What's new
By:

Paul Ryan thinks you're a ****ing retard

PKM said:
Oh, duh, I get it now.

So are you into sweat lodges? I assume so based on what you told me about your interests of internship. The spiritually purifying/cleansing sage fits into that mindset.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've never done that, but it is on a short list of things I'm going to do pretty soon.
 
When pollsters call me I lie to them and tell them I am voting for someone I am really not.

When I talk to cops I lie to them about everything.

That's how I get them back.
 
NAOS said:
Dude, while Bush did so ****ing much to **** things up, you ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE the deregulating bull**** that Clinton pushed through when you speak of this "broken economy." The blame isn't on one party.
Click to expand...
Who says I do not acknowledge Clinton's deregulation? I'm no fan of everything Clinton (and Summers) did, but Bush and the Republican's had a full 8 years to make some adjustments before the bubble turned into a meltdown, come on. If they didn't like the stupid stuff Clinton did at the end of his term, they could have fought it or reversed it.
Greenspan , Bernanke , O'Neil, Snow, and Paulson were all Republican appointees.
 
Last edited:
I can appreciate all of this conversation. Much more factual integrity, less blind partisan hate/support .. Just overall better We the People type of recollection of history.
 
If you think American politics has gone mad with partisanship, it's got nothing on the American media. Huge numbers of journalists here seem to have decided there can be no higher purpose on this Earth than to exult at great length on the limitless wonders of their side, when not fulminating at the unrelieved wickedness of the other. I don't just mean the bloggers and tweeters that lurk in darkened corners of the Internet. I mean paid, professional journalists.

Take the reaction to Paul Ryan's vice-presidential acceptance speech. For Republicans, and Republican pundits, it was a masterpiece, a performance worthy of the ages, the second coming of Reagan. For Democrats, and their media acolytes, it was nothing but a flotilla of lies.

None of the Republican commentators found any inconsistencies or hypocrisies in the speech, seeing only his "powerful" and "polished" dissection of the Obama re-cord. None of their Democratic counterparts paused to rebut his broader argument, so busy were they exposing his "lies."

I watched the same speech, and what I saw was this: an engaging, if callow young man, whose delivery grew more assured as he went on, but who reminded me more of a junior college instructor than a future president; a speech that had some good lines, some over-the-top rhetoric and a lot of cheap demagoguery, that sketched out a case against Obama but had difficulty filling it in. I saw neither a Churchill nor a Goebbels, but rather a pretty good speech that was also misleading in parts - as many of the best political speeches are.

I don't mean to excuse any of it, but we need to reserve "lie" for the real thing. There's a reason journalists are reluctant, or should be, to haul out the L word, and it has nothing to do with faint hearts or bended knees. It's because the reality is usually more complicated: something that looks untrue in one context may be at least arguable in another. That doesn't mean there aren't such things as lies. But if you elevate every disagreement, minor elision or half-truth into a Lie, you will be deservedly dismissed as intemperate .

So, for example, much spittle was invested in rebutting the "lie" that Obama had been responsible for the closure of the General Motors plant in Janesville, Wis. - when the plant closed before he became president. In fact the plant did not close until 2009, but that's beside the point: his frothing critics are rebutting an accusation that was never made. If you read the text, Ryan didn't blame the president for closing the plant. Rather, his complaint seems to have been that he didn't bail it out.

This is surely the larger significance of this otherwise trivial passage. This is supposedly the darling of the Tea Party speaking, the champion of smaller government and free market capitalism, the reader of Ayn Rand. And yet not only does he take the president to task for not saving the plant in his home town: he voted for the December 2008 auto bailout in Congress.

It's the inconsistencies in Ryan's own positions that make the speech an eye-opener . His selection as vice-president was widely praised, even by some of Mitt Romney's critics: an infusion of vision and principle for a candidate not notably stocked with either. Yet a closer look at Ryan's record reveals a much more complicated picture than the straight-talking ideologue of myth.

