The lies told about Ryan and Medicare were alone enough to disqualify the Dems for re-election.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 1:02 AM GMT
    http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/07/the-charlatans-of-charlotte
    The Charlatans of Charlotte By David Catron

    The lies told about Ryan and Medicare were alone enough to disqualify the Dems for re-election.

    Paul Ryan's speech to the Republican National Convention last week was so effective, and presented such a stark contrast to the gauche maunderings of his Democrat counterpart, that it clearly panicked an already-nervous Obama White House. Thus, the word obviously went out to the President's many media partisans that Ryan had to be taken down. Within hours, countless columnists, bloggers, and talking heads shouted in desperate unison -- Ryan lied! They accused Ryan of lying about everything from Obamacare's effect on Medicare to the closure of a GM plant to his performance in a marathon that occurred 20 years ago.

    The scariest of these "lies," from the perspective of the White House, was Ryan's charge that $716 billion was stolen from Medicare to pay for Obamacare. They know this charge is particularly dangerous for the President because it is a direct appeal to seniors, the most reliable of "likely voters." Unfortunately for the Obama campaign, however, the media "fact checkers" that pounced on Ryan's claim came up dry. As Kevin Drum wrote in that notorious right-wing rag, Mother Jones, "There is no silver bullet liberal response to Ryan's Medicare charges. This is because, rhetorical excesses aside, his charges are basically correct."

    Ryan is also correct about the best way to manage Medicare in the future. He and Democrat Ron Wyden have proposed a package of reforms that combine free market competition with premium support that is so eminently sensible that it has attracted more bipartisan accolades than any plan yet put forward. Yet, watching the speakers at the Democratic National Convention, the uninformed voter could easily get the impression that what they have now labeled the "Romney-Ryan plan" is primarily designed to destroy Medicare. Listening to these people, the proposal is to Medicare what Lizzie Borden was to her parents.

    The speech made by HHS Secretary Sebelius was typical: "What's missing from the Romney-Ryan plan for Medicare is Medicare. Instead of the Medicare guarantee, Republicans would give seniors a voucher that limits what is covered, costing seniors as much as $6,400 more a year." This passage has much to offer for anyone truly interested in ferreting out "lies." First, the plan doesn't eliminate traditional Medicare. That will remain as one of the choices offered to seniors. And the $6,400 figure comes from a "study" published by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which even the New York Times labels "left-leaning."

    Commissar Sebelius was by no means the only speaker to accuse Ryan of a sinister desire to destroy Medicare. This canard was repeated so often that it even provoked Wolf Blitzer into behaving like an actual journalist during an interview with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Chair of the DNC: "Any senior 55 or older … they have absolutely nothing to worry about if this plan were to be approved because it would not affect them at all. You accept that right?" Wasserman Shultz replied, "No," and then repeated the $6,400 whopper, except that she screwed up her talking points, saying the figure would be $6,300.

    Another Democrat who insinuated that current retirees would be hurt by the plan was California Rep. Xavier Beccera, who shouted, "Governor Romney, you should know it's not right to tell older Americans after a lifetime of hard work that you're going to pull the rug out from under them and turn Medicare into a voucher system -- Couponcare!" This is nonsense, of course. Factcheck.org points out that the plan involves no vouchers: "Under Ryan's plan the federal government would pay insurance companies directly, just as it now pays for most of the cost of health insurance for millions of federal workers and retirees."

    Then, of course, there was that all-too-permanent feature of our political landscape, Bill Clinton. And the impeached former President demonstrated he has not lost his talent for the interminable speech or the grandiose lie. Here he is denying that Obama raided Medicare to pay for Obamacare: "Both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan attacked the President for allegedly robbing Medicare of 716 billion dollars. Here's what really happened. There were no cuts to benefits. None. What the President did was save money by cutting unwarranted subsidies to providers and insurance companies that weren't making people any healthier."

