The problem here is that both sides are not equal in the suckness department.
I have yet to see Democrats demonizing the moderates in their party and actively seeking to marginalize them the way the GOP has.
Sorry. I don't buy the "they are both equally sucky" narrative.
At this point we are both saying about the same thing, we are just getting at the same concept from different angles. No need for a facepalm.Actually, I understood the concept before your explanation. And, I was shocked that Romney is not actually the President. Thanks for the newsflash.
" ....president and his staff *do* place." So yes, the jerk in the oval office matters in the end analysis.
Don't make me use the nuclear facepalm!At this point we are both saying about the same thing, we are just getting at the same concept from different angles. No need for a facepalm.
I knew I shouldn't have added that last line, you ignored the rest of the post.
What I meant is, saying the media objected, indicates the media has a side. I have no objection to the media being critical of something a campaign puts out but, instead of parroting the opposing point of view, I'd prefer they force the campaign to explain theirs.
For instance, if the media, in this case, would ask the Republicans to explain how the Sebelius directive is gutting the Welfare work requirement instead of just saying nuh uh, fact checkers say your wrong, you might get a better response than, "we're not going to be lead around by fact checkers."
That's all I meant and it was a last minute addition to the post, after I saw the word object in the article. Sheesh!
I actually wouldn't mind Republicans winning this time around. I know no matter who's in office I'm going to be just fine. I just want to see if the Republican party can finish the job off of killing this country once and for all
Let's look at the first checked fact...^^Your heros continue to not let facts get in the way.
FACT CHECK: Ryan takes factual shortcuts in speech
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rya...070905927.html
The fact-checker's "THE FACTS" doesn't even address what Ryan said. It es about Ryan's plan which, by the way, isn't the Romney/Ryan plan.RYAN: "And the biggest, coldest power play of all in Obamacare came at the expense of the elderly. ... So they just took it all away from Medicare. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama."
THE FACTS: Ryan's claim ignores the fact that Ryan himself incorporated the same cuts into budgets he steered through the House in the past two years as chairman of its Budget Committee, using the money for deficit reduction. And the cuts do not affect Medicare recipients directly, but rather reduce payments to hospitals, health insurance plans and other service providers.
In addition, Ryan's own plan to remake Medicare would squeeze the program's spending even more than the changes Obama made, shifting future retirees into a system in which they would get a fixed payment to shop for coverage among private insurance plans. Critics charge that would expose the elderly to more out-of-pocket costs.
Where does it say that Ryan's statement Obama is going to cut $716 billion from Medicare is not factual?
Not to mention, this fact-check comes from the organization and bureau whose chief was fired for saying, Republicans "are happy to party with black people drowning."
With fact-checking like this, I can see why the Republican Campaign would say what they said.
Went to lunch and fell behind on this thread. Can someone bring me up to speed with regards to whether or not yoni and rg have reached a consensus on which party is drowning closer to the surface yet?
You can attempt to parse the words as if some sort of armchair lawyer all you want, but the bottom line is that Mr Ryan's speech was deceptive in what he didn't say, not necessarily in what he did say.
Okay, I'll bite, what didn't he say?
He didn't say that his budget also included the 716B cuts in Medicare.
He didn't say the GM plant closed down before Obama took office.
He didn't say he voted against Bowles Simpson.
He didn't say that he asked for stimulus for his backyard.
When you are attacking your opponent for these exact policy decisions it is intellectually dishonest to leave out these facts.
The Romney plan doesn't include the cuts, why would he talk about a plan his boss rejected?
You're right and wrong; the plant actually ceased production in 2009 but, that wasn't his point. Obama stood at that plant in 2008 and promised those people if they elected him, his policies would ensure they would remain open for another 100 years.
So?
Debatable and, since many Republicans voted for the stimulus, I'm not sure who would care.
Except that he represents a Romney/Ryan ticket with policies that purport to be fundamentally different from what Congressman Ryan was proposing, even less than a year ago. In other words, he had no obligation to talk about his plans that aren't being incorporated by the candidate.
Glad I could help.
The context of the statement is "we're not going to deal with criticism of fact checkers, whoever those might be"...
I'm not even sure why you're carrying water on this matter, tbh. The fact that the GOP strategists openly admit they're rolling along with bull because it's working for them is much more transparent than trying to spin the same bull , like Barry does.
I'll fact check that Ryan speech
Neither do I, re-read the post.
Years ago you were a reasonable guy; would actually listen to arguments. More and more you've become as much a mouthpiece for the Democrats as ANY poster in here is for the Republicans.
Sad.
Look, I thought it was a well crafted and potentially effective speech for the reasons you noted above. Now, it's up to the Obama political machine to go out and lay out the facts that I noted above. When the people hear these facts, I think they'll view Mr Ryan as a hypocrite. Hopefully that will help them make a more informed decision in November.
Oh, I think O's minions are going to be too busy spinning their own bull to address Ryans speech.
And, considering the type of fact-checking going on, I can see why he would make that statement.
They said the ad is effective. That's not admitting it's not factual.
And, again, I've already demonstrated where Sebelius own words validate the position.
How so? Is the Presidential candidate supposed to adopt every idea his Vice-Presidential pick has ever endorsed?
I disagree. The dems are now losing on the medicare issue. You will be seeing the facts that I pointed out above in ads and incorporated into their stump speeches and their rebuttals at the DNC next week...as they should be. They would be fools to not go after Ryan and his record as a congressman.
Nope. But that does not mean they cannot use his congressional voting record against him.
Everybody doesn't live in your fantasy world though. There's plenty of fact checkers out there, and for a plethora of topics, there's not a lot to debate. If I post "Yoni told me he rapes little children", that's patently false, not a matter of opinion or degrees of truth...
I don't expect them to admit anything. After all, their statement is saying basically that: facts are overrated.
That didn't take long: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/30/ne...nst-paul-ryan/
It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Parse away!
I hope we see those "facts" in Democrats ads; they're stupid rebuttals.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
