You assume correctly. I was being clever. You are a conservative. But you are not a good conservative.
Are you saying you believe Ryan forgot about the stimulus package? That multi-billion dollar plan that Ryan had been fighting against? That one of his constituents asked Ryan a few weeks later to submit a request for twenty million dollars and it just slipped his mind that this was the same program?
I guess we should be glad Ryan wasn’t in congress in 1942. He might have been sending military aid to Tokyo. “Oh right, Japan, I forgot. They were the ones who bombed Pearl Harbor, right? My bad.”
Politifact is not very factual.
It tilts to the right.
Obama is rated as pants on fire for saying Romney wants to ban abortion (even in the case of rape and incest). Obama said this based on ROmney saying he would support a ban on all abortions including in the case of rape and incest. Obama is rated pants on fire because Romeny ALSO said at some other time in front of some other audience that he does not support a ban on abortion in the case of rape and incest.
There are dozens of examples like this.
Careful. CAREFUL!!! You’re not allowed to defend Republicans on this board, let alone say that they may not, in fact, be evil hypocrites and liars. That just isn’t done here.
(And the fact that you’ve duly CITE CITE CITED will, as I’ve noted elsewhere, have no impact, nor carry any weight whatsoever.)
There is a substantial divide between what you think is correct and what is actually true. (And you were only trying to be clever.)
-
See my earlier post where I listed several of my political/social views. Most, if not all of these are antithetical to conservatives and conservatism.
-
I have criticized Democrats.
In your mind, 2) vastly outweighs 1) because no one could possibly criticize liberals unless he was a conservative.
Hint: there are more than two possible political points of view. Actually let me restate that: THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO POSSIBLE POLITICAL POINTS OF VIEW. I mean—duh…:rolleyes:
I love the fact that Paul Ryan just got caught lying about whether he helped his constituents. And the beauty part is that his lie was that he had NOT helped them when in fact he did.
Today’s Republican Party is soooooo fucked up.
And what the hell happened to them, anyway? Used to be, about the only time they were ever of dubious value was when they were too obvious in their efforts to be utterly non-partisan. For fact checking, an error on the side of the angels, so to speak.
Seems to me, IIRC, about a year ago or so I first read something they had posted and thought, well, shit, this is fucked up, but wrote it off to the above mentioned game of playing non-partisan Twister. But since then they have gone steadily downhill.
Truly, I wonder what happened there? Send in Matt Tabibbi! No, seriously, Matt? If you’re listening? Get on that, toot sweet.
I have noticed too that a year or so ago they occasionally gave some gimmies to the lying Repubs in an obvious attempt to not look biased (hard to do when one side is so much more obviously evil and lying than the other), but then around a year ago they just started going hard right and giving passes for obvious right-wing lies and giving pants on fires to D’s who made true statements.
The site has lost all credibility in my eyes.
Well, now what the fuck?! We have to go back to relying on our own judgement again! Shit, I already spend half my internet time tracking down cites and links. You know how much that cuts into my porn time? Oh, wait, of course you do…
No, I call you a conservative because you are a conservative. You’re just a conservative who’s afraid to admit he’s a conservative when he’s in a crowd of liberals.
I don’t give a damn what you claim your beliefs are. Nothing you’ve ever said has reflected those claimed beliefs so I figure it’s all just part of your fronting for the board. You can claim to be a doctor, a lawyer, a Navy SEAL, a professional athlete, or a movie star on the internet. It doesn’t mean the rest of us are going to believe it if nothing else you says matches up to your claims.
Yes, there are. You should try some of them.
The reason the earmarks thing is relevant is because I assumed that Ryan was seeking stimulus funds because he had to please his campaign contributors.
When I discovered that he doesn’t actually care about his campaign contributors spending requests, to the extent that as far back as Open Secrets goes, he’s never requested an earmark for a campaign contributor, that changed my view of his motivation.
Therefore, it does appear that he was simply responding to a constituent request to help them out with an existing program. Which makes his explanation credible. He actually has a history of principled opposition to earmarks, which makes it more likely that his principled opposition to the stimulus was genuine. The fact that he got some funds for some constituents AT THEIR REQUEST doesn’t change that.
Lying is a serious charge. IMO, it requires a high burden of proof. Given Ryan’s explanation and his past history with federal spending programs, he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, yes he was. Nobody here ever said he wasn’t. The only person who denied it was … Paul Ryan.
No, Ryan said he didn’t ask for stimulus funds. When the stimulus was passed, there was a race to request money for specific projects. Ryan was not part of that race for money, but when approached by constituents for help, he did what he was supposed to do. And given his history with federal spending requests, his explanation is entirely plausible.
That’s kind of weak sauce on your part, isn’t it?
Its this inanne attempt by the media to try and portray both sides of the argument as somehow comparable even though one side is partisan and the other side is nucking futz.
How so? How is it “pants on fire” not “mostly false” or “half truth” or “mostly true” to make a statement based on the actual words someone says? I guess they haven’t come out and said that Obama’s Kenyan birth is half true but at the very worst, how can you call it an outright lie when Obama repeats what Romney has said?
Politifact isn’t the final word, but I do think they had it right. Romney does not want to ban all abortions, and neither does Paul Ryan.
When did Romney say that the supported banning abortion in cases of rape and incest? Do you have the actual cite? Because every single time I’ve heard Romney comment on abortion, he’s made a rape/incest exception.
Probably not. They’re willing to say they want to ban all abortions before a crowd of potential supporters who wants to hear that sort of thing, I expect, but that’s the kiddie-pool of politics.
My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that Romney has never explicitly said he would cases of rape and incest in an abortion ban. The claim is based on pushing the interpretation of some things he has said.
For example, if he was giving a speech and said “I would like to end all abortions in this country” his opponents would say this means he’s not making an exception for rape and incest cases. Even if after the speech, he said that he did not mean to include rape and incest cases in the ban.
Or there was a case were Romney said he supported a pro-life amendment. A current pro-life amendment had been proposed at the time and that proposal didn’t have an exception for rape or incest. But Romney had said he supported a pro-life amendment not that specific amendment. It was his opponents who interpreted his remark to indicate support for that particular bill.
In my opinion, Romney’s opponents are wrong here. They’re taking general remarks Romney has made and assigning specific interpretations to them. And these interpretations don’t match the things Romney has said when he makes specific remarks.