Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Republican National Convention; Tampa, FL Aug 27-30
Topic Started: Aug 27 2012, 07:56 PM (3,949 Views)
Joan Foster

The Obama campaign is lashing out at Paul Ryan, claiming that his fantastic convention speech last night was packed with falsehoods and lies.  Here's their hysterical response video:
 




To the surprise of no one, the ad's "rebuttals" are misleading and wrong themselves.  Point by point:
 

(1) They begin with video of CNN reporters discussing accusations of Ryan's "lies." This is proof that the Obama campaign sent out a lot of angry emails, and nothing else.

(2) Medicare - Sorry, guys, but it is 100 percent true that Obamacare raided $716 Billion from Medicare to pay for itself.  It does cut benefits to current seniors.  And Paul Ryan's plan took the president's Medicare "savings," and re-routed them back into Medicare to shore up the program.  Mitt Romney's plan would undo those cuts altogether.  Obama took those cuts and used them to pay for Obamacare.  He has admitted this on camera:
 




(3) The GM Plant - Part of the factory Ryan mentioned was shut down under Bush, despite the initial GM bailout (which Senator Obama supported).  The plant finally fully closed in April of 2009, during Obama's presidency, as this report clearly states.  Obama's problem is that he showed up and made empty promises to pander for votes.  Ryan never said Obama was personally responsible for the plant's closure, but he accurately stated that it closed down within a year of candidate Obama's hope-filled speech and remains closed today.  Obama goes on and on about "saving" the auto industry and his economic recovery.  That boarded-up Janesville plant tells a different story.

(4) The Stimulus - Pointing out that Paul Ryan asked that his district receive a slice of a giant, wasteful pie after it was passed -- and despite his opposition -- is at worst an instance of hypocrisy.  It does not disprove anything that Ryan said in his speech, and it does not change the empirical fact that Barack Obama's borrowed stimulus has utterly failed based on the metrics for success Obama himself set out for it.

(5) The debt commission - What Ryan said is absolutely correct.  The Obama ad quotes Chris Wallace, who notes that Ryan was on that commission and voted against it.  True.  He refused to abide the section maintaining Obamacare, and voted no on its final findings.  Still, he was intimately involved in the group's deliberations and proposed solutions.  Not fully happy with the final outcome, he went on to craft two budgets of his own, with numerous elements based on the Simpson-Bowles framework.  The commission's Democratic co-chairman (Bowles of Simpson-Bowles) has praised Ryan's proposals to the hilt.  Barack Obama, who convened the commission in the first place after deriding commissions on the campaign trail, completely ignored its recommendations and proceeded to propose to wildly reckless, debt-busting budgets that received a total of zero votes in either house of Congress.  Correctly asserting that Ryan opposed the final Simpson-Bowles recommendations is no way absolves Obama for his demonstrable abdication of leadership on these issues.  It's more smoke and mirrors -- and more petty Obama blame, another central theme of Ryan's address.

(6) Chris Matthews called the speech "nasty."  Stop the presses!


If this is all they've got, it's no wonder they're freaking out.  Paul Ryan told the truth about Barack Obama, and the president's campaign can't handle it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/greghengler/2012/08/30/unaired__unedited_paul_ryan_responds_to_gm_plant__simpsonbowles

Ryann responses to Fact checkers....but you won't see much of this in MSM.

Edited by Joan Foster, Sep 1 2012, 08:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

duke09parent
Sep 1 2012, 12:58 AM
You guys won't like this source but this guy lists 30 instances of dishonesty/distortions in Romney's acceptance speech. He imbeds links to support his argument.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/31/13593775-chronicling-mitts-mendacity-vol-xxxii?lite

I fully expect the Democrats to engage in repeated falsehoods and distortions at their convention, but it was depressing to hear assertions which have been repeatedly judged false by independent fact checkers resurface this past week.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/30/obama_camp_melts_down_over_ryans_speech


WITH links.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/16/fact-checking-the-obama-campaigns-defense-of-its-716-billion-cut-to-medicare/

Medicare issue response
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/30/fact-checking-the-factcheckers-on-ryans-speech/

Janesville response.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

duke09parent
Sep 1 2012, 12:58 AM
You guys won't like this source but this guy lists 30 instances of dishonesty/distortions in Romney's acceptance speech. He imbeds links to support his argument.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/31/13593775-chronicling-mitts-mendacity-vol-xxxii?lite

I fully expect the Democrats to engage in repeated falsehoods and distortions at their convention, but it was depressing to hear assertions which have been repeatedly judged false by independent fact checkers resurface this past week.
They are NOT independent.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jewelcove

"Ridicule" is one of the Alinsky Rules.