    This was, of course, a typical Clinton whopper. Remember that great applause line in Clinton's speech about how "three million young people between 19 and 25 are insured for the first time"? Well, these are by no means the only young people whose coverage will be subsidized under Obamacare. Where's the money going to come from? Reductions in benefits for seniors. As John Goodman writes in Forbes, "In fact, 40% of the cost of giving subsidized insurance to young people is being paid for by reduced spending on the elderly and the disabled. For the next 10 years, the spending reduction totals $716 billion."

    What about those "unwarranted subsidies to providers"? Well, the word "provider" means doctors and hospitals. Many doctors are already refusing to accept new Medicare patients because of payment rates that don't cover costs. And many small to medium size community facilities will not be able to sustain the cuts that Obamacare will impose over the next few years. As Goodman goes on to point out, "The Medicare Office of the Actuary has explained, in a few short years, hospitals will begin closing and senior citizens will have increasing difficulty obtaining access to care." That sounds a lot like a "reduction in benefits."

    Incredibly, Clinton's disingenuous performance has not been the moral nadir of the DNC so far. That dubious distinction goes to Sandra Fluke, the solipsistic grievance monger who rose to national prominence protesting the religious tenets of a Catholic university where she voluntarily enrolled and from which she is free to depart at any time. In a cheap shot reminiscent Ted Kennedy's slander of Robert Bork, Ms. Fluke told the convention that, if the GOP wins in November, we would "have a new vice president [Ryan] who co-sponsored a bill that would allow pregnant women to die preventable deaths in our emergency rooms."

    This contemptible charge was sadly representative of this entire tawdry spectacle. Sheer terror of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan has driven the Democrats to new depths of demagoguery, slander, and deliberate divisiveness. Watching the first two nights of their convention was a truly nauseating experience, and I confess that I didn't have the intestinal fortitude to watch the final installment of this parade of prevaricators, particularly the man currently masquerading as President. Mitt Romney is by no means perfect and neither is Paul Ryan, but anyone reviled by the grotesque collection of charlatans and zombies that congregated in Charlotte has earned my enthusiastic vote.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 1:15 AM GMT
    yourname2000 saidTypical. You only fact check the left.

    What a loser. icon_rolleyes.gif

    There are enough who fact check the right. You are forum scum. Going to post more hard porn in the thread that the the admin has to remove? Maybe next time he'll also remove your ass from here. In the meantime, don't you need to stir up some argument in the All Things Gay folder. That's your main contribution.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 1:22 AM GMT
    yourname2000 said

    Hahaha....not surprised that that's the best a POS like you can come up with. icon_lol.gif

    For someone who is so passionate about our politics, you never have anything substantive to say..... never. Kind of fun toying with scum like you. You get so angry but you can't make any significant, substantive points for the simple reason that you're a dummy. And held in such high regard by your fellow Canadians who consider you a disgrace to their country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 11:17 AM GMT
    Good info when working the phones:

    5 of the Biggest Lies & Untruths From the Last Day of the DNC (Featuring Obama & Biden) [References Politifact and Washington Post fact checker]

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/final-edition-the-5-biggest-lies-from-the-last-day-of-the-dnc-featuring-obama-biden/

    Also:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/09/dnc-day-two-so-many-lies-so-much-hate-so-little-time
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Sep 08, 2012 11:27 AM GMT
    Ahhhhh .... smell the desperation in the morning??/

    LOL .... icon_biggrin.gif

    Dude .. when YOUR candidate comes out and says ... when asked about his problems with the Fact Checkers
    "Well someone ought to check the Fact Checkers"

    THAT qualifies for disqualification immediately ... doncha think?

    No wait you'd rather post blogs about not putting God in a platform that your VP candate said was just a piece of paper anyway icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 11:35 AM GMT
    GQjock said
    Dude .. when YOUR candidate comes out and says ... when asked about his problems with the Fact Checkers
    "Well someone ought to check the Fact Checkers"


    Socal uses the same tactic when presented with checked facts: try to discredit the fact checker.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 12:29 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    GQjock said
    Dude .. when YOUR candidate comes out and says ... when asked about his problems with the Fact Checkers
    "Well someone ought to check the Fact Checkers"

    Socal uses the same tactic when presented with checked facts: try to discredit the fact checker.

