# The Principal Themes of the RNC Convention are Built on Lies and Misrepresentations **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 29, 2012, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037 "2012-08-29T15:44:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/61 "2012-08-30T07:06:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here is my overall problem with the above: it is still hostile to private initiative. It dilutes the value of private initiative. Sure, there was a great teacher in your past. But that great teacher had classes full of kids, year after year. If his influence was so critical, why didn’t a veritable wave of successful innovators pour out of his classroom? Sure, roads and bridges help businesses move and sell products. But so far as I am aware, there are no bridges with a toll booth that require proof of your business acumen before allowing you to pass. Everyone, smart and stupid alike, gets to use those bridges. They are not instrumental in success. They are available to all, and yet all do not succeed. It only “dilutes private initiative” if you believe that private initiative requires little or nothing else to succeed. In fact, what it does is call attention to the attitude that many on the right have that they “did it all by themselves” when in fact, they neither did nor could. As I’ve said before, if you think that all it takes is initiative and the will to succeed, feel free to move to Somalia and start a business and prove me (and the President) wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/62 "2012-08-30T08:50:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can you explain in a bit more detail why imputing “you didn’t build that” to Obama is so unfair? > > As I see, it, the quote is marginally out of context… Marginally? Really? Here’s the quote: **Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.** The Republicans spliced the bolded parts together and left out the middle. That’s dishonest: they are attacking something Obama clearly never said. > [@](#): > > …but in general terms represents something Obama and the Left as a whole embraces: that individual achievements are only possible because society is there to help you, in some indirect but critical way, and that this fact justifies imposing some sort of “give it back” requirement upon the successful. Wonderful. **Bricker** attacks what Obama said. Now I don’t buy Bricker’s argument and we could go back and forth on it. But the point here is that the Republicans are working on a wholly different line of attack. Obama never _ever_ said there are no people of accomplishment, he _never_ said that nobody built their own business. He simply said that there are many who stand behind every accomplishment. This theme is an old one: it can be traced to the scientist who noted that he stood on the shoulders of giants. Before that, we can invoke Edmund Burke whose cautious social policies were grounded partly on his reverence for tradition and his ancestors.\* Personally I find it obvious that economic growth is a team effort and uncontroversial that reasonable incentives promote excellence. But again, so does basically the entire Democratic legislature. > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > As I said in the OP, I don’t think “the left’s” hands are clean on this score. I think the “Bain killed my wife” ad is misleading, and I think the “I like to fire people” stuff was clearly taken out of context. The “I like to fire people” was part of Republican intramurals. [GOP Candidates Defend Romney's 'I Like Being Able to Fire People' Remark - ABC News](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/gop-candidates-defend-romneys-i-like-being-able-to-fire-people-remark/) Rick Perry turned it into a ringtone. Jon Huntsman invoked the word “unelectable.” Bottom line: the Republicans have lost the ability to win any arguments. The leaders no this. So they make shit up: they invent things that the Democrats allegedly have said and attack those. Examples include Death Panels that were never part of health care reform, false accusations that the Dems don’t believe in entrepreneurial accomplishment (tell it to Soros, Rubin et al), weird characterizations of Obama’s apology tour, etc. Luckily for them none of this embarrasses their base. - I’m blowing smoke here: frankly, I wasn’t able to locate the cite. Ah well. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/63 "2012-08-30T08:55:37Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/64 "2012-08-30T12:46:07Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > - I’m blowing smoke here: frankly, I wasn’t able to locate the cite. Ah well. The scientist was Isaac Newton, if that’s what you wanted. The Burke, I have around here somewhere, too: > [@](#): > > If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants. > > (Letter to Robert Hooke (15 February 1676) [dated as 5 February 1675 using the Julian calendar with March 25th rather than January 1st as New Years Day, equivalent to 15 February 1676 by Gregorian reckonings. Note: ‘sholders’ is the original spelling. Note: Quote was not unique to Newton, he was quoting an earlier scholar.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/65 "2012-08-30T13:16:03Z")
Pardon my nitpick but I hate seeing “ye” used incorrectly: > [@](#): > > The use of the term “Ye” to represent an Early Modern English form of the word “the” (traditionally pronounced /ðiː/), such as in “Ye Olde Shoppe”, is incorrect. This mistaken attribution is due to the medieval usage of the letter thorn (þ) the predecessor to the modern digraph “th”. The word “The” was thus written Þe. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/66 "2012-08-30T13:17:35Z")
I caught that, but thought I was already hijacking this thread sufficiently to point it out, ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/67 "2012-08-30T13:19:22Z")
If you caught that, it was only because you stood on the shoulders of pedants. (Actually, it is an interesting bit of knowledge. Thanks guys.) ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/68 "2012-08-30T13:35:38Z")