Here's a one minute video of "Invisible Obama"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWrTumqZvPk&feature=youtu.be
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

chatham
Sep 1 2012, 08:01 AM
duke09parent
Sep 1 2012, 12:58 AM
You guys won't like this source but this guy lists 30 instances of dishonesty/distortions in Romney's acceptance speech. He imbeds links to support his argument.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/31/13593775-chronicling-mitts-mendacity-vol-xxxii?lite

I fully expect the Democrats to engage in repeated falsehoods and distortions at their convention, but it was depressing to hear assertions which have been repeatedly judged false by independent fact checkers resurface this past week.
Maddow is ok. She is a bright thinking person. At least we know where her bias lies. She will not compromise on any issue she has an opinion about. Its her way or the highway. So... take whatever she says or publishes however one wishes. Not much different that, lets say, a brodhead opining on a payback article IMO.. We can all see brodhead was wrong but can not compromise on the possibiity he was wrong. I do view maddow smarter than brodheqad, if that matters any..

And there is an article that recently came out about the real fact checker site. (I will try to find it) And the conclusion was that they show a bias when it comes to fact checking anyones "lies" So I, myself, do not put much weight on what others claim as being false or true. I do my own fact checking. Others should too.

The only fact checker who is truly independent is yourself. Otherwise your only fooling yourself and fulfilling your own emotional wishes.
article about fact checkers truths, or not truths.

http://freebeacon.com/fisking-fiskes-record/
Fisking Fiske’s Record
Virginia Politifact editor has history of voting in Democratic primaries
===============
http://washingtonexaminer.com/washington-post-fact-checker-i-dont-fact-check-our-own-writers/article/2501189#.UEIcUkIzD0c
Washington Post Fact Checker: I Don’t Fact Check Our Own Writers
===============
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/30/fact-checking-the-factcheckers-on-ryans-speech/
Fact-checking the factcheckers on Ryan’s speech; Update: “As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville”
POSTED AT 10:01 AM ON AUGUST 30, 2012 BY ED MORRISSEY

================

I guess i can find more. Like I said, fact check for you, dont let someone else do it for you.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=F5xaZB8AgAQ

because that is how liberals die
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/19/is-politifact-campaigning-for-obama/

Is PolitiFact campaigning for Obama?
POSTED AT 8:01 PM ON AUGUST 19, 2012 BY DUSTIN SIGGINS


Recently, the fact-checking organizations PolitiFact.com and FactCheck.org failed to properly analyze an ad by President Obama claiming that Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than the average American. Just Facts President Jim Agresti and I subsequently hammered both organizations for what appears to be a severe case of intellectual dishonesty.

Unfortunately, this is an increasingly common problem at PolitiFact. Conservatives rightly point to a liberal bent at Fact Check, but the organization is pretty solid at analyzing what’s going on with claims by members of both major political parties. On the other hand, with the arrival of the general election and the otherwise politically-quiet month of August, PolitiFact seems to have gone from being a respectable, if liberal-leaning, organization to a campaign slot for Obama.

This Obama bias was shown in a recent claim by PolitiFact Wisconsin (PFW) that a Tweet by Obama national co-chair and actress Eva Longoria about Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is “half-true.” From the Tweet:

“Today Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan, who wants to cut Pell Grant scholarships for nearly 10 million students!”

Again, PFW ranks this claim as “half-true.” Their primary evidence? An unsubstantiated claim by President Obama in April 2012:

Fortunately, our colleagues at PolitiFact National evaluated a similar statement made by Obama himself in April 2012, a few days after the GOP-controlled House approved Ryan’s budget resolution. (The plan didn’t pass in the Democratic-controlled Senate.)

Obama said that if spending reductions in the resolution “were to be spread out evenly,” nearly 10 million college students would see their financial aid cut by an average of more than $1,000 each. The White House told our colleagues the president was referring to the Pell Grant program.

