’ing for actively supporting letting the auto industry fail
    (d) that Obama ultimately acted to prevent other plants from closing
    (e) At the campaign stop in Janesville, Obama says, ”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.” That’s a statement of belief that, with government help, the Janesville plant could remain open – but it’s not a promise to keep it open.

    So when you take all that into account, his account is untruthful. It’s totally something Michael Moore would come up with.

    It is true that Ryan tried to get the Obama administration to save another plant, in Kenosha, which the Obama administration failed to do. Attacking Obama for that is fair. But hitting him for Janesville is dishonest.

    This is a very strange dispute in a way. Romney wrote an op-ed in the NYT under the title “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” and now his campaign is trying hard to fault Obama for not bailing out automakers aggressively enough. Not only that, but after the campaign’s repeated denunciation of the Obama administration for “picking winners,” Ryan is faulting Obama for not “picking a winner” not just among companies, but among plants. He’s attacking Obama for not using the government to micromanage GM’s affairs!

    Transcript linked to above, where did he “insist” that Obama gave all credit to government? The fact is, Obama did claim Government deserved (some) credit for private enterprise successes.

    I actually think Ryan was one of the better ones on the whole ‘you didn’t build that’ nonsense. He said:

    And if small business people say they made it on their own, all they are saying is that nobody else worked seven days a week in their place. Nobody showed up in their place to open the door at five in the morning. Nobody did their thinking, and worrying, and sweating for them.
    After all that work, and in a bad economy, it sure doesn’t help to hear from their president that government gets the credit. What they deserve to hear is the truth: Yes, you did build that.

    That’s an ok explanation. Why couldn’t they have just said that in response after Obama’s speech? It’s FAR more honest than all the other garbage (even if it still does rely on the centrepiece lie).

    I don’t know enough about the details of the Medicare debate – I know the left are saying it’s dishonest because by complaining that Obama is taking $716 billion out of Medicare implies that Ryan’s budget doesn’t also include the same cut.

    What I also liked about Ryan’s speech is that he said:

    President Barack Obama, came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two. Those are very tough days. And any fair measure of his record has to take that into account.

    Good on him. He didn’t have to.

    The ipod joke was pretty good, but I thought this was better:

    College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life.

    That’s a top quality zinger (leavng aside the dishonesty of pretending students will be better off under Romney/Ryan).

    Thumb up 0

  28. CM

    BTW, I’ll bet anyone $100 that the day after Biden’s speech (or hell, even Obama’s) that a google search for “biden speech” doesn’t return all of the top results with headline words such as “lies” “hypocrisies”, “Not accurate” etc. from all of the major media sources, even though I’ll be able to point out as many if not more “lies” than were in Ryan’s speech.

    I get the impression this whole “yeah but the others tell more lies” approach is allowing the politicians to keep lying more. Inherently it suggests that the act of lying is acceptable. It seems there’s not even any shame in telling bald-faced and already-debunked lies anymore. Not long ago politicians would appear shifty and try to weasel out of it later. Not now though, they’d proudly lie, as if there was nothing wrong with it. That’s just treating the electorate (including their own supporters) with utter contempt in my view. But we keep letting them get away with it, because we convince ourselves that the other side are worse. Which just lets the spiral continue.
    BTW, as lying is considered bad enough to be one of the Ten Commandments (“bearing false witness”), I would have thought religious people would try to steer clear of this sort of thing? I know it would put them at a serious disadvantage, but I would have thought that would be a secondary concern. I could be wrong and I certainly leave open that possibility – it could be interpreted more narrowly I guess.

    Thumb up 1

  29. CM

    Alex Blagg tweet: “Not gonna lie: if we were electing a Boy Detective to solve a lunch money mystery at Junior High, I’d vote for Paul Ryan.”

    LMAO. Totally. Ryan could have been a character in Happy Days.

    Thumb up 0

  30. Mississippi Yankee

    salinger, your original comment was:

    Wouldn’t have expected this from Fox.

    My question is, what do YOU expect from Fox?

    Here is a partial bio from Sally Kohn’s own web site.

    Sally Kohn is a community organizer turned political commentator. Currently, Sally is a Fox News Contributor, having previously appeared on CNN and MSNBC. A contributing writer to the American Prospect, Sally’s op-eds and essays have appeared in the Washington Post, USA Today, Time Magazine, US News and World Report, Politico, Reuters and the Guardian among other outlets. Sally also works as a grassroots strategist and consultant, actively engaged in movement building for equality and justice.

    Thumb up 0

  31. Hal_10000 *

    I was disappointed that Ryan’s speech had false information in it, although I should point out that a lot of these “lies” are less factual than political disagreements. Here are the big five lies Ryan told:

    1) The GM plant being shut down. This really isn’t excusable. It was shut down under Bush and Ryan opposed the bailout.

    2) Medicare. I am disappointed with Ryan demagoguing this since his plan has identical cuts. It’s not a lie, per se — Obama is cutting Medicare. But it’s a policy Ryan supports.

    3) The credit rating downgrade was caused in part by the near crashing of the debt ceiling. But no honest person would absolve Obama for responsibility for that since Moody’s specifically cited our bad fiscal trajectory. And, really, is this any different from Bill Clinton blaming the GOP for the government shutdown? There’s enough blame for both sides.

    4) While it’s true that the deficit is heavily driven by Bush policies (tax cuts and wars in particular), it’s also true that Obama has extending those policies and embraced them. He wants to take credit for extending the tax cuts but blames Bush for the hole they blow in the deficit. And he has tried to get more spending only to be blocked by the GOP. I was really annoyed with him hitting Obama for ignoring Simpson-Bowles. That’s fair enough; it’s was a failure. But Ryan was on the commission and declined to support the plan. So that’s not a “lie” but it is living in a glass house.

    5) I also take issue with calling a “lie” what Ryan said about protecting the weak while cutting poverty programs. The GOP has always taken the position that these programs do not help the poor.

    So, in conclusion, there was dishonesty in that speech. But I suspect it will be matched by the dishonesty in the Democrats. And, really, they have lots of people who will lie for them. I’ve called out the Center for American Regress several times for carrying water for the Obamaites, including absurd claims that they’re taking a more humane approach to the War on Drugs.

    Thumb up 1

  32. CM

    And a total fake. You are the only person on here I wished would be banned. It’s nice to see you go into full left wing hysterics mode though you lying mother fucker you.

    Best fake-photo then. Whatever.
    Their two big messages go together.
    If you have a problem with honestly you must be power-chucking everywhere during this Convention.

    Thumb up 0

  33. Hal_10000 *

    They are Michael Moore lies. Lies by omission and implication. Still lies.

    Good point. But I used to write for Moorewatch. What Ryan said isn’t close to the kind of things Moore used to do. Just ask Jim and Donna.

    Thumb up 0

  34. repmom

    “best fake photo then. Whatever”

    So, you’re coming down on the Republicans for lying, but no problem with the fake photo as long as it served your purpose? Is that correct?

    I’m hoping you’ll be just as critical when the Dems have their day, but I’m having my doubts.

    Thumb up 0

  35. CM

    So, you’re coming down on the Republicans for lying, but no problem with the fake photo as long as it served your purpose? Is that correct?

