Grading Paul Ryans lies..erm Speech.

morningstar2651 said:

Alright, now we have what we're looking for - exactly what was said. So...what specifically did he say he would fight for? A clean energy economy.

The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President
​

Click to expand...

Yeah. So...?
That isn't the only, much less primary, part of the quote that's under discussion. Rather the part actually referred to by Ryan was: "And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years."

Are you seriously going to persist in claiming that the people of Janesville should NOT have understood Obama to have been impliciting pledging by this that if he got their votes, and was thus elected president, that he would do what he could to keep their plant open and operating?

The clean energy part was simply him referring to what he intended their plant to focus on and manufacture (i.e. fuel-efficient vehicles). Are you honestly claiming that Obama's audience should have interpreted him as explaining that he wanted "a clean energy economy," but that it had nothing to do with their plant?!? That would be pretty cruel, ms. You must have a worse opinion of Obama than I do if that's the case.

What you're essentially saying is that here he is talking about their GM auto plant and their state governor working to keep it open, their "re-tooling" it so that they could manufacture "hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles," and he even went so far as to mention govt "support" and that this would result in their plant being there "for another hundred years," but ACTUALLY... it was all just to tell them that as president, yes, he intended to promote a clean-energy economy that would thrive not only in the U.S. in general but in Wisconsin in particular, BUT, in actuality, it had nothing to do with them; they weren't going to be a part of all that?!?

I'm sorry to be this blunt, ms, but that's just sick.

dcyates said:

Yeah. So...?
That isn't the only, much less primary, part of the quote that's under discussion. Rather the part actually referred to by Ryan was: "And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years."

Are you seriously going to persist in claiming that the people of Janesville should NOT have understood Obama to have been impliciting pledging by this that if he got their votes, and was thus elected president, that he would do what he could to keep their plant open and operating?

The clean energy part was simply him referring to what he intended their plant to focus on and manufacture (i.e. fuel-efficient vehicles). Are you honestly claiming that Obama's audience should have interpreted him as explaining that he wanted "a clean energy economy," but that it had nothing to do with their plant?!? That would be pretty cruel, ms. You must have a worse opinion of Obama than I do if that's the case.

What you're essentially saying is that here he is talking about their GM auto plant and their state governor working to keep it open, their "re-tooling" it so that they could manufacture "hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles," and he even went so far as to mention govt "support" and that this would result in their plant being there "for another hundred years," but ACTUALLY... it was all just to tell them that as president, yes, he intended to promote a clean-energy economy that would thrive not only in the U.S. in general but in Wisconsin in particular, BUT, in actuality, it had nothing to do with them; they weren't going to be a part of all that?!?

I'm sorry to be this blunt, ms, but that's just sick.

Click to expand...

What would you have him do as President to re-open the plant?

Here is his blueprint for a clean-energy economy.

If he had forced the plant to stay open we'd be hearing about how he's a socialist dictator who should have let the plant fail rather than obstruct the glorious free market.

acropolis said:

If he had forced the plant to stay open we'd be hearing about how he's a socialist dictator who should have let the plant fail rather than obstruct the glorious free market.

Click to expand...

Tell me about it. Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are both aiming themselves at low-information voters, who are not only not READING anything (just watching Faux News), but who seem to have forgotten how to put two and two together (saying to themselves, "What else would he have done?"). I refuse to believe that they are incapable of doing so, but maybe people don't use their noggins the way they should, anymore.

morningstar2651 said:

What would you have him do as President to re-open the plant?

Here is his blueprint for a clean-energy economy.

Click to expand...

I don't care about Obama's "blueprint for a clean-energy economy"! You're trying to change the subject. The topic of this thread has nothing to do with either the legitimacy or viability or whatever of Obama's clean-energy policy (as wrongheaded, misguided, and doomed to failure as that policy might be). Rather it has to do with the veracity of various comments contained within Paul Ryan's RNC speech.
You liberals are claiming that his charge concerning Obama breaking a campaign promise that he implicitly made to the people of Janesville, WI was a lie. Given what Obama said to the people of Janesville before being elected president, as opposed to what he did (or rather didn't do) after getting elected president, Ryan wasn't lying but was instead being entirely truthful.

What would I have him do in order to re-open the plant? Frankly, I personally wouldn't have him do anything; he's messed things up further as it is. But the fact remains, Paul Ryan didn't lie about this.

acropolis said:

If he had forced the plant to stay open we'd be hearing about how he's a socialist dictator who should have let the plant fail rather than obstruct the glorious free market.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. But then again, that's what he's being called now, so what difference would that make. Other than that, at least in this instance, he wouldn't have broken a campaign promise.
However, when it comes to actually keeping campaign promises, I suppose Obama's thinking is, "Why start now?"

Honest, I don't agree with much of what Obama has done, nor have, nor intend to vote for him.

I think Republicans should stick to valid, researched, well considered criticisms.

The sort of attack that has become the norm is ludicrous and emotional, not rational.
Learn to do better, and the Republicans could do a better job choosing candidates for the good of the country.

This other stuff mitigates against developing and using any true investigative ability, and is often just plain silly.

dcyates said:

Perhaps. But then again, that's what he's being called now, so what difference would that make. Other than that, at least in this instance, he wouldn't have broken a campaign promise.
However, when it comes to actually keeping campaign promises, I suppose Obama's thinking is, "Why start now?"

Click to expand...

So you don't see anything wrong with condemning him regardless of the actions he takes? That doesn't strike you as a bit unfair?

RedPaddy said:

It was pretty bad news if you're a fan of Obama.

Click to expand...

Or if you're a fan of truth and accuracy.

dcyates said:

I don't care about Obama's "blueprint for a clean-energy economy"! You're trying to change the subject. The topic of this thread has nothing to do with either the legitimacy or viability or whatever of Obama's clean-energy policy (as wrongheaded, misguided, and doomed to failure as that policy might be). Rather it has to do with the veracity of various comments contained within Paul Ryan's RNC speech.
You liberals are claiming that his charge concerning Obama breaking a campaign promise that he implicitly made to the people of Janesville, WI was a lie. Given what Obama said to the people of Janesville before being elected president, as opposed to what he did (or rather didn't do) after getting elected president, Ryan wasn't lying but was instead being entirely truthful.

What would I have him do in order to re-open the plant? Frankly, I personally wouldn't have him do anything; he's messed things up further as it is. But the fact remains, Paul Ryan didn't lie about this.

Click to expand...

What promise? He made no promises to re-open a plant that was closed at the end of Bush's term, and if he had, then you'd complain about that too.

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

But you have revealed something very telling - he can't do anything right in your eyes because he is liberal.

Assuredcw said:

Tell me about it. Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are both aiming themselves at low-information voters, who are not only not READING anything (just watching Faux News), but who seem to have forgotten how to put two and two together (saying to themselves, "What else would he have done?"). I refuse to believe that they are incapable of doing so, but maybe people don't use their noggins the way they should, anymore.

Click to expand...

As you say, tell me about it. Obama is an incessant liar and absolutely astounding narcissist, and on top of that an unmitigated disaster as a president.
Domestically, unemployment is higher than when he took office. The deficit now seems to permanently exceed a trillion dollars annually, and the skyrocketing debt Obama has racked up now bestows upon America the truly dubious distinction of being the brokest nation in history with a federal debt of $16 trillion -- and when one takes into account all govt debt in the U.S. including entitlements and other unfunded liabilities, you're looking at being over $115 trillion in the hole! And Obama's answer? Borrow more and spend it! (If you were to invent a time machine, take that amount of money and travel back in history, spending $1000/sec as you go, you would arrive at roughly 1600BC before you finally ran out of money. This is thought to be about the time the Chinese invented the abacus. In other words, you would have arrived just in time to no longer have any need for man's first sophisticated calculating tool -- which is just as well since by then neither could you afford to buy it.) Under Obama more Americans are on the welfare rolls, collect food stamps, and claim disability-status than ever before in its history. There have also been more consecutive months of 8+% unemployment than since the Great Depression. Also, the worst, slowest economic recovery since same. The average U.S. family is now a full 40% poorer now than when Obama was elected. And -- another historic feat -- for the first time the U.S. suffered a downgrade in its credit rating.
As well, there's 'Fast and Furious', the 'Dream Act', ramming through the extremely unpopular Obamacare legislation (which was passed without garnering a single Republican vote -- another historic first), the 2010 'Summer of Recovery' that wasn't, gutting the work requirements for welfare reform, making recess appointments despite congress not being in recess, not closing Guantanamo, not bringing home the troops despite promising that that would be one of the first things he'd do as president, continued all the Bush-Cheney 'war on terror' policies that he previously railed against and promised he would end, horrendously overstepped his executive powers, has been anything but bipartisan, has brought far more division than unity, is thin-skinned, petty, and petulant, and is the most singularly unqualified man to ever occupy high office. Gov. Bobby Jindal was correct in asserting that Obama has never run so much as a lemonade stand.
He's so colossally arrogant as to have written (or should I say "written") two biographies before the age of 40, despite no discernible accomplishment. For example, why not even one Harvard Law Review article? Or perhaps a single publication as a University of Chicago lecturer? Or a successful program as a Chicago community organizer? Or a signature piece of legislation as an Illinois legislator? Or an acknowledged legislative record as a U.S. senator? Nothing. He even named his dog 'Bo'. Not 'Beau', but B.O. for Barack Obama.

Finally, if Joe Biden was a Republican, the media would have certified him officially challenged a long time ago.