News:

Welcome to week4paug.net 2.1 - same as it ever was! Most features have been restored, but please keep us posted on ANY issues you may be having HERE:  https://week4paug.net/index.php/topic,23937

Main Menu

Fox News: At it again

Started by VDB, April 19, 2012, 11:24:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

VDB

L O FUCKING L



Fox News: blowing the lid off hypocrisy in politics, wherever it may appear!

Get back to me when they decide to run a front-page headline trumpeting "Once upon a time, GOP praised individual mandate!" Ain't ever gonna happen. That'd be a little too fair and balanced...
Is this still Wombat?

runawayjimbo

Where you at, VDB?!? They even mention that the tax cuts in both plans favor the wealthy (although it's at the end of the lengthy, 500 word article, which I know is a pet peeve of yours). What the shit is going on here?!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/14/fact-check-ryan-budget-plan-doesnt-actually-slash-budget/

Quote
Fact Check: Ryan budget plan doesn't actually slash the budget

Here are a few little-known facts about Paul Ryan's supposedly slash-and-burn budget plan.

- Government spending increases almost every year over the next decade. 
- Tax and other revenue rises year after year.   
- The 10-year deficit is still $3 trillion. 

The fact that Ryan's spending plans grow the federal budget over the long term is one that could easily be lost in the political melee underway in the wake of his selection as Mitt Romney's running mate. 

To be sure, Ryan is proposing major changes to Medicare and taxation that Democrats see as problematic. 

But claims that Ryan is slashing spending don't quite square with the numbers. Those claims are convenient Washington shorthand for what Ryan's plan actually proposes -- which is to slow the rate of budget growth, but still allow the budget to grow. 

Under the latest Ryan plan, the budget would grow from $3.6 trillion this year to $4.9 trillion in 2022. The only years in which spending would dip are 2013 and 2014. 

Under President Obama's 2013 budget, spending also increases over the 10-year period, but by a much bigger amount. The budget grows from $3.8 trillion in 2012 to $5.8 trillion in 2022. And instead of the $3.1 trillion long-term deficit under Ryan's plan, Obama's plan comes with a $6.7 trillion deficit. 

That's the money that would be added to the national debt over that period. 

There is one measure by which Ryan is shrinking the budget. Over the next 10 years, it proposes to shrink government spending "as a share of the economy" from roughly 23 percent to about 20 percent. 

The Obama campaign, though, calls the Ryan plan a "sham." 

In a website launched immediately after he was picked as Romney's running mate, the campaign said the "extreme budget plan" would make "deep spending cuts now to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy." 

Ryan's proposal calls for cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax brackets -- 10 percent and 25 percent. 

While claims that Ryan is slashing the budget are questionable, there are studies to back up claims that the Republicans' tax plans benefit the wealthy more than others. 

A June study from the Joint Economic Committee -- which is chaired by a Democrat -- claims middle-class married couples could pay at least an extra $1,300 under Ryan's plan, while those earning more than $1 million a year could see a nearly $290,000 cut. 

According to an Aug. 1 study released by the Tax Policy Center, Romney's tax plan would also include cuts that "predominantly favor upper-income taxpayers." 

It projected taxpayers making more than $1 million would see tax cuts averaging $175,000. Those making between $75,000 and $100,000 would see an average tax cut of $1,800. And those making under $30,000 would see an average increase of $130, according to the report.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

VDB

Another rare lucid moment for FN? Although I think what they're trying to do here is point out that Democrats have it all wrong -- Ryan's plan won't really slash government spending (esp. entitlements) like they're screaming it will. Except, in pointing that out, doesn't this article also kind of undermine the GOP narrative of Ryan as a budget hawk hero?

I did think the bit about spending as a percent of GDP puts the numbers in a much better context than just throwing out raw figures.
Is this still Wombat?

sls.stormyrider

#48
in all due respect, jimbo, you don't really believe anything from the fox news website without confirming it elsewhere, do you?

eta - never mind, read it again and see the sarcasm.
need to go get some sleep.
"toss away stuff you don't need in the end
but keep what's important, and know who's your friend"
"It's a 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses."

runawayjimbo

Quote from: V00D00BR3W on August 14, 2012, 04:23:40 PM
I did think the bit about spending as a percent of GDP puts the numbers in a much better context than just throwing out raw figures.