    I didn’t know the photo was fake. I saw it as a joke anyway, the messages are clearly not intended to be mixed like that. You could have a photo of each side by side and I would have still laughed.
    Not really a good comparison to repeating lie upon lie to a national audience when these are the people who apparently own ‘personal responsibility’…..

    I’m hoping you’ll be just as critical when the Dems have their day, but I’m having my doubts.

    We’ll see. At the end of the day, a lie is a lie. We should denounce them no matter whose mouths they come out of. Why shouldn’t we be criticial of these people lying? There would be something wrong if people just accepted it, wouldn’t there?
    As you’re not being critical at all to these lies, can I assume you won’t be critical when the Dem Convention starts spewing them out?

    Thumb up 0

  36. CM

    Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald

    This Clint Eastwood speech is the best thing ever. I hope it goes on forever.

    Roger Ebert ‏@ebertchicago

    Clint, my hero, is coming across as sad and pathetic. He didn’t need to do this to himself. It’s unworthy of him.

    Jamelle Bouie ‏@jbouie

    This is a perfect representation of the campaign: an old white man arguing with an imaginary Barack Obama.

    Thumb up 0

  37. CM

    Dirty Harry being funny. Love it! “Make my day!”

    Andrew Kaczynski ‏@BuzzFeedAndrew

    This speech is much more Bridges of Madison County than Dirty Harry.

    Guy Endore-Kaiser ‏@GuyEndoreKaiser

    Hey conservatives, remember when you hated teleprompters?

    Thumb up 0

  38. CM

    Michelle Malkin ‏@michellemalkin

    Ok, I like Eastwood movies, but that was…weird.

    Love this one:

    Invisible Obama ‏@InvisibleObama

    Someone should tell Marco Rubio he’s standing on my foot right now.

    Thumb up 0

  39. repmom

    I don’t approve of any of the lies. I don’t pay enough attention to know if everything they say is true or false. That’s what I’m here for. According to what Hal wrote above, Ryan was not totally honest in his speech, and I am disappointed in that. It is wrong Have you seen me defend him in any way?

    I just see all your ” no better than Moore” comments, and expect to see the same from you when the Democrats are not honest in their speeches.

    “We’ll see”.

    Doesn’t sound too promising.

    As far as the fake photo – a lie is a lie. Right?

    Thumb up 0

  40. CM

    I don’t approve of any of the lies. I don’t pay enough attention to know if everything they say is true or false.

    That’s EXACTLY why they do it, what they rely on.

    According to what Hal wrote above, Ryan was not totally honest in his speech, and I am disappointed in that. It is wrong Have you seen me defend him in any way?

    No. Good on you.

    I just see all your ” no better than Moore” comments, and expect to see the same from you when the Democrats are not honest in their speeches.

    If they lie in the same way Moore did in his work, then I’d be happy to.

    Doesn’t sound too promising.

    I can’t promise anything, I have no clue what the Dem convention is going to be like.

    As far as the fake photo – a lie is a lie. Right?

    Right. And I’m not defending the lie. So…..?

    Thumb up 0

  41. CM

    Hey Xetrov, what did you make of Ryan’s line:

    The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves.

    Isn’t that the EXACT opposite of what Rand taught?

    Thumb up 0

  42. repmom

    That’s EXACTLY why they do it, what they rely on.

    I’m going to assume by “they” that you are referring to politicians in general, and not just Republicans.

    If they lie in the same way Moore did in his work, then I’d be happy to.

    No. If the Democrats lie at all, you call them on it, just like you are doing now with the Republicans.

    I can’t promise anything, I have no clue what the Dem convention is going to be like.

    All you have to promise if that you will call out their lies, and condemn them for the lies. It’s quite simple.

    Right. And I’m not defending the lie. So…..?

    But you’re not condeming it either. That’s the point. Very simple.

    Thumb up 1

  43. CM

    I’m going to assume by “they” that you are referring to politicians in general, and not just Republicans.

    Totally.

    No. If the Democrats lie at all, you call them on it, just like you are doing now with the Republicans.

    Ah ok, I thought you were being specific about Moore-style lies. I misinterpreted what you meant.

    All you have to promise if that you will call out their lies, and condemn them for the lies. It’s quite simple.

    I promise.

    But you’re not condeming it either. That’s the point. Very simple.

    I’m not condeming the lie that the photo is fake? Um, ok, I condemn that someone lied by making it look like you could take a photo on that particularly angle.
    The significant of the lie is of course also very important.
    When I said “a lie is a lie” I mean it doesn’t matter who does it, not that all lies are equal. They’re patently not. We all lie all the time, every day, but the vast majority of those lies are of little or no significance.
    Do believe that pictue is significant? Do you believe the fact that it was faked is significant?

    Thumb up 0

  44. InsipiD

    Should I have called you illiterate because you misused your instead of you’re? in your first reply? Not my style.

    Right. And I’m not defending the lie. So…..?

    But you’re not condeming it either. That’s the point. Very simple.

    They’re liberals, so they didn’t do it if they just say so. Don’t question the motive or source.

    Thumb up 0

  45. Section8

    It’s your sting of lies consistently on this board that’s the issue not a picture. You can’t even be honest that you have no interest in “understanding” or conversation which you claim. It’s all about leftist narrative and that’s it. Then every thread breaks down to I know you are but what am I? You get on Alex’s ass, and you are exactly what you accuse Alex of doing. And we all damn know well when the Dem convention comes, everything will be “factually correct”. If you gave a shit about fact checking, you’d already know there have been plenty of lies from the left. Everything from the lies in pushing Obama care, to transparency, to lobbyists, to some bullshit everyone Republican is racist meme. And anytime any of this shit is brought up, if you aren’t defending it in some way, it’s trying to find some example to support “you do it too.” Quit polluting this board with your bullshit.

    Thumb up 6

  46. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  47. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  48. Section8

    I see you’ve embraced the whole ‘alternate universe’ thing they’ve got going on down in Tampa.

    Nope, just don’t embrace the absolutist leftist nut job version of it. Plenty to discuss on this. Everything about how serious they are going to be about actually making government more efficient to foreign policy, and prior votes cast by some like Salinger pointed out. Anyhow, used to not care for the thumbs down, but since there is no ignore button, I think I’ll be using the thumbs to good use like others already figured out before me. Time to do my part to help clean up the caca, rather than assist you in dragging it on. Oh, and if people wanted to read a bunch of Twitter comments, they’d go to Twitter.

    Thumb up 5

  49. Hal_10000 *

    My thoughts on the final night, what I saw of it:

    Rubio was good; I can see why the GOP like him so much. Romney was solid. There was little substance but I think they did a god job of humanizing him and showing him to be a good person. Eastwood’s speech … wow … that may be the most unique thing I’ve ever seen at a political convention. Ten years from now, that’s what people will remember.

    BTW – The more I look into the “Ryan lies”, the less lying they seem. The Janesville Plant, for example. Obama DID promise in Feb 2008 that, under him, the plant would go on for a hundred years. It was a dumb thing to say. But as a representation of how he over-promised over and over again, it’s not the worst example. And while Ryan did reject Simpson-Bowles, he came out with his own plan to balance the budget. Obama has not done that.