So, Ryan’s plan does not specify cuts to Pell Grants. Obama is simply applying the total spending cuts in the plan evenly across the overall budget to derive a Pell Grant number.

This alone should make PolitiFact’s claim laughable. However, following a link from the PFW analysis to the Department of Education’s website, one sees the Department has requested Pell Grants whose cost will total $36.629 billion – meaning that in a budget proposal that spends nearly one hundred times what the Department has requested, PolitiFact is making big assumptions. And while the liberal Center for Budget & Policy Priorities (CBPP) makes the claim that Pell Grants would take $166 billion in “cuts” over ten years if the Ryan/House budget were to be made, those “cuts” are assumed from the language of the budget proposal, not directly stated by the budget proposal.

PFW continues to shoot itself in the proverbial foot as the article goes further. It turns out most of their analysis is based upon a “he said, she said” situation:

FactCheck.org also looked at Pell Grants and Ryan’s plan. The University of Pennsylvania-based fact checkers concluded“it is certainly true that Ryan’s budget would require deep spending cuts,” but “it is hard to know what impact Ryan’s budget would have on specific programs because the plan contains so few details.”

We also sought input from Gillian Morris, spokeswoman for Obama’s campaign in Wisconsin, and Kevin Seifert, campaign manager for Ryan, who remains on the November 2012 ballot for his House seat.

Obama’s campaign cited an April 2012 opinion column by The New York Times’ Paul Krugman, which claims without evidence that 1 million students would lose Pell grants altogether. But that wasn’t Obama’s or Longoria’s claim. The campaign also provided a March 2012 blog post by Obama’s Office of Management and Budget director, but it uses the same assumptions the president did in his claim.

Ryan’s plan would make fewer students eligible for Pell money, according to an article in the conservative National Review cited by Ryan’s spokesman. But while bringing Pell spending “under control,” the budget would nevertheless maintain the maximum Pell grant at $5,500, Ryan wrote in response to criticism of his plan.

But it’s not over yet! In its closing, PFW makes its “half-true” rating even less believable:

We’re giving Longoria the same rating Obama got for making a claim that is partially accurate but leaves out important details — Half True.

To this writer, a “partially accurate” claim should get a “half-true” rating. That is, after all, basically the definition of “partially accurate.” To leave out important details on a partially accurate claim means the claim should either be “mostly false” or “false.”

[Originally posted at RightWingNews.com, and originally published at Big Journalism]

[Originally posted at RightWingNews.com.]

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

Rasmussen is showing a bump for Romney in his 3-day tracking poll:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

rachael maddows finest.

http://johnnydollar.us/files/120831maddow.php
MSNBC Attacks...Then Pretends It Didn't!

http://johnnydollar.us/files/101107fhwir.php#rachel
FHWiR: The Phony 'Journalism' of Rachel Maddow
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jewelcove

Another fun youTube...Gods of Government

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYnQnGZvPOU&feature=player_embedded#!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mike in houston
Member Avatar

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
You will not find anything remotely damaging said by Obama in Press Reports and articles. I've found you must read his Speech transcripts. If transcripts are available, a totally different picture emerges.

Obama's example of American Success, repeatedly, seems to be a couple Wall Street CEO's.
He talks of Success - then talks of the terrible price it carries (tying it to a Wall Street scandal). He has called it a "flimsy success." Then he pits those making over $250,000 against everyone from Mothers to infants - to College Students. Those $250K'ers are taking from infants, from Head-Start, from Single Mothers, from College Students, from Unions, from Teachers, from the Good People.

He has his Straw-Man. It's a Greedy, excessive Wall. St (where is Fannie and Freddie?) making boat-loads of money and looking to take money from Poor Children to fund Diamond Pulls on their Yachts.

When he talks about Rich, he talks about Greedy and law-abusing CEO's on Wall Street.
You can imagine the effect over time.

This would be like speaking of all Police always in the context of Kent State or the Rodney King beating. That choice would speak volumes about the speaker.

So, the Rich are people that flout laws, do not care about the less fortunate, use any money they get on more useless luxuries, and take from the good people in society.

It's clear.


.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply