Paul Ryan's speech-- case study in lies by ommission.

[PLAYER57832]

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/30/160293856 ... turnaround
(audio available now, transcript will follow later this morning)

Paul Ryan has sunk to new lows... blasts Obama for cutting Medicare, fails to mention that HIS plan also cuts Medicare and changes it from a gauranteed plan to a system of vouchers only some will get and that won't cover needed care even then.

Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

[Night Strike]

Fallen for the liberal lies hook, line, and sinker. The liberals had absolutely no attack on his speech, so all their headlines had to make up that he lied.

[comic boy]

Fallen for the liberal lies hook, line, and sinker. The liberals had absolutely no attack on his speech, so all their headlines had to make up that he lied.

You dont think dishonesty is worthy of criticism ?

[Bones2484]

Fallen for the liberal lies hook, line, and sinker. The liberals had absolutely no attack on his speech, so all their headlines had to make up that he lied.

Fall for the conservatives lies hook, line, and sinker. The conservatives will flat out believe anything one of their own tells them, so all the comments Ryan made must be true.

[Night Strike]

Fallen for the liberal lies hook, line, and sinker. The liberals had absolutely no attack on his speech, so all their headlines had to make up that he lied.

You dont think dishonesty is worthy of criticism ?

You have to prove that the comments are dishonest first.

[comic boy]

Fallen for the liberal lies hook, line, and sinker. The liberals had absolutely no attack on his speech, so all their headlines had to make up that he lied.

You dont think dishonesty is worthy of criticism ?

You have to prove that the comments are dishonest first.

So Ryan did admit that his plan would also cut medicare, he was absolutely transparent was he ?

[Night Strike]

Fallen for the liberal lies hook, line, and sinker. The liberals had absolutely no attack on his speech, so all their headlines had to make up that he lied.

You dont think dishonesty is worthy of criticism ?

You have to prove that the comments are dishonest first.

So Ryan did admit that his plan would also cut medicare, he was absolutely transparent was he ?

Ryan's plan has to "cut" Medicare because it was already cut in previous legislation. When they write legislation, they have to write it assuming that no other law already on the books will be changing except by changes in the new legislation. He could have refunded those cuts back into his plan, but that would have caused a fight (distraction) over repealing Obamacare as part of his budget proposal. He would definitely like to cut Obamacare, but when preparing budgetary plans, he is forced to assume that it stays as law (unless his budget plan specifically repealed it). Those cuts are already the established law of the land, so they have to be assumed as the starting point for any new spending.

[thegreekdog]

This is confusing to me.

Obama: I love people that don't have health insurance. I would never cut entitlements. The Republicans would though because they are evil fatcats (no Player thread).

Ryan: I hate people that don't have health insurance. I would always cut entitlements. You already know and believe these things about me. And guess what... that guy Obama? He also cut your entitlements. (Player thread).

I guess my question is, why do you care that Paul Ryan lied by ommission when you do not seem to care that the president lies period?

[fadedpsychosis]

I guess my question is, why do you care that Paul Ryan lied by ommission when you do not seem to care that the president lies period?

wait, presidents lie? say it isn't so!! this has NEVER happened in the history of... well...


ok, I wasn't into politics in the 80s, but so long as I have, the president has lied...

[Symmetry]

Fallen for the liberal lies hook, line, and sinker. The liberals had absolutely no attack on his speech, so all their headlines had to make up that he lied.

You dont think dishonesty is worthy of criticism ?

You have to prove that the comments are dishonest first.

Dishonest? That's tough to prove, I sense that you're backpedaling a bit.

Do you think everything he said was true? Obviously it wasn't, as any number of fact checkers will show you.

So, the questions are.

1) Do you think he merely made some mistakes? Or was he being deliberately dishonest?

2) Do you think he deliberately left out some crucial information? Or did he simply not understand?

3) Would it matter to you if he lied, was misinformed, or didn't understand what he was saying?

I kind of suspect that you're fairly happy with him no matter what.

[InkL0sed]

Even FOX News blasted Ryan, yo.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/ ... ree-words/

On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.

[Phatscotty]

Fallen for the liberal lies hook, line, and sinker. The liberals had absolutely no attack on his speech, so all their headlines had to make up that he lied.

yup. We are already expecting apologies from those who have said the Vice Prez candidate was lying, but they were going to call him a liar no matter who the VP pick was and no matter what the VP cand. says. I guess we throw Player on the list of coming apologies for actually being the liars themselves. When I heard the evidence that Ryan was telling the truth, I already knew there would be a thread here on this, except I thought it would be made by Phat Bottom. Player.....yeah she is in good company too

[Night Strike]

Even FOX News blasted Ryan, yo.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/ ... ree-words/

On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.