    Thumb up 2

  50. Poosh

    Hey there, just to let you splendid Americans know how the UK TV news media is treating the Convention, you might want to watch this disgrace: Romney must play the numbers game to woo Uncle Sam.

    On prime time 6pm News on one of the few major TV channels ex-BBC channel 4 news corespondent referred to Chris Christie as “supersized” before calling him a “Tony Soprano in a fat suit”. Watch the vid about 2 minutes in, cause I know that sounds like I made it up. It’s shocking. And it passes as “news” for liberals in the UK. The entire segment is sickening, even saying Romney needed acting lessons because he can’t “look america straight in the eye”.

    A lot of smears and lies about Ryan’s speech, fact-checkers lying about Ryan, here’s a good sum up.

    I watch Fox News when I can on Sky and the standard News is pretty balanced but low on content, they give just the facts then leave it at that, which isn’t especially great news, sure here and there a little bias creeps in, but it’s minimal compared to, say, the BBC, for example: Fox is far from perfect (but I hear it’s been getting a little less conservative recently, sadly). Their opinion shows openly tell you they’re bias and conservative … IF YOU STATE YOUR BIAS, THEN YOU CAN’T BE BIAS. Bias requires subterfuge – such as Channel 4 News which says it’s just the facts, only interested in truth, claim they’re real journalists, then spend 20 minutes smearing Romney.

    Hope everyone has been ok here.

    Thumb up 3

  51. Xetrov

    You’re right, he didn’t use those exact words.

    Which means

    While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin

    Is flat out wrong. Hence, Not a Ryan Lie.

    That’s an ok explanation.

    Which means

    Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government

    Isn’t a Fact at all.

    From Poosh’s link above –

    The bottom line is that the fact checker criticisms of Ryan’s speech come in only one form: “Yes it’s true, but here’s some context that Democrats want to talk about.” That’s not fact checking; that’s advocacy. And it’s not persuasive, it’s absurd.

    That’s a perfect summation of the “lies”. And the fact that the “lies” all of these “Fact checkers” from the media organizations are talking about came in a memo from Obama’s campaign is just asinine.

    This is another example of your double-standard, CM. I really hope you see it. If someone (Alex or Rich for example) had said an Obama speech was full of these types of “lies”, you would actually spend time defending Obama and trying to point out how they weren’t exactly “lies”, instead of spending time trying to support the “Obama lied” meme that you did in regard to Ryan (and continue to do in this thread).

    I was actually disappointed with Mitt’s speech. I wanted more about what makes Mitt Mitt, and I wanted more about what exactly he’s going to do to turn the country around. Yes, he did both of those things to an extent, but he also took a lot of digs at Obama. At a convention like that, he should have let Ryan, Christie, Condi, etc. do that. They did a great job of outlining the case against Obama over the last few days, Mitt should have concentrated more on what his plan is to turn things around.

    Ryan was spot on in his speech. Christie’s a rockstar (though he was basically announcing his intention to run in 2016 if Mitt doesn’t win), and Condi was genius, and pure class. I haven’t had a lot of exposure to Rubio, but his speech last night was awesome. And I thought the humanizing stories from some of Mitt’s friends last night was nice.

    But I wanted Mitt to drop the shell a bit more, and show us who he really is, not the campaigner. He basically made a campaign speech that I’ve already heard in a dozen slightly different ways. Was it a good speech? Sure. Was it a greath speech? No. It would have been nice to see him give a speech on the level of his “Faith in America” speech from 2007. It was a speech he wrote himself, and it was from the heart. His speech last night, other than where he spoke of his parents, felt like just another campaign speech written by staffers.

    Thumb up 3

  52. Xetrov

    Hey Xetrov, what did you make of Ryan’s line:

    The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves.

    Isn’t that the EXACT opposite of what Rand taught?

    Nope.

    The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

    It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal . . . .

    To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.

    Thumb up 0

  53. Poosh

    Isn’t that the EXACT opposite of what Rand taught?

    LOL! what tool said that, Xetrov ? I am no Objectivist, but it grinds my gears when people talk about any philosopher without having even a simple, basic grasp of that philosophy. I guess people prefer to live in a world, and live their lives, where 2+2=5.

    Thumb up 1

  54. CM

    Is flat out wrong. Hence, Not a Ryan Lie.

    As I say, they are Michael Moore lies. Technically, nothing he says is untrue. But the narrative isn’t an accurate reflection, and that because of what he chooses to leave in and what he chooses to leave out.

    And the fact that the “lies” all of these “Fact checkers” from the media organizations are talking about came in a memo from Obama’s campaign is just asinine.

    And irrelevant to whether they are lies or not.

    This is another example of your double-standard, CM. I really hope you see it. If someone (Alex or Rich for example) had said an Obama speech was full of these types of “lies”, you would actually spend time defending Obama and trying to point out how they weren’t exactly “lies”, instead of spending time trying to support the “Obama lied” meme that you did in regard to Ryan (and continue to do in this thread).

    That sounds suspiciously like false balance to me. If I didn’t agree that a supposed lie was actually a lie, I’d say so, just like you are doing.
    You can’t demonstrate a double-standard by ‘suggesting’ what I’d do!
    I’ve said positive things this week. Let’s see how many positive comments we get from you guys next week….;-)

    Ryan said Romney would be providing policy specifics. He provided none.

    I thought Rubio was good.
    The humanizing stories were probably the best thing of all, (in terms of how effective they were) along with the Mitt video. And Mitt talking about his hiring of women – that was a good move to bring that to the fore.
    The Staples guy was a little weird, and a bit jarring coming right after those very personal and quite moving testimonials. I found the whole thing a little jumbled (there wasn’t an obvious flow). Towards the latter part the night seemed to be building momentum until Eastwood’s schtik (the suggestions he was doing a wedding toast are about as accurate as I’ve seen). I also agree that Romney’s speech was a generic speech from a generic Republican. Perhaps that is what he was going for.

    His speech last night, other than where he spoke of his parents, felt like just another campaign speech written by staffers.

    Perhaps trying to hit too many points (the week made it fairly obvious they realise they need to enlarge the tent somehow).

    Thumb up 0

  55. Iconoclast

    As I say, they are Michael Moore lies. Technically, nothing he says is untrue. But the narrative isn’t an accurate reflection, and that because of what he chooses to leave in and what he chooses to leave out.

    Unadulterated bullshit. MM does lie, blatantly. He does so not by merely “leaving things out”, but by the actual reconstruction and manipulation of historical sequences of events. His treatment of Charlton Heston in “Bowling for Columbine” is a classic example of his cutting, rearranging and pasting to create a sequence of events that never, ever occurred in Reality. And he presents it as documentary evidence to substantiate his asinine narratives.

    Thumb up 3

  56. CM

    We can argue degree, I’m talking about style/form/method.
    Cutting up Obama’s speech (which they did on the big screen) is utterly dishonest. And they did it because they know full well that played it unedited would mean the context would be clear and obvious.
    Providing the implication that Obama was responsible for the shutting of the the Janesville plant is playing around with a series of events.
    Again, this is no different to Moore’s style/form/method. Just because you can stomach it because you hate the Dems and Obama doesn’t change that.