Not only did he vote for the auto bailout, he also voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, a.k.a. the bank bailout. He lobbied for his district to receive funding under the stimulus bill he now denounces. As his critics note, as a member of the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission he voted against its final report, though he takes Obama to task for ignoring its findings; and while he accuses the president of cutting $716 billion out of Medicare (the public health-care program for the elderly), the budgets he wrote as chairman of the House Budget committee pencilled in the same amount in savings.

I don't see any of these as "lies," either. At worst, they make him a hypocrite, though even there context is important. On Bowles-Simpson, for example, it is true that Ryan later came back with his own plan that incorporated several of their recommendations. What it makes him, indisputably, is complicated: neither as principled nor as doctrinaire as either his friends or critics would have it.

The same holds true of his proposals for the future. He proposes sweeping cuts in spending and taxes, but is light on the details of how these would be achieved . Perhaps he would plead that these are difficult matters to spell out in advance, subject as they are to negotiation between the Congress and the president. One only wishes he would extend the same understanding to Obama.

It is a fair point to say, as Ryan does, that at some point a president must be held accountable for what happens on his watch; that however bad the fiscal situation he inherited, Obama has made too little progress in turning it around . But it is unfair to say, as Ryan does, that Obama "did nothing" about it. He presented proposals, that were rejected by the Republican Congress. Fine: the two sides have conflicting views of how to proceed. This election is an opportunity to resolve that conflict. But a little fairness would go a long way - on both sides.



Read more: https://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Coyne+Ryan+talk+straight/7172018/story.html#ixzz25AoiMhBw
Click to expand...


This was in Edmonton's paper in the Opinion section today. I thought it was an intriguing read. Nothing thought-provoking, I suppose.
 
dalamon said:
Okay. I think this is where the disconnect is happening. To some it is very important to make that distinction. I personally am just growing absolutely sick from popular media, and am disgusted by how politics are handled on a massive scale. The fact that you need to lie, and deceive THIS MUCH to get votes simply defeats the purpose in this day and age is almost depressing.
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical that there ever was anything like a 'Golden Age' of politics in which politicians were, on the whole, honest and forthright. This day and age is, as best I can tell, no worse than any other day and age. In fact, what is going on today pales in comparison to the vicious, rumor mongering, reputation sullying, knock down drag out political fights in the earlier years of this country. (The paragon of Republic Virtue, Thomas Jefferson, and his minions were masters of this type of what today we'd call 'dirty politics,' to take one example.)

With that said, I don't accept the rationalization, 'everyone does it.' First, everyone doesn't do it. Many do, but not everyone. Second, not all lies, deceptions, etc. are created equally. Some are relatively harmless, some are whoppers, and many are in-between. Yes, the Demos distort the truth on occasion, or frequently, but I don't see why this should be accepted as anything to excuse the blatant dishonesties spun by Ryan in his speech. While there is good reason to be cynical about politicians, it doesn't mean we shouldn't still hold them to some standards. Rationalizing it away by saying 'everyone does it' only allows them to get away with it and invites more and worse dishonesty in the future.

Ryan's speech was a truly shameless display of dishonesty. It really did cross the line, wherever that line might be drawn.

And, yes, if were Obama or one of his surrogates who did the same, I would be equally critical of them.
 
Duck Rodgers said:
I actually agree with what One Brow responded to my post. 1st budget proposed to last budget proposed it's correct. Fiscal years are different from terms. And I also am disappointed that Paul Ryan's first big introduction to America is littered with mendacity. And there's no question Bush dropped huge bombs before he left too. But we could go back and say Clinton and crew planted those seeds in the first place by getting rid of Glass Stegall. Bush's spending response was ultimately tied to that in some way.

What I was doing, was merely presenting how what Ryan said could be true and which I don't think is a total spin job either because when you are looking at charts, graphs, and economic arguments from both sides over the years, going back many decades they are not always framed just by fiscal year budgets. Presidential terms is a big framing mechanism too. And I'm guessing it's used pretty interchangeably when trying to craft whatever viewpoint you're going for. I'll take this year if it makes my guy look good, you can have this year because it makes my guy look worse, etc.

It's just a matter of how you want to frame it. Start of term, end of term.. 4 years...8 years later, which was what I was doing, which includes all the governing done in office during a president's term and allows for the requested/enacted ratio to be attributed to real government action and economic realities during that time, not a flimsy budget. I think there's merit to that methodology and to fiscal year methodology. But whatever one you're using, you have to use it for every president. But no, I don't feel like Obama or anybody else deserves the full brunt of everything negative associated with their terms. They've got legacy issues that they still deal with going back all the way to the founding of the country. President is not an easy job.
Click to expand...

I would rate repealing Glass Stegall as one of the more significant (if under the radar for the common man) pieces of legislation in the recent decades. A HUGE mistake, in my opinion.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
Just curious, why do you think closing Guantanamo was an absurd promise?
Click to expand...

Because he didn't know all the details and he didn't think it thru. Just an example (which I didn't bring up) of a politician saying anything to get elected.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
I'm skeptical that there ever was anything like a 'Golden Age' of politics in which politicians were, on the whole, honest and forthright. This day and age is, as best I can tell, no worse than any other day and age. In fact, what is going on today pales in comparison to the vicious, rumor mongering, reputation sullying, knock down drag out political fights in the earlier years of this country. (The paragon of Republic Virtue, Thomas Jefferson, and his minions were masters of this type of what today we'd call 'dirty politics,' to take one example.)

With that said, I don't accept the rationalization, 'everyone does it.' First, everyone doesn't do it. Many do, but not everyone. Second, not all lies, deceptions, etc. are created equally. Some are relatively harmless, some are whoppers, and many are in-between. Yes, the Demos distort the truth on occasion, or frequently, but I don't see why this should be accepted as anything to excuse the blatant dishonesties spun by Ryan in his speech. While there is good reason to be cynical about politicians, it doesn't mean we shouldn't still hold them to some standards. Rationalizing it away by saying 'everyone does it' only allows them to get away with it and invites more and worse dishonesty in the future.

Ryan's speech was a truly shameless display of dishonesty. It really did cross the line, wherever that line might be drawn.

And, yes, if were Obama or one of his surrogates who did the same, I would be equally critical of them.
Click to expand...



Keep in mind I was critiquing the media mostly. I can't blame the politicians really, for utilizing this 'free-pass' of being able to say whatever they want, and be able to count on the media to put a positive spin on it.
 
Stoked said:
Because he didn't know all the details and he didn't think it thru. Just an example (which I didn't bring up) of a politician saying anything to get elected.
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough. I tend to think that the more likely explanation here is that Obama was sincere in promising to close Guantanamo (which many people, like myself, believe is a stain on the US's character and erodes our moral authority), but when actually confronted with trying found that it was politically or otherwise infeasible. Or it was also a naive/idealistic promise that ran smack dab into reality, but not a cynical lying type of promise.

Not thinking things through or being naive falls short of 'saying anything to get elected' doesn't it?
 
OK. Kind of ironically, when the media does hold the politician accountable, then we see people like the guy from Edmonton Journal claiming that the objection was motivated by partisan politics.

Geez, one can't win either way.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
OK. Kind of ironically, when the media does hold the politician accountable, then we see people like the guy from Edmonton Journal claiming that the objection was motivated by partisan politics.

Geez, one can't win either way.
Click to expand...



You're telling me it isn't?? I think Ryan should have been absolutely lambasted for his speech. But no matter how bad it is, you'll have Fox News telling their viewers (like Millsapa/PearlWatson) that it was a speech for the ages, and MSNBC saying he's the worst thing since Joseph Goebbels.


Also, keep in mind that 'this guy from the Edmonton Journal' is actually....

Andrew Coyne was part of the team that launched the National Post 13 years ago. His distinguished journalism career has also included positions with Maclean's, the Globe and Mail and the Southam newspaper chain, as well as contributing to a wide range of other publications including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, National Review, Time and Saturday Night. Coyne is also a long-time member of the CBC’s popular At Issue panel on The National.
Click to expand...

He knows his stuff. FWIW, the National Post is the more right-leaning Canadian national newspaper, whereas the Globe and Mail is more left. Coyne is quite respected, from what I know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top