I think the word we’re looking for here to describe Romney is “sanctimonious.” I could probably cut him some slack in quoting Obama outrageously out of context, offering faux-outrage at things he knows Obama never said and certainly never meant, crying alarm at potential abuses of Obama’s policies that on their face are perfectly safe, because this is after all an American election, but the part I find unforgivable is that he’s doing all this while calling for an issues-oriented discussion. You want to play dirty, then take your white lace gloves off. If you want to play clean, then at least have the decency to pretend to be doing so yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/69 "2012-08-30T13:40:36Z")
If Obama had said, “You didn’t do that on your own – you needed the Sun, which gives energy to the entire planet,” we wouldn’t be having this debate, because while the Sun’s contribution is just as inarguable, just as true… it would also be pretty clear Obama wasn’t suggesting subsidizing celestial bodies with public policy concessions. But if a theme in American politics were how much bounty to set aside for Ra in our annual Sun-God sacrifices, and Obama mentioned how helpful the Sun was in a speech, we would – quite properly – react differently. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Wonderful. **Bricker** attacks what Obama said. Now I don’t buy Bricker’s argument and we could go back and forth on it. But the point here is that the Republicans are working on a wholly different line of attack. I don’t agree it’s a wholly different line of attack. For illustration, let’s consider the ad in which Ryan is shown pushing a wheelchair-bound senior citizen over a cliff. That’s obviously literally untrue – no one (I hope) contends that Ryan’s Medicare reforms include provisions to murder the elderly by rolling them off cliffs. But the ad is not “wholly different” – it highlights symbolically the claim that Ryan’s restructuring of Medicare to use vouchers amounts to a destruction of the program and is symbolized by tossing Grandma over a cliff. Here, I think Obama’s – and the Democrats as a whole – have clearly advanced the line of thinking that there is value in the model that achievements are a matter of group effort. This is a trivial truth, but by emphasizing it, they send the signal that they intend to treat it as more than simply trivially true. They intend to form public policy around it – to justify requirements that the successful “give back” in some way. And this is alluded to, in advertising shorthand, by “You didn’t build that,” because that phrase goes to the heart of the matter – for the purposes of crafting public policy, whose achievements matter when considering a successful business – the entrepreneur or the ditch diggers that made sure there was a culvert by the side of the road so the loading dock of the entrepreneur’s shipping facility was accessible? Both are necessary – no argument. But why are we talking about it, if not to suggest that the ditches have some significance beyond the obvious necessity? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/70 "2012-08-30T13:43:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If Obama had said, “You didn’t do that on your own – you needed the Sun, which gives energy to the entire planet,” we wouldn’t be having this debate, because while the Sun’s contribution is just as inarguable, just as true… it would also be pretty clear Obama wasn’t suggesting subsidizing celestial bodies with public policy concessions. > > But if a theme in American politics were how much bounty to set aside for Ra in our annual Sun-God sacrifices, and Obama mentioned how helpful the Sun was in a speech, we would – quite properly – react differently. You’re framing it in terms of taxes. But read the speech. It’s as much about investment in infrastructure, which is absolutely a live issue in the election. It makes perfect sense to defend the value of government investment in this election. ETA: To put it another way, imagine the GOP was planning to destroy the sun. Then you would understand why your hypothetical speech would make sense. > [@Bricker](#): > > Here, I think Obama’s – and the Democrats as a whole – have clearly advanced the line of thinking that there is value in the model that achievements are a matter of group effort. This is a trivial truth, but by emphasizing it, they send the signal that they intend to treat it as more than simply trivially true. They intend to form public policy around it – to justify requirements that the successful “give back” in some way. And this is alluded to, in advertising shorthand, by “You didn’t build that,” because that phrase goes to the heart of the matter – for the purposes of crafting public policy, whose achievements matter when considering a successful business – the entrepreneur or the ditch diggers that made sure there was a culvert by the side of the road so the loading dock of the entrepreneur’s shipping facility was accessible? Both are necessary – no argument. But why are we talking about it, if not to suggest that the ditches have some significance beyond the obvious necessity? See above. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/71 "2012-08-30T13:46:45Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > It’s irrelevant. I’m on the same page as the OP. If someone says something you don’t like, just move on. I would also be fine if you wanted to engage the person directly. What I find tiresome are your efforts to find a third party to condemn the person for you. “Ooh, he was mean to me. Aren’t you going to do anything about it?” I find engaging a third party useful, Hentor, because these attacks carry weight only because of the large, eager, echo chamber that exists here. It’s of only slight value for me to confront you directly, because my attack on you may be dismissed by readers as politically motivated. “Of course, Bricker’s a conservative; he WOULD say that.” By asking a reasonable person also on the left to characterize the attack as unfair, it removes the spectre of partisan politics as a motivating factor. \*_Richard Parker_ is no conservative, yet he agrees the jape was unfair. This suggests it was objectively unfair, and not merely a disagreement existing because of partisan polarity. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/72 "2012-08-30T13:50:21Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > You’re framing it in terms of taxes. But read the speech. It’s as much about investment in infrastructure, which is absolutely a live issue in the election. It makes perfect sense to defend the value of government investment in this election. > > ETA: To put it another way, imagine the GOP was planning to destroy the sun. Then you would understand why your hypothetical speech would make sense. > > See above. Even if the speech were “as much” about infrastructure as about taxes, Obama’s comments did not arise because of GOP reluctance to subsidize infrastructure. They arose because of the tax debate. He was responding to the “don’t raise taxes on the wealthy” argument, not some refusal of the GOP to fund the repair of bridges. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/73 "2012-08-30T13:53:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Even if the speech were “as much” about infrastructure as about taxes, Obama’s comments did not arise because of GOP reluctance to subsidize infrastructure. They arose because of the tax debate. He was responding to the “don’t raise taxes on the wealthy” argument, not some refusal of the GOP to fund the repair of bridges. That is incorrect. The Romney/Ryan budget would gut investment in basic research, in transportation infrastructure, in education, and in other categories explicitly mentioned by Obama. Here are the remark’s leading into his comments: > [@](#): > > Well, first of all, like I said, the only way you can pay for that – if you’re actually saying you’re bringing down the deficit – is to cut transportation, cut education, cut basic research, voucherize Medicare, and you’re still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut. That’s not a deficit reduction plan. That’s a deficit expansion plan. > > ``` > I’ve got a different idea. I do believe we can cut -- we’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently. (Applause.) Not every government program works the way it’s supposed to. And frankly, government can’t solve every problem. If somebody doesn’t want to be helped, government can’t always help them. Parents -- we can put more money into schools, but if your kids don’t want to learn it’s hard to teach them. (Applause.) > > But you know what, I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them. So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more. (Applause.) And, by the way, we’ve tried that before -- a guy named Bill Clinton did it. We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine. We created a lot of millionaires. > There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.) > > If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. > > The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. > > ``` > > So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President – because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together. (Applause.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/74 "2012-08-30T13:59:15Z")
**Richard** : I know that has become a Democratic talking point, but there is no such thing as “the Romney/Ryan budget”. I thought that was the kind of thing we were trying to avoid. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/75 "2012-08-30T14:01:38Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > **Richard** : I know that has become a Democratic talking point, but there is no such thing as “the Romney/Ryan budget”. I thought that was the kind of thing we were trying to avoid. They have endorsed specific policies that necessarily entail those cuts. If you don’t want to call it a budget, that’s fine. Moreover, for the purposes of my claim about what Obama was saying, it doesn’t matter if you agree that Romney intends to make those cuts. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/76 "2012-08-30T14:03:08Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > That is incorrect. > > The Romney/Ryan budget would gut investment in basic research, in transportation infrastructure, in education, and in other categories explicitly mentioned by Obama. > > Here are the remark’s leading into his comments: With all due respect for the President, I am unwilling to accept as definitive his analysis of what would need to be cut if a Romney/Ryan budget were imposed, both as to raw dollars and the decisions on how to spend those dollars. I do not believe that he is inclined to analyze the effects of his opponents’ budget plans dispassionately. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/77 "2012-08-30T14:07:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > With all due respect for the President, I am unwilling to accept as definitive his analysis of what would need to be cut if a Romney/Ryan budget were imposed, both as to raw dollars and the decisions on how to spend those dollars. > > I do not believe that he is inclined to analyze the effects of his opponents’ budget plans dispassionately. First of all, it is based on non-partisan analysis. But second, so what? Your claim is that he was arguing for higher taxes. The context makes clear that he was saying that further cutting taxes would necessarily gut investment, which is important. You were factually incorrect about his argument. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/78 "2012-08-30T14:14:00Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > First of all, it is based on non-partisan analysis. Can you cite that analysis? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/79 "2012-08-30T14:25:45Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > T > Moreover, for the purposes of my claim about what Obama was saying, it doesn’t matter if you agree that Romney intends to make those cuts. True. But it does indicate that Obama’s awareness was largely focused on the taxation issue – he even mentions raising taxes on the middle class in the section you quote. I’m sorry, but Obama’s comments arose in an effort to justify his efforts to raise taxes on the “1%” that are the top of the earners who actually create wealth. ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/80 "2012-08-30T14:26:43Z")
article on Ryan’s speech. > **[FACT CHECK: Ryan takes factual shortcuts in speech](https://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-ryan-takes-factual-shortcuts-speech-070905927.html)** > > GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan took some factual shortcuts during the Republican convention when he attacked President Barack Obama's policies on Medicare, the economic stimulus and the budget deficit. His running mate, Mitt Romney, was... [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037.md?page=5)