    Thumb up 0

  57. Iconoclast

    Providing the implication that Obama was responsible for the shutting of the the Janesville plant is playing around with a series of events.

    Nope.

    For starters, let’s ponder that there is a difference between “imply” and “infer”. Just because you infer something, it doesn’t mean it was necessarily impied. The Janesville plant did close; it didn’t last 100 years, regardless of what Obama “believed”. Whether Obama is directly responsiblefor the closing is irrelevant.

    Again, this is no different to Moore’s style/form/method.

    Yes, it is. There is a world of difference between making a 30- or 40-minute speech at a convention, glossing over details to make a point (but not actually fabricating anything), and carefully fabricating a time-line of events in celluloid that never actually took place in the real world and trying to pass it off as documentary evidence of something. If you cannot see that, it may very well be “because you can stomach it because you hate the Repubs and Romney/Ryan”.

    Thumb up 2

  58. Iconoclast

    “I believe that if our government is there to support you, this plant will be here for another 100 years.”

    Why would Obama utter this phrase while on the campaiugn trail? Would it not be to get people to vote for him? Is that not the purpose of campaigning? If so, then yes, the implication is that if you vote for Obama, his Administration will “support you”, and your plant would remain open.

    Well, Obama got what he came for. He got enough votes to occupy the Oval Office. But the plant closed anyway. Nobody is saying that Obama necessarily caused the plant to close. They’re just sayin’ that he failed to keep it open. And that is all that needs to be said.

    Thumb up 4

  59. CM

    Xetrov, thanks for your response. What I mean is that Rand (in the interviews of watched with her) clearly believes:
    (a) that there is no measurable ‘society’ – society is simply a collection of individuals, what ‘society’ does is irrelevant
    (b) individuals should seek to maximise their self-interest – that is the single best virtue

    So I’m struggling to see how Ryan’s comment is consistent with any of that. Again he said:

    The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves.

    The first part of your response simply confirms that because people aren’t forced to do anything, nothing compels them to help but by the same token there’s nothing to stop them helping either.

    But from what I’ve seen and read Rand would reject that society should be measured at all. Only individuals should be measured (and primarily via the virtue of how much they put their own self-interest ahead of anything else).
    Also, your final paragraphs confirms what I saw her say in interviews – that people should give to people “in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such”. I.e. Only an individual should give (not society), and even then should only be giving to those who are maximising their self-interest, not based on need. Giving to those who cannot defend or care for themselves is clearly based on need, not virtue. People who cannot defend or case for themselves are quite often in that situation because of flaws and/or weaknesses. In the Phil Donahoe interview she talks quite passionately about how money should not be spent on adjusting buses so they can take disabled (“sub-normal”) kids. She believed, if anything, the money should (morally) go to assisting gifted kids.

    Also, since when is giving money not ‘self-sacrifice’? Isn’t it always? You’re sacrificing your ability to use that money for something you’d otherwise purchase.

    Thumb up 0

  60. CM

    For starters, let’s ponder that there is a difference between “imply” and “infer”. Just because you infer something, it doesn’t mean it was necessarily impied. The Janesville plant did close; it didn’t last 100 years, regardless of what Obama “believed”. Whether Obama is directly responsiblefor the closing is irrelevant.

    He implied it so that people could infer it.
    The Janesville plant closed, and there’s little evidence Obama could do anything about it. There is evidence that other plants were saved because of Obama. If Romney had been in charge, they would have all closed.
    Of course it’s relevant whether Obama was responsible for the closure. Ryan’s discussion about it makes it seem like he was responsible.
    The short version of what Ryan said: “Obama said he’d keep it open. It closed.” The clear inference is that Obama could have stopped it happening. However not even Ryan could stop it, even after he went to GM HQ and pleaded and offered a shitload of incentives.

    Yes, it is. There is a world of difference between making a 30- or 40-minute speech at a convention, glossing over details to make a point (but not actually fabricating anything), and carefully fabricating a time-line of events in celluloid that never actually took place in the real world and trying to pass it off as documentary evidence of something. If you cannot see that, it may very well be “because you can stomach it because you hate the Repubs and Romney/Ryan”.

    “Glossing over”?? As if they don’t change the narrative?! Ridiculous. The ‘point’ he was making (Obama is a failure) was mostly supported by crap.

    Why would Obama utter this phrase while on the campaiugn trail? Would it not be to get people to vote for him? Is that not the purpose of campaigning? If so, then yes, the implication is that if you vote for Obama, his Administration will “support you”, and your plant would remain open.

    Yes, that would be the implication. But if it’s already too late, then you need a time-machine to make it reality. And as time-travel has yet to be invented, it’s dishonest. Other plants stayed open, because Obama was elected (unless McCain was also going to save them, we know Romney would have let them all close).

    Well, Obama got what he came for. He got enough votes to occupy the Oval Office. But the plant closed anyway. Nobody is saying that Obama necessarily caused the plant to close. They’re just sayin’ that he failed to keep it open. And that is all that needs to be said.

    The bold part if clearly implied.
    He failed to keep it open in the same way I failed to keep my grandfather from being killed in 1950, 24 years before my birth.
    Michael Moore would be proud.

    Thumb up 0

  61. Thrill

    CM, Ryan said in his speech that the plant was going to close. A plain reading shows that he acknowledges that the plant was slated to close when Obama was just a candidate The issue is that the plant did close and stayed idled despite Obama’s pledge to keep it going for 100 years.

    The whole theme of the GOP convention is that 4 years of Obama has been nothing but failure of his policies, regardless of what is and isn’t his fault when he came in.

    Quibbling about whether or not Obama could have stopped the Janesville plant misses the point. What is undebatable is that Obama’s policies failed to revive it within his term, despite his assurances to the contrary.

    I know that the Left is desperate to paint Ryan as a liar, but Obama does have a record to run on and it isn’t good. Argue as much as you like about when the plant closed and who could have stopped it, but you cannot deny that no automobiles are rolling off the assembly line and that Obama failed those workers who he clearly wanted to help.

    That’s his legacy.

    PS: Michael Moore says Romney is going to win.

    Thumb up 4

  62. Xetrov

    Also, since when is giving money not ‘self-sacrifice’? Isn’t it always? You’re sacrificing your ability to use that money for something you’d otherwise purchase.

    I can only assume you’ve never read her works due to a statement like that. Don’t take what others have told you about her philosophy. Certainly don’t take mine. Read. Study if you’re interested. The incorrectness (not to mention inconsequential nature in regards to Ryan) of your statement/question

    Hey Xetrov, what did you make of Ryan’s line:

    The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves.

    Isn’t that the EXACT opposite of what Rand taught?

    Stands.

    Thumb up 0

  63. Iconoclast

    He implied it so that people could infer it

    Nope. You simply inferred it because it apparently fits your narrative.

    The Janesville plant closed, and there’s little evidence Obama could do anything about it.

    Then he should have kept his big trap shut about it, yes? Or does it simply not matter when liberals make promises they cannot keep, just to get voted into office?

    If Romney had been in charge, they would have all closed.

    Unless Romney made an implied promise to “support” the workers at those plants (if they voted for him, of course) and that the plants would therefore stay open for “100 years”, this unfounded assertion is thoroughly irrelevant.