    He and a few others here are "agents provocateurs" whose statements may be dismissed. They post falsehoods for the purposes of creating dissention, reducing morale & solidarity within the gay community, and spreading pro-Right Wing propaganda.

    Very few informed RJ members take them seriously. The only reason to engage them is to expose their lies, for the benefit of more gullible members who may be misled, which of course is their goal here.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Sep 08, 2012 1:34 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    yourname2000 said

    Hahaha....not surprised that that's the best a POS like you can come up with. icon_lol.gif

    For someone who is so passionate about our politics, you never have anything substantive to say..... never. Kind of fun toying with scum like you. You get so angry but you can't make any significant, substantive points for the simple reason that you're a dummy. And held in such high regard by your fellow Canadians who consider you a disgrace to their country.


    Socal, I thought this was about facts to you. These mean personal attacks are the most repulsive displays you've ever shown. What's the deal? Scared you're going to lose?icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 1:51 PM GMT
    But it was various news agencies that tore Ryan's speech apart as full of inaccuracies, way before the Dems did.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 2:27 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    socalfitness said
    yourname2000 said

    Hahaha....not surprised that that's the best a POS like you can come up with. icon_lol.gif

    For someone who is so passionate about our politics, you never have anything substantive to say..... never. Kind of fun toying with scum like you. You get so angry but you can't make any significant, substantive points for the simple reason that you're a dummy. And held in such high regard by your fellow Canadians who consider you a disgrace to their country.


    Socal, I thought this was about facts to you. These mean personal attacks are the most repulsive displays you've ever shown. What's the deal? Scared you're going to lose?icon_lol.gif

    Actually cautiously optimistic. Don't the attacks from the other one count or just my responses? I do intend to ignore him in the future, but his actions agitating conflict in the All Things Gay folder, inserting hard porn which the Admin often sees and removes, and especially bullying the younger guys in mostly in the Dating & Relationships folder drove my response as much as his comments here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 3:19 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    yourname2000 said

    Hahaha....not surprised that that's the best a POS like you can come up with. icon_lol.gif

    For someone who is so passionate about our politics, you never have anything substantive to say..... never. Kind of fun toying with scum like you. You get so angry but you can't make any significant, substantive points for the simple reason that you're a dummy. And held in such high regard by your fellow Canadians who consider you a disgrace to their country.
    Hey john, You're so "passionate about our politics".. how come you've never defended the faggot/gay comments on your 'other' site? You afraid of them finding out that you are one too?icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 3:23 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness said
    yourname2000 said

    Hahaha....not surprised that that's the best a POS like you can come up with. icon_lol.gif

    For someone who is so passionate about our politics, you never have anything substantive to say..... never. Kind of fun toying with scum like you. You get so angry but you can't make any significant, substantive points for the simple reason that you're a dummy. And held in such high regard by your fellow Canadians who consider you a disgrace to their country.
    Hey john, You're so "passionate about our politics".. how come you've never defended the faggot/gay comments on your 'other' site? You afraid of them finding out that you are one too?icon_eek.gif

    What other site is that? I'd like to see this double-dealer wearing his other hat.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 3:23 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness said
    yourname2000 said

    Hahaha....not surprised that that's the best a POS like you can come up with. icon_lol.gif

    For someone who is so passionate about our politics, you never have anything substantive to say..... never. Kind of fun toying with scum like you. You get so angry but you can't make any significant, substantive points for the simple reason that you're a dummy. And held in such high regard by your fellow Canadians who consider you a disgrace to their country.
    Hey john, You're so "passionate about our politics".. how come you've never defended the faggot/gay comments on your 'other' site? You afraid of them finding out that you are one too?icon_eek.gif

    If you're monitoring that automobile site, you will note that I seldom participate in the political discussions there - last political message over a month ago. For someone so sensitive about your own space being violated, you don't mind invading others'. Remember "google is my friend".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 3:28 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness said
    yourname2000 said

    Hahaha....not surprised that that's the best a POS like you can come up with. icon_lol.gif

    For someone who is so passionate about our politics, you never have anything substantive to say..... never. Kind of fun toying with scum like you. You get so angry but you can't make any significant, substantive points for the simple reason that you're a dummy. And held in such high regard by your fellow Canadians who consider you a disgrace to their country.
    Hey john, You're so "passionate about our politics".. how come you've never defended the faggot/gay comments on your 'other' site? You afraid of them finding out that you are one too?icon_eek.gif

    If you're monitoring that automobile site, you will note that I hardly ever participate in the political discussions there. For someone so sensitive about your own space being violated, you don't mind invading others'. Remember "google is my friend".
    Why would I monitor that site? I could care less..

    But you never answered the question I asked did you? Why is that John?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Sep 08, 2012 3:39 PM GMT
    GQjock saidAhhhhh .... smell the desperation in the morning??


    Ahhhh, yes I do smell it. Are you taking anything for it, GQ? Might want to load up on the TUMS for starters. It's gonna be a rough few months. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 4:30 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    GQjock saidAhhhhh .... smell the desperation in the morning??

    Ahhhh, yes I do smell it. Are you taking anything for it, GQ? Might want to load up on the TUMS for starters. It's gonna be a rough few months. icon_wink.gif

    Spoken like a true Romney cheerleader. Please tell us, what parts of his anti-gay positions do you like the most?

    The reinstatement of DADT? The continuation of DOMA? The passage of a Consitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriages and civil unions? The elimination of hate crime designation for attacks against LGBT? Opposition to laws that would protect LGBT against job and housing discrimination?

    The anti-gay list is so long, rather than have you reply to all the negatives, maybe you can indicate what pro-gay Republican/Romney positions you DO endorse? I suspect that list would be much shorter.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Sep 08, 2012 4:36 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    GQjock saidAhhhhh .... smell the desperation in the morning??


    Ahhhh, yes I do smell it. Are you taking anything for it, GQ? Might want to load up on the TUMS for starters. It's gonna be a rough few months. icon_wink.gif


    Thanks for your concern but they have been very TUM free so far

    You might wanna check the Mittster's and Ryan's medicine chest though....
    If you wanna put the concern where it is needed most icon_wink.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Sep 08, 2012 4:43 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidPlease tell us, what parts of his anti-gay positions do you like the most?

    As I have said like a zillion times on RJ...I DO NOT AGREE WITH ANY of Romney's gay-related positions.

    Art_Deco saidThe reinstatement of DADT?

    I, like everyone else here, could not be more thrilled that this policy signed by President Clinton was FINALLY, and RIGHTFULLY repealed. I am also quite happy that a President Romney would not seek to overturn this decision.

    Art_Deco saidThe continuation of DOMA? The passage of a Consitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriages and civil unions?

    Not at all happy about DOMA which President Clinton signed into law, nor am I happy that a President Romney has pledged to try and take this a step further. That being said, fortunately a President Romney would not be able to do this on his own, and I am confident that the country will move forward in a positive direction on gay-related issues regardless of who is president. I am also deeply disappointed that Mitt Romney has expressed no support for "Civil Unions" --- in fact, this remains my biggest disappointment about him.

    Art_Deco saidThe elimination of hate crime designation for attacks against LGBT? Opposition to laws that would protect LGBT against job and housing discrimination?

    Obviously, I support all of the above, and I am confident that a President Romney would as well.
    NEXT! icon_rolleyes.gif
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Sep 08, 2012 4:49 PM GMT
    So, how do you feel about Romneycare?icon_biggrin.gif


    How about a woman's right to choose?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Sep 08, 2012 4:55 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidSo, how do you feel about Romneycare?icon_biggrin.gif

    Considering it seems to be quite popular in that state, I guess I would support it. I would argue, however, that what is good for a single state (especially one like Massachusetts) is not necessarily one that could work for the entire company. Romneycare did, and rightfully so, serve as a model of sorts for the much larger scaled Obamacare.


    How about a woman's right to choose?

    This is a difficult issue with no easy answer, but I do not support abortion other than in the case of rape and/or incest.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 4:59 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Obviously, I support all of the [pro-gay positions] above, and I am confident that a President Romney would as well.
    NEXT! icon_rolleyes.gif

    Except, that would mean Romney is a serial liar. He's been stating his anti-gay positions for months, all during the Republican Party primaries. And he signed an anti-gay pledge. So either your man is a bald-faced liar (on the same level as his running mate Ryan), or else you have some inside knowledge that the rest of us lack.

    Care to share it here? How are you sure that Romney's repeated statements, support of the Republican Party Platform, and signed declarations are mere lies to win the Right Wing vote? And apparently it's won yours, as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 4:59 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    HottJoe saidSo, how do you feel about Romneycare?icon_biggrin.gif

    Considering it seems to be quite popular in that state, I guess I would support it.


    How about a woman's right to choose?

    This is a difficult issue with no easy answer, but I do not support abortion other than in the case of rape and/or incest.
    How did i ever figure that would be your position?
    Your 'big government' hypocrisy is beyond words!
    You just love to dictate others lives, dont you?icon_rolleyes.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Sep 08, 2012 5:04 PM GMT
    TropicalMark saidHow did i ever figure that would be your position?
    Your 'big government' hypocrisy is beyond words!
    You just love to dictate others lives, dont you?icon_rolleyes.gif


    Sorry, we will have to just agree to disagree on this one. My feeling about abortion, difficult and polarizing as the subject is, is less about "dictating others lives" and more about the protection of the unborn LIVING child. I know it's a tough issue, one that will likely never truly be solved.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Sep 08, 2012 5:09 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Obviously, I support all of the [pro-gay positions] above, and I am confident that a President Romney would as well.
    NEXT! icon_rolleyes.gif

    Except, that would mean Romney is a serial liar. He's been stating his anti-gay positions for months, all during the Republican Party primaries. And he signed an anti-gay pledge. So either your man is a bald-faced liar (on the same level as his running mate Ryan), or else you have some inside knowledge that the rest of us lack.


    No, actually I think Mitt Romney has been pretty consistent about how he feels specifically about gay marriage from the get-go. I don't so much see his stance as "anti-gay" as I see it "pro-traditional marriage" and, sorry, but there is a difference. Though, admittedly, his stance against "Civil Unions" is perplexing to say the least. Mitt Romney's stance on gay marriage is one that is, unfortunately, shared by millions of Americans. That does not mean necessarily that these millions of Americans (or Mitt Romney) HATE THE GAYS. You can choose to look at this any way you like --- however, I just see it as not so black or white. There is a great big GRAY area that I suspect the vast majority of Americans are in regarding this issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 5:16 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Art_Deco said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Obviously, I support all of the [pro-gay positions] above, and I am confident that a President Romney would as well.
    NEXT! icon_rolleyes.gif

    Except, that would mean Romney is a serial liar. He's been stating his anti-gay positions for months, all during the Republican Party primaries. And he signed an anti-gay pledge. So either your man is a bald-faced liar (on the same level as his running mate Ryan), or else you have some inside knowledge that the rest of us lack.


    No, actually I think Mitt Romney has been pretty consistent about how he feels specifically about gay marriage from the get-go. I don't so much see his stance as "anti-gay" as I see it "pro-traditional marriage" and, sorry, but there is a difference. Mitt Romney's stance on gay marriage is one that is, unfortunately, shared by millions of Americans. That does not mean necessarily that these millions of Americans (or Mitt Romney) HATE THE GAYS. You can choose to look at this any way you like --- however, I just see it as not so black or white. There is a great big GRAY area that I suspect the vast majority of Americans are in regarding this issue.


    Youre a second class citizen in the eyes of Mitt. At least you know it and ok with being a less than desirable member of the GOP. Hats off to u for having the stupidity to vote to keep the status quo. Majority of Americans approve of SSM btw