Sally Kohn has always been a Democrat (at least as long as she has worked for Fox News which has been a while). There's a reason why her "fact check" is an opinion piece.

[Symmetry]

Even FOX News blasted Ryan, yo.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/ ... ree-words/

On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.

Sally Kohn has always been a Democrat (at least as long as she has worked for Fox News which has been a while). There's a reason why her "fact check" is an opinion piece.

You're heading into Phatscotty territory on this one NS...

If it wasn't Ms Kohn (or, for that matter, any of the other fact checkers), would your partisan politics be over-ridden?

Is there a situation you could see that might involve a poster showing you Ryan did not tell the truth?

[Night Strike]

Is there a situation you could see that might involve a poster showing you Ryan did not tell the truth?

How the "fact checkers" have been fact checked:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fact-ch ... ns-speech/

[Symmetry]

Is there a situation you could see that might involve a poster showing you Ryan did not tell the truth?

How the "fact checkers" have been fact checked:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fact-ch ... ns-speech//quote]

I'll take that a rather desperate "no".

[Night Strike]

Where's the desperation? You have to first prove the lies actually happened.

[GreecePwns]

My Red Team needs help! Hurry! We must sweep to its defense at all costs, no matter what the issue/quote/scandal/legislation!

[Symmetry]

Where's the desperation? You have to first prove the lies actually happened.

What a perverse argument, a lie by omission concerns something left out and not said. Would you care to come back to the thread, because your desperation comes across in your desire to shift the thread toward more favourable terms of debate while ignoring the most obvious questions.

[Night Strike]

Where's the desperation? You have to first prove the lies actually happened.

What a perverse argument, a lie by omission concerns something left out and not said. Would you care to come back to the thread, because your desperation comes across in your desire to shift the thread toward more favourable terms of debate while ignoring the most obvious questions.

So now he lies simply because he didn't provide every single detail the liberals demanded? Where are the actual lies of omission? Show them and prove how they're lies. Put up or shut up.

[Symmetry]

Where's the desperation? You have to first prove the lies actually happened.

What a perverse argument, a lie by omission concerns something left out and not said. Would you care to come back to the thread, because your desperation comes across in your desire to shift the thread toward more favourable terms of debate while ignoring the most obvious questions.

So now he lies simply because he didn't provide every single detail the liberals demanded?

What did the "liberals" demand in terms of details that he didn't include? You seem to be admitting that he omitted things.

Which details did he omit? And why?

[GreecePwns]

Some of these aren't even lies by omission, they're simply lies (i.e. the "Obama killed the Budget Commission plan" c'mon man, Ryan was on the commission and personally voted his own commission's recommendations)

[Night Strike]

Some of these aren't even lies by omission, they're simply lies (i.e. the "Obama killed the Budget Commission plan" c'mon man, Ryan was on the commission and personally voted his own commission's recommendations)

Ryan voted against it because they did not adopt his amendment for reforming Medicare, so he felt the plan was incomplete.

What did the "liberals" demand in terms of details that he didn't include? You seem to be admitting that he omitted things.

Which details did he omit? And why?

I don't know what they're demanding; maybe you should enlighten us since you keep saying he lied by omission. No, he didn't talk about every single piece of legislation he proposed or voted on, so what specifically were you wanting? Where are the lies of omission?

[Symmetry]

Some of these aren't even lies by omission, they're simply lies (i.e. the "Obama killed the Budget Commission plan" c'mon man, Ryan was on the commission and personally voted his own commission's recommendations)

Well, yes, but if Ryan had said that the moon was made of cheese, NS would be demanding rock samples down to the core if anyone dared to think Ryan was dishonest.

Still, he'd post mozzarella.

[Ray Rider]

Heh now this is a gong show of a thread--a couple people condemn a guy's speech, present no evidence of specifically where they think there's a problem with the speech, and then expect their opponents to construct a defence when no attack was made! It's like Nebuchadnezzar of old who required his astrologers, on pain of death, to not just explain his dream, but also remind him of what his dream was since he had forgotten it! rofl

You gotta give Player credit, though; her opening post was one of the shortest posts I've seen her write. Maybe she's turning over a new leaf? Instead of constructing an argument, she'll just post a topic and expect everyone to know her position on it and post their rebuttals?

To get back on topic though, I haven't seen the speech and couldn't really care less. The way I see it, what the Democrats say about the Republicans and the Republicans say about the Democrats is just more of the pot calling the kettle black, and I'm really disappointed to see so many smart people around here falling for it all over again.