    The clear inference is that Obama could have stopped it happening.

    Nope. He simply noted that another Obama Promise bit the dust.

    However not even Ryan could stop it…

    Irrelevant, given that Ryan never implied that he could or would. Obama did make that implication, as you yourself have admitted. Yet, apparently, this “elephant in the room” distinction is utterly lost on you.

    The ‘point’ he was making (Obama is a failure) was mostly supported by crap.

    Sure, if you consider facts to be “crap”…

    But if it’s already too late…

    …then you shouldn’t be making such implied promises in the first place. Talk is cheap.

    …we know Romney would have let them all close…

    Assuming this is true, then again, so what? Romney never promised to keep them open, did he? Why is this simple fact not getting through to you?

    The bold part if clearly implied.

    No it isn’t. You simply infer it. Inappropriately.

    Michael Moore would be proud.

    Of your disingenuousness? Of course he would.

    CM, Ryan said in his speech that the plant was going to close. A plain reading shows that he acknowledges that the plant was slated to close when Obama was just a candidate

    Thrill is absolutely correct. (Emphasis added):

    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.

    How could Ryan possibly be “implying” that Obama “caused” the plant closure when Ryan clearly stated that the town of Janesville was “about to lose a major factory” while Obama was still a candidate? Apparently, you’re taking Ryan’s statements out of context in order to support your narrative. Ironic, given how you’ve been incessantly banging the “context” drum for the past few weeks.

    Thumb up 4

  64. CM

    I can only assume you’ve never read her works due to a statement like that. Don’t take what others have told you about her philosophy. Certainly don’t take mine. Read. Study if you’re interested. The incorrectness (not to mention inconsequential nature in regards to Ryan) of your statement/question

    That part was really just an aside after the substantive part. I’d be interested in your opinion on the substantive part if you’re willing. I’m not trying to hold you or Ryan to anything you’ve said previously, or anything like that. Just interested because it sounded contrary to what I’ve heard from Rand herself (again, I’m getting this from her, not someone else interpreting her – apologies if I didn’t make that clear).

    Romney never promised to keep them open, did he?

    Well neither did Obama. He said “I believe that if our government is there to support you…” not “I will ensure this plant stays open”.
    If you inferred it as a promise, then that’s because it apparently fits your narrative.

    How could Ryan possibly be “implying” that Obama “caused” the plant closure when Ryan clearly stated that the town of Janesville was “about to lose a major factory” while Obama was still a candidate?

    He’s implying it by saying that the closure was “one more broken promise”.
    However what Obama said was a statement of belief that, with government help, the Janesville plant could remain open – but it wasn’t a promise to keep it open.
    Obama also said (at the plant): “The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your president.”
    He’ll fight for such a future.

    Then he should have kept his big trap shut about it, yes? Or does it simply not matter when liberals make promises they cannot keep, just to get voted into office?

    Same rules apply to both sides.

    How could Ryan possibly be “implying” that Obama “caused” the plant closure when Ryan clearly stated that the town of Janesville was “about to lose a major factory” while Obama was still a candidate?

    Because it hadn’t yet closed.

    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.

    1st paragraph: Fuck times are tough. Shit the local plant is going to close. We do like the sound of this Obama guy.
    2nd paragraph: Obama says he’ll save the plant if we vote for him. Phew!
    3rd paragraph: Jesus Christ, we voted for Obama and the plant’s going to close anyway. And it’s the same all over the place. What a lying mofo.

    That’s the clear message people like repmom (who doesn’t care to look into the details for whatever reason, most likely they have better things to do) are meant to take away from what Ryan says. There are some of us who waste shitloads of time getting into huge amounts of detail and typing a million words on the internets, but we’re sure-as-shit not the intended audience.

    Anyway I’m sure we’ll see plenty of similar ‘clear messages’ at the Democratic conference.

    Thumb up 0

  65. CM

    Another lie from the Janesville part of the speech:

    More than four years later, on Aug. 16, campaigning as the VP pick of the party that would have let GM be liquidated, Ryan told a crowd, “one of the reasons that plant got shut down was $4 gasoline. You see, this costs jobs. The president’s terrible energy policies are costing us jobs.”

    That was a lie. Ryan knows this. Obama’s energy policies had nothing to do with the price of gas in 2008.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80470.html

    Of your disingenuousness?

    What’s disingenuous is Ryan using this example when the government then saved that entire company and more than 1 million auto jobs. To complain that Obama could not reverse a corporate decision made well before he took office, in that context and the context of the policies of the guy at top of the ticket, is just pathetic. And you know it.

    Thumb up 0

  66. Poosh

    It’s usually a given that all politicians will tell a few lies and make some errors, parrot information that was wrong that they didn’t check etc. This would apply to Ryan too, but it’s clear that the so-called fact checkers claiming Ryan “lied” are actually the ones engaging in lies and misinformation, in an Orwellian way (very clever, and it will work~). What seems to be the case is that pretend fact-checkers are offering their opinions and assertions to Ryan’s opinions and conclusions and deciding he’s lying because they don’t agree with it. It’s pretty disgusting but just about as expected by liberals. It’s amazing how quickly they evolve their propaganda.

    What you’re actually dealing with often here are some Inductive arguments made by Ryan. The fake liberal fact checkers and claimers of his deceptions, imo, are deliberately, ignoring this for propagandist means. It’s hard to believe they all can’t tell the difference. They take issues with his conclusions from the premises, where we all have imprecise information, which is fine, but then they make the claim that he’s lying in his conclusion, which is not cricket at all. They could say “he’s wrong” or “he draws wrong conclusions” or his “premises are not all there” but instead they’re just going for the lie that that Ryan lied.

    And it will work. This sort of manipulation is easy to shove down peoples’ throats. People don’t react to “his premises were wrong” they react to “he’s a liar and if you agree with him, you’re a liar too, or dumb! Are you dumb?”

    Romney’s whole “Obama’s policies just aren’t working and are coming from muddled thinking concerning how economies work” will not have traction. Well, I hope I’m wrong.

    Thumb up 0

  67. Thrill

    CM, I just don’t see why you can’t admit that the entire point is that the plant is still sitting idle.

    Whether or not Obama could have stopped the plant from shuttering, there’s no way your side can spin the fact that it’s still closed to make Obama look good or Ryan look bad.

    That was the whole theme of the GOP Convention, CM: “Obama made grandiose, even ridiculuous promises to get elected and yet has failed to make anything better in four years.”

    Plain and simple.

    Ryan pointed out that high gas prices affect automobile production for plants that produce SUV’s. He’s right. The Obama Administration favors higher gasoline prices. The case can be made that Obama’s favored policies are anti-growth and the failure of the Janesville plant to revive is evidence of it.

    Quit trying to pretend that Ryan was making any other claim than that Obama has failed to revive this economy. Hope and Change is Broke and Lame.

    Thumb up 4

  68. CM

    CM, I just don’t see why you can’t admit that the entire point is that the plant is still sitting idle.

    Huh? That’s not the entire point at all. People aren’t being employed there. It’s closed up.

    Whether or not Obama could have stopped the plant from shuttering, there’s no way your side can spin the fact that it’s still closed to make Obama look good or Ryan look bad.

    Of course it doesn’t do anything positive for Obama. It doesn’t do anything positive for Ryan either. Both of them fought hard to assist the auto industry, but ultimately there is only a limited amount either of them can do. GM decided to close up the plant. The auto bailout saved, what, a million jobs elsewhere. What did Ryan expect to happen – for Obama to appoint himself CEO of GM so he could keep that plant open because he made a speech there?
    Next you’ll be trying to suggest that Ryan wasn’t making a general point, but was only making a point about that specific plant. But that’s clearly untrue because he concludes with his point: “And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.”.

    That was the whole theme of the GOP Convention, CM: “Obama made grandiose, even ridiculuous promises to get elected and yet has failed to make anything better in four years.”

    Plain and simple.

    I thought the whole theme was “We Did Build That”?
    As above, it wasn’t a promise, Obama was actually talking about transitioning the auto industry towards green energy and the Govt assisting in the re-tooling of plants like Janesville so that can continue onwards for another 100 years. Ultimately GM would decide on each individual plant though, as the Govt can’t tell them which plant should stay open and which shouldn’t. Those decisions are made for economic reasons (which are fundamental to protecting the bailout investment), not speeches made during election campaigns. But then that’s all obvious.
    Lots of things are better than they were four years ago. When he took office the country was losing 750,000 jobs per month (at the same time the Janesville plant was closed up). There have been increases for the last 29 months apparently. And they are private sector jobs, not public sector jobs.

    Ryan pointed out that high gas prices affect automobile production for plants that produce SUV’s. He’s right. The Obama Administration favors higher gasoline prices. The case can be made that Obama’s favored policies are anti-growth and the failure of the Janesville plant to revive is evidence of it.

    I hope you didn’t hurt yourself stretching so far. Obama isn’t responsible for gas prices now, let alone before he was even elected. Obama’s energy policies had nothing to do with the price of gas in 2008.
    I don’t see how that case can be made very well – the sort of ‘growth’ you are talking about is unsustainable. It’s based on high oil prices being a temporary blip.

    Quit trying to pretend that Ryan was making any other claim than that Obama has failed to revive this economy. Hope and Change is Broke and Lame.

    The recovery has been extremely slow and painful. But that’s because the crisis was far deeper than anyone realised.
    I just love the fact that “get government out of our lives” is immediately changed to “Obama didn’t inject enough government into our lives” in this example. I know that the overall premise is “Obama broke his promise” but the example used is to show the misery of the Govt not stepping in to assist, which is the opposite of the “We Built This” meme.

    Anyway, it seems like the case for Paul Ryan has gone from “bold truthteller” to “well, all politicians lie and deceive, why is everyone picking on Paul Ryan for doing it?” That’s not good for the GOP.

    Thumb up 0

  69. Xetrov

    That was a lie. Ryan knows this. Obama’s energy policies had nothing to do with the price of gas in 2008.

    Technically Obama entered the Senate in 2006. So for two years his (and the rest of Congress’) policies that continued to restrict the cultivation of our natural energy reserves were at least partially responsible for the price of gas in 2008.

    Thumb up 1

  70. CM

    Technically Obama entered the Senate in 2006. So for two years his (and the rest of Congress’) policies that continued to restrict the cultivation of our natural energy reserves were at least partially responsible for the price of gas in 2008.

    I’d like to see some evidence which demonstrates that energy policies from 2006 to 2008 had any meaningful effect on the price of gas.

    Under Obama domestic oil production has increased markedly (14% over the last year alone).

    Crude oil is most of the cost of gas and that oil is traded on a global market. So even though Americans are finding more oil and using less, developing countries like China and India are taking up the slack and keeping the pressure on prices. And tensions in oil-producing countries like Iran also cause prices to spike because investors fear an interruption in supplies.

    Thumb up 0

  71. Xetrov

    I’d like to see some evidence which demonstrates that energy policies from 2006 to 2008 had any meaningful effect on the price of gas.

    Congress didn’t vote to remove restrictions in place. That’s all the evidence I need.

    Under Obama domestic oil production has increased markedly (14% over the last year alone).

    I would say “Despite Obama“, Not “Under Obama”.

    The increase in domestic drilling was almost entirely in areas for which the Obama administration exercised no authority, as oil production on federal land declined by 11 percent in fiscal year 2011, according to a study by the Institute on Energy Research (IER), a free-market energy think tank. But oil production on state lands increased that year by 14 percent and increased by 12 percent on private lands.

    “A lot of the wells that were supposed to be drilled weren’t because of the moratorium,” Dan Kish, senior vice president for policy at the IER, told CNSNews.com. “Drilling is up in the U.S. on lands he has no say over. On lands he has all the say over, drilling is down.”

    Crude oil is most of the cost of gas and that oil is traded on a global market. So even though Americans are finding more oil and using less, developing countries like China and India are taking up the slack and keeping the pressure on prices. And tensions in oil-producing countries like Iran also cause prices to spike because investors fear an interruption in supplies.

    Thank you, Captain Obvious. In another obvious point, there is more to domestic energy production than just Crude oil. Carry on with your links that attempt to despute…whatever. Then I’ll lose interest, and we can move on to the next thread where the cycle repeats.

    Thumb up 2

  72. CM

    Congress didn’t vote to remove restrictions in place. That’s all the evidence I need.

    Ok well I don’t agree. Decisions made about domestic production during a 2 year period will play some small role in the future price of gas (along with decisions made during other years), but makes no difference at all to the immediate price, which is specifically what Ryan is talking about. Argue around it all you like, Obama’s energy policies had nothing to do with the price of gas in 2008.

    BTW I would get absolutely hammered if I used a source like that. Just saying.

    Thumb up 0

  73. Iconoclast

    Well neither did Obama.

    He implied one. You even admitted as much. Romney, on the other hand, never even implied one.

    If you inferred it as a promise, then that’s because it apparently fits your narrative.

    Not according to your own admission:

    Why would Obama utter this phrase while on the campaign trail? Would it not be to get people to vote for him? Is that not the purpose of campaigning? If so, then yes, the implication is that if you vote for Obama, his Administration will “support you”, and your plant would remain open.

    Iconoclast, September 1, 2012 1:18 AM

    Yes, that would be the implication.

    CM, September 1, 2012 2:10 AM

    You have already admitted that there was an implied promise, and the fact that the resulting inference “fits my narrative” in no way mitigates that. Your attempt to impugn my character is what we call an epic fail.

    He’s implying it by saying that the closure was “one more broken promise”.

    The only thing Ryan is implying is that Obama fails to keep promises. He simply is not implying that Obama “caused” the plant closure. The CONTEXT of the statement clearly shows this. Face it, you’re no better that the whole “you didn’t build that” group you self-righteously accuse of being dishonest. You’re doing the exact same thing. Some would call that hypocrisy.

    But not you, of course.

    but it wasn’t a promise to keep it open.

    It was an implied propmise. You have already admitted as much. Otherwise, there would have been no need for Obama to even bring it up.

    Because it hadn’t yet closed.

    Irrelevant. It was already scheduled to be closed. Obama failed to keep it open, in spite of an implied promise that he would.

    2nd paragraph: Obama says he’ll save the plant if we vote for him. Phew!

    And you have already admitted that Obama implied as much. It was an implied promise. Otherwise, there would be no need for Obama to even bring it up.

    3rd paragraph: Jesus Christ, we voted for Obama and the plant’s going to close anyway. And it’s the same all over the place. What a lying mofo.

    Wrong. The plant did close anyway. And no one is accusing Obama of “lying”, just failing to keep promises. Not the same thing, unless you are a flaming liberal pushing a narrative.

    First, Ryan is “implying” that Obama “caused” the plant closure, and now he’s calling Obama a liar?

    Watching you melt down is rather amusing, I must admit. And I’m beginning to wonder if English is your first language…

    Thumb up 3

  74. Thrill

    Watching you melt down is rather amusing, I must admit.

    He really is. You’re giving him a fine fisking for it.

    The Left has nothing this year and it’s made them as wild animals. I feel bad for him but still had to jump in to poke him with the stick a little bit too.

    Thumb up 1

  75. Iconoclast

    What’s disingenuous is Ryan using this example when the government then saved that entire company and more than 1 million auto jobs. To complain that Obama could not reverse a corporate decision made well before he took office, in that context and the context of the policies of the guy at top of the ticket, is just pathetic. And you know it.

    I love it when people tell me what I know…

    The auto bailout is a whole ‘nother example of the Administration’s cronyism and corruption, but I’m not surprised that you find it impressive at some level. And don’t you get tired of continuously moving those goal posts around? First, Ryan is “implying” that Obama “caused” the plant closure, then Ryan is calling Obama a “liar”, and now Ryan is being “disingenuous” for calling Obama out on words he said to a specific group of people at a specific GM plant?

    It’s rather evident that you aren’t the least bit interested in “understanding” conservatism or conservative candidates, but merely demonizing them any way you can. To say that your credibility is in the toilet would be an insult to toilets.

    Thumb up 3

  76. CM

    He implied one. You even admitted as much. Romney, on the other hand, never even implied one.

    Obama made no such promise. I assumed so without going back and looking at exactly what Obama said, and the context. However I do note that Ryan changed his language from his speech in Ohio on August 16 where he said:

    “You know, I live in Janesville, Wisconsin. We used to have a big General Motors plant. A lot of my high school buddies worked at that plant. That plant was shut down in 2009. I remember President Obama visiting it when he was first running, saying he’ll keep that plant open. One more broken promise.”

    Ryan changed that in his convention speech to:

    “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.”

    What Obama said Janesville on 13 Feb 2008 was part of a long campaign speech. Here is the full transcript (pdf).

    The relevant part was:

    I believe that we can create millions of those jobs around a clean, renewable energy future. A few hours northeast of here is the city of Manitowoc [MAN-a-ta-WOC]. For over a century, it was the home of Mirro manufacturing – a company that provided thousands of jobs and plenty of business. In 2003, Mirro closed its doors for good after losing thousands of jobs to Mexico.

    But in the last few years, something extraordinary has happened. Thanks to the leadership of Governor Doyle and Mayor Kevin Crawford, Manitowoc has re-trained its workers and attracted new businesses and new jobs. Orion Energy Systems works with companies to reduce their electricity use and carbon emissions. And Tower Tech is now making wind turbines that are being sold all over the world. Hundreds of people have found new work, and unemployment has been cut in half.

    This can be America’s future. I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday, and 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. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President.

    My energy plan will invest $150 billion over ten years to establish a green energy sector that will create up to 5 million new jobs over the next two decades – jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced. We’ll also provide funding to help manufacturers convert to green technology and help workers learn the skills they need for these jobs.

    He gives Janesville as an example of the type of plant that can transition to a new economy, as it had already started to do, and that government can play a role in supporting that transition.

    By “bad news,” Obama was apparently referring to GM’s February 2008 announcement that it had a $38.7 billion adjusted net loss for the previous year. When he gave the speech, nobody knew the plant was going to be closed.

    In this context I do not believe “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” is a promise to fight the plant open (and certainly not in it’s current state) when it’s not known that the plant would close. It’s expressing a general belief that assisting in a transition is something the government can be involved in (and if they do, they can go on for a long time), and applying it to local examples.

    Romney, on the other hand, never even implied one.

    We’re certainly in agreement on that.

    You have already admitted that there was an implied promise,

    On review, looking at everything in more detail and in the full context, it’s clear to me that it couldn’t have been an implied promise. I was too hasty in agreeing with the implication you put forward. I wasn’t fully aware of the context of what that section of Obama’s speech was about, and the timing of everything.

    Obama was there giving his speech in Feb 2008. It was in June 2008 that GM announced that the Janesville plant would stop production of medium-duty trucks by the end of 2009, and stop production of large SUVs such as the Chevy Tahoe and Suburban and the GMC Yukon in 2010 or sooner, depending on market demand. SUV production ended on 23 Dec 2008. Medium truck production continued until it was halted on 23 April 2009, ending vehicle production at the plant.
    So, crucially, Obama wasn’t telling this plant that he’d save it from a pending closure. That’s because he wasn’t addressing a plant that he knew to be closing, because the closure announcement didn’t come until four months after his speech. And although the plant’s last part of production stopped early in Obama’s presidency and the plant remains closed, the closure was planned before Obama became president.
    They are two important pieces of context that are missing from Ryan’s account.

    The only thing Ryan is implying is that Obama fails to keep promises. He simply is not implying that Obama “caused” the plant closure. The CONTEXT of the statement clearly shows this. Face it, you’re no better that the whole “you didn’t build that” group you self-righteously accuse of being dishonest. You’re doing the exact same thing. Some would call that hypocrisy.

    Ryan is certainly implying that Obama promised that plant would continue to operate, and that’s another promise that Obama has broken. But, as discussed just above, that’s not true.
    You’re pretending that Ryan didn’t imply there was a promise. He did imply that, but it wasn’t the case.

    Irrelevant. It was already scheduled to be closed.

    No, that wasn’t announced until June, months after Obama’s visit.
    http://archives.media.gm.com/archive/documents/domain_3/docId_46161_pr.html
    Alternatively:

    In April 2008, GM announced that the plant would cut back full-time production to a single shift. Combined with an ongoing employee buy-out program, layoffs totaled around 750 jobs in July 2008.[9]

    During GM’s 2008 annual shareholder meeting on June 3, 2008, CEO Rick Wagoner announced that the Janesville assembly plant would close by 2010, along with three other GM factories, and could close sooner if the market dictated.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janesville_GM_Assembly_Plant#2008

    Again, the ‘bad news’ Obama was talking about was the announcement of the $38.7 billion loss in 2007, up from only $2 billion the year before. It wasn’t, as I think some people believe, the announcement made months later about what would happen at that specific plant.
    http://archives.media.gm.com/archive/documents/domain_3/docId_43296_pr.html

    It was an implied propmise. You have already admitted as much. Otherwise, there would have been no need for Obama to even bring it up.

    Irrelevant. It was already scheduled to be closed. Obama failed to keep it open, in spite of an implied promise that he would.

    Obviously the same applies here. The GM announcements in relation to that specific plant were made months later. And the relevant section of the speech is much more general.

    The auto bailout is a whole ‘nother example of the Administration’s cronyism and corruption, but I’m not surprised that you find it impressive at some level.

    I don’t think it’s impressive at all. It’s shit. But ultimately, given the alternative, I certainly think it was the least worst option. There are many many support companies providing products that would also have folded, with huge flow-on effects to companies like Ford (perhaps large enough to take them down too).

    And don’t you get tired of continuously moving those goal posts around? First, Ryan is “implying” that Obama “caused” the plant closure, then Ryan is calling Obama a “liar”, and now Ryan is being “disingenuous” for calling Obama out on words he said to a specific group of people at a specific GM plant?

    This is the first I’ve taken the time to look at the whole thing in sufficient detail. I do regret making comments before I’d done that.

    It’s rather evident that you aren’t the least bit interested in “understanding” conservatism or conservative candidates, but merely demonizing them any way you can.

    Whether claims are truthful or not, and looking into the detail to determine that, and discussing it, is fun. And irrelevant to understanding how conservatism/libertarianism applies to today’s world.

    To say that your credibility is in the toilet would be an insult to toilets.

    I love it when people tell me about my credibility…

    Thumb up 0

  77. Iconoclast

    Well, all I’ve got to say is that you’ve opened one hell of a can of worms by citing Obama’s entire speech…

    And it’s a Washington that has thrown open its doors to lobbyists and special interests who’ve riddled our tax code with loopholes that let corporations avoid paying their taxes while you’re paying more. They’ve been allowed to write an energy policy that’s keeping us addicted to oil when there are families choosing between gas and groceries. They’ve used money and influence to kill health care reform at a time when half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, and then they’ve rigged our bankruptcy laws to make it harder to climb out of debt. They don’t represent ordinary Americans, they don’t fund my campaign, and they won’t drown out the voices of working families when I am President.

    Obama’s Administration is all about special interests, so there is one hell of a broken promise right there. But it would be moving goal posts on my part to focus on that right now. I just want to bring it up as icing on the cake, so to speak.

    Obama does mention that the plant had closed before:

    Prosperity hasn’t always come easily. The plant shut down for a period during the height of the Depression, and major shifts in production have been required to meet the changing times. Tractors became automobiles. Automobiles became artillery shells. SUVs are becoming hybrids as we speak, and the cost of transition has always been greatest for the workers and their families.

    (paragraph 2)

    So Obama acknowledges that the plant has closed in the past, but has then re-opened, retooled for different products and a different market. So, with the pump thusly primed, when he later says:

    I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday, and 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.

    It certainly sounds like Obama is pledging to create an Administration that would indeed “support” the Janesville plant’s workers, provide “support” in the plant’s retooling for “green” energy, and cause the plant to be open for another century, even if it were to close at some point like it had done before. Obama’s Administration would “support” the plant’s retooling due to the changing times, just as the plant had undergone such retoolings in the past.

    Now, it’s pretty much a given that you personally will not see it that way, but that is irrelevant. It is a valid reading of Obama’s speech, whether you like it or not, and that is all that matters here. After all, the point is whether “Ryan LIED!!!” when he mentioned Obama’s speech in his speech at the Republican Convention. This analysis, this interpretation is more than enough to cast serious doubt on the assertion that “Ryan LIED!!!!”

    Thumb up 2

  78. CM

    It certainly sounds like Obama is pledging to create an Administration that would indeed “support” the Janesville plant’s workers, provide “support” in the plant’s retooling for “green” energy, and cause the plant to be open for another century, even if it were to close at some point like it had done before. Obama’s Administration would “support” the plant’s retooling due to the changing times, just as the plant had undergone such retoolings in the past.

    Ultimately it’s GM’s decision, and I think his wording allows for that:

    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.

    It’s a belief. Later in the year:

    Obama comments on Janesville GM plant:

    “Reports that the GM plant I visited in Janesville may shut down sooner than expected are a painful reminder of the tough economic times facing working families across this country,” Obama said in a statement released by his Wisconsin campaign organization.

    “This news is also a reminder that Washington needs to finally live up to its promise to help our automakers compete in our global economy. As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.”

    And then in Dec 2008, GM Statement on Administration Providing Bridge Loan to Domestic Auto Industry:

    We appreciate the President extending a financial bridge at this most critical time for the U.S. auto industry and our nation’s economy. This action helps to preserve many jobs, and supports the continued operation of GM and the many suppliers, dealers and small businesses across the country that depend on us.

    This will allow us to accelerate the completion of our aggressive restructuring plan for long-term, sustainable success. It will lead to a leaner, stronger General Motors, a GM that is:

    *dedicated to great products, exciting design, and world-class quality

    *fully committed to leading in energy-saving vehicles and technologies,

    *responsive to the needs of our customers, our stakeholders and the communities we live in and serve.

    We know we have much work in front of us to accomplish our plan. It is our intention to continue to be transparent as we execute our plan, and we will provide regular updates on our progress. We again thank the Administration for this important support of our industry at this challenging time, and we look forward to proving what American ingenuity can achieve.

    So the government did give the owners the support Obama talked about back in 2008. GM just decided not to use that money to open the Janesville plant at this time.

    Now, it’s pretty much a given that you personally will not see it that way, but that is irrelevant. It is a valid reading of Obama’s speech, whether you like it or not, and that is all that matters here.

    This is why I said it’s Michael Moore style lying. People have defended Moore’s narratives on the basis that “it’s a valid reading”, having managed to exclude a whole heap of relevant shit which changes the context.

    I just want to bring it up as icing on the cake, so to speak.

    No problem, and I think you’ve got a good point there, although I obviously don’t believe that you have a cake to ice.

    Anyway, Obama etc are next on the block. What lies can they……um…….build.

    Thumb up 0

  79. Iconoclast
    Irrelevant. It was already scheduled to be closed.

    No, that wasn’t announced until June, months after Obama’s visit.

    The point you seem so intent on dodging is that you are accusing Ryan of implying that Obama CAUSED the plant closure, but Ryan’s speech indicated that it was already scheduled to be closed while Obama was still a candidate, therefore Ryan couldn’t have been implying that Obama “caused” the closure.

    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.

    It’s a belief.

    Yes, and Obama is a politician…

    Like I have patiently stated a couple of times now, the reason that belief was uttered was to lead the audience to believe that, if they were to vote for Obama, their plant would remain open for another 100 years. Of course, only a fool would state flat-out, “If you vote for me, I promise to keep this plant open for another 100 years!” Nevertheless, Obama’s rhetoric can indeed be seen as an implied promise to do exactly that, in one form or another.

    This is why I said it’s Michael Moore style lying

    It ain’t “lying” at all, “Michael Moore style” or otherwise. Everything in this part of Ryan’s speech is factually correct. Period. Obama did indeed say what Ryan claimed he said. The plant was indeed scheduled for closure while Obama was a candidate just like Ryan said. What Obama said at the plant was indeed an implied promise to keep it open. It was not an overt, blatant promise, granted, but then no one is claiming it was. Ryan’s quote of Obama is accurate enough to not qualify as a “lie”.

    I have already explained why comparisons to Michael Moore are invalid and inappropriate, but you simply do not listen.

    I obviously don’t believe that you have a cake to ice.

    Just as I predicted would be the case.

    Thumb up 1