You know that's not a FN original, right? It's a common budgetary metric since it allows for easier comparison of historical/projected years or between countries since it normalizes for inflation, FX, etc.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

VDB

Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 15, 2012, 08:05:03 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on August 14, 2012, 04:23:40 PM
I did think the bit about spending as a percent of GDP puts the numbers in a much better context than just throwing out raw figures.

You know that's not a FN original, right? It's a common budgetary metric since it allows for easier comparison of historical/projected years or between countries since it normalizes for inflation, FX, etc.

I know -- that's why I think it's more helpful.

And wouldn't it be better to spend more time talking in those terms rather than arguing over who may be technically correct or incorrect about the budget rising or falling in strict dollar terms under a given plan? Instead it's just tucked in there as an aside, surrounded mostly by a more politicized scorecarding of whose bluster passes more muster. (Dig the rhyme?)
Is this still Wombat?

twatts

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/

Quote
1. Dazzling

At least a quarter of Americans still don't know who Paul Ryan is, and only about half who know and have an opinion of him view him favorably.

So, Ryan's primary job tonight was to introduce himself and make himself seem likeable, and he did that well. The personal parts of the speech were very personally delivered, especially the touching parts where Ryan talked about his father and mother and their roles in his life. And at the end of the speech, when Ryan cheered the crowd to its feet, he showed an energy and enthusiasm that's what voters want in leaders and what Republicans have been desperately lacking in this campaign.

To anyone watching Ryan's speech who hasn't been paying much attention to the ins and outs and accusations of the campaign, I suspect Ryan came across as a smart, passionate and all-around nice guy — the sort of guy you can imagine having a friendly chat with while watching your kids play soccer together. And for a lot of voters, what matters isn't what candidates have done or what they promise to do —it's personality. On this measure, Mitt Romney has been catastrophically struggling and with his speech, Ryan humanized himself and presumably by extension, the top of the ticket.

2. Deceiving

On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan's speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was  Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.

The good news is that the Romney-Ryan campaign has likely created dozens of new jobs among the legions of additional fact checkers that media outlets are rushing to hire to sift through the mountain of cow dung that flowed from Ryan's mouth. Said fact checkers have already condemned certain arguments that Ryan still irresponsibly repeated.

Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States' credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling.

Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush. Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing.

Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period.

Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan.

Elections should be about competing based on your record in the past and your vision for the future, not competing to see who can get away with the most lies and distortions without voters noticing or bother to care. Both parties should hold themselves to that standard. Republicans should be ashamed that there was even one misrepresentation in Ryan's speech but sadly, there were many.

3. Distracting

And then there's what Ryan didn't talk about.

Ryan didn't mention his extremist stance on banning all abortions with no exception for rape or incest, a stance that is out of touch with 75% of American voters.

Ryan didn't mention his previous plan to hand over Social Security to Wall Street.

Ryan didn't mention his numerous votes to raise spending and balloon the deficit when George W. Bush was president.

Ryan didn't mention how his budget would eviscerate programs that help the poor and raise taxes on 95% of Americans in order to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires even further and increase — yes, increase —the deficit.

These aspects of Ryan's resume and ideology are sticky to say the least. He would have been wise to tackle them head on and try and explain them away in his first real introduction to voters. But instead of Ryan airing his own dirty laundry, Democrats will get the chance.

At the end of his speech, Ryan quoted his dad, who used to say to him, ""Son. You have a choice: You can be part of the problem, or you can be part of the solution."

Ryan may have helped solve some of the likeability problems facing Romney, but ultimately by trying to deceive voters about basic facts and trying to distract voters from his own record, Ryan's speech caused a much larger problem for himself and his running mate.

Sally Kohn is a writer and Fox News contributor.  You can find her online at http://sallykohn.com or on Twitter@sallykohn.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/#ixzz252DsSBp4

Oh! That! No, no, no, you're not ready to step into The Court of the Crimson King. At this stage in your training an album like that could turn you into an evil scientist.

----------------------

I want super-human will
I want better than average skill
I want a million dollar bill
And I want it all in a Pill

runawayjimbo

Damn it, T, now I don't know to respond here or to RJ over here.

To be fair, saying Fox News calls BS on an article by Sally Kohn is like saying "MSNBC calls Obama an N-bomb" for an an article by Pat Buchanan (although I appluad you guys for pointing out Fox's fair & balanced-ness).
 
But, to her list of grievances:
 
1. S&P downgrade - the rating was not downgraded because the GOP threatened not to raise the debt ceiling, it was raised because (a) $15T in debt seemed like an unsustainable amount of debt that could never be repaid (glad we nipped that in the bud) and (b) Congressional dooshbaggery on both side of the aisle, not soley becuase of the GOP. Ryan is distorting the truth by saying that Obama was responsible for the downgrade, just not for the reason Kohn gives.
2. The GM plant closing in Ryan's hometown - this is absolutely a lie and Ryan has been called on it the past so I don't understand why they continue trotting that out. 1-for-2.
3. The "you didn't build that" line: I think both sides have been pretty disingenous on this one. Did GOP take remark out of context? Maybe. Did Obama mean building roads and bridges when he said "that"? I'm skeptical. This one's a push.
4. The $716B Medicare "cuts" - I think I've beat this horse enough, but no, it will not only affect reimbursement rates or save seniors on out-of-pocket but it is true the Ryan embraced the same cuts (he just used the money to actually shore up the "trust" rather than to pay for a massive Medicaid expansion).
 
Overall, only I see only 1 outright fabrication on her list. Now, I'm sure there were others, but Kohn decides to only go for the big scary ones so that everyone knows how different the GOP vision of the country is from the Dems. I can't wait to see PolitiFact factcheck Kohn's piece. I give it a "Mostly false."
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

twatts

Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 30, 2012, 09:30:17 AM
Damn it, T, now I don't know to respond here or to RJ over here.

To be fair, saying Fox News calls BS on an article by Sally Kohn is like saying "MSNBC calls Obama an N-bomb" for an an article by Pat Buchanan (although I appluad you guys for pointing out Fox's fair & balanced-ness).

But, to her list of grievances:

1. S&P downgrade - the rating was not downgraded because the GOP threatened not to raise the debt ceiling, it was raised because (a) $15T in debt seemed like an unsustainable amount of debt that could never be repaid (glad we nipped that in the bud) and (b) Congressional dooshbaggery on both side of the aisle, not soley becuase of the GOP. Ryan is distorting the truth by saying that Obama was responsible for the downgrade, just not for the reason Kohn gives.
2. The GM plant closing in Ryan's hometown - this is absolutely a lie and Ryan has been called on it the past so I don't understand why they continue trotting that out. 1-for-2.
3. The "you didn't build that" line: I think both sides have been pretty disingenous on this one. Did GOP take remark out of context? Maybe. Did Obama mean building roads and bridges when he said "that"? I'm skeptical. This one's a push.
4. The $716B Medicare "cuts" - I think I've beat this horse enough, but no, it will not only affect reimbursement rates or save seniors on out-of-pocket but it is true the Ryan embraced the same cuts (he just used the money to actually shore up the "trust" rather than to pay for a massive Medicaid expansion).

Overall, only I see only 1 outright fabrication on her list. Now, I'm sure there were others, but Kohn decides to only go for the big scary ones so that everyone knows how different the GOP vision of the country is from the Dems. I can't wait to see PolitiFact factcheck Kohn's piece. I give it a "Mostly false."

1.  Why is Ryan blaming OB something that should more appropriately be blamed on Congress???
2.  Further point, Ryan asked for Federal Money to help save this plant, but did not get it.  Congress later passed Stimulus which helped similar plants stay open.
3.  "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that."  Seems pretty clear to me OB meant infrastructure and that the GOP is taking it out of context.  So our perspectives on this are 180...  We can disagree...
4.  We can work the in-an-outs of what may or may not happen, but both seem to want pretty much the save "cuts", right??? 

Although, my broader point is that even Fox is posting editorials critical of Ryan...

Terry
 
Oh! That! No, no, no, you're not ready to step into The Court of the Crimson King. At this stage in your training an album like that could turn you into an evil scientist.

----------------------

I want super-human will
I want better than average skill
I want a million dollar bill
And I want it all in a Pill

runawayjimbo

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on August 30, 2012, 10:27:31 AM
1.  Why is Ryan blaming OB something that should more appropriately be blamed on Congress???

On further inspection, I'm really not so sure he even blamed Obama for the downgrade. Here's the only line I can find re the downgrade from the text:

Quote
Obamacare, as much as anything else, explains why a presidency that began with such anticipation now comes to such a disappointing close.

It began with a financial crisis; it ends with a job crisis.

It began with a housing crisis they alone didn't cause; it ends with a housing crisis they didn't correct.

It began with a perfect Triple-A credit rating for the United States; it ends with a downgraded America.

It all started off with stirring speeches, Greek columns, the thrill of something new. Now all that's left is a presidency adrift, surviving on slogans that already seem tired, grasping at a moment that has already passed, like a ship trying to sail on yesterday's wind.

Is that blaming Obama, or is he simply saying that it happened while he was president? Semantics? Sure, since I agree the implication is that it's Obama's fault, but all campaigns engage in verbal gymnastics to make the other guy look like a dick so let's not hold one campaign to a higher standard than the other.

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on August 30, 2012, 10:27:31 AM
2.  Further point, Ryan asked for Federal Money to help save this plant, but did not get it.  Congress later passed Stimulus which helped similar plants stay open.

On this point, I was wrong before, he didn't blame Obama for the plant shutdown (although he had in prior speeches). They tweeked the language and said something that was factually correct:

Quote
A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: "I believe that if our government is there to support you ... this plant will be here for another hundred years." That's what he said in 2008.

Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that's how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.

Admittedly this is the same semantics as above, but what he said was not a lie.

To your point, I honestly see no hypocrisy whatsoever in asking for money that has already been appropriated, even if you opposed the original policy in question. Congressmen have a responsibility to their constituents, and refusing to ask for money that is already being doled out on principle is shirking their sworn duty to the people they represent (and as noted in the past, if W had proposed the stimulus Ryan most likely would not have voted against it). However, he was asked a couple weeks ago about this issue and he said, "I never asked for stimulus money." Now that is a straight up lie and one he was (rightly) called out for. As to the ulimate result of the factories that were saved, as I've said in the past, the long -term costs far outweigh the short-term benefits IMO.

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on August 30, 2012, 10:27:31 AM
3.  "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that."  Seems pretty clear to me OB meant infrastructure and that the GOP is taking it out of context.  So our perspectives on this are 180...  We can disagree...

NO, WE CAN'T DISAGREE, T. YOU HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME!!!!!

The point of making this "You didn't build that" an issue is not whether Obama was talking about infrastructure or not. The point is that he believes that gov't is responsible for private sector success. Not completely responsible, maybe not even primarily responsible. But the comment illustrates pretty clearly to me that he believes gov't is far more responsible than I (and most Americans, BTW) would concede. The GOP kinda diminshes this point by making it a soundbite, but I do think it's one of the few important distinctions between the candidates rhetoric (in reality, both sides want to increase the scope of gov't in our lives, just in different ways).

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on August 30, 2012, 10:27:31 AM
4.  We can work the in-an-outs of what may or may not happen, but both seem to want pretty much the save "cuts", right???

Absolutely, the Ryan budget keeps the Obama Medicare "cuts". Romney's plan (which I'm not sure he's released) apparently restores the $716B, which is why it is often said the Romney is running to Obama's left on Medicare.

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on August 30, 2012, 10:27:31 AM
Although, my broader point is that even Fox is posting editorials critical of Ryan...

My broader point is not a defense of Paul Ryan it is simply that everybody is lying.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

VDB

Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 30, 2012, 11:57:43 AM
The point of making this "You didn't build that" an issue is not whether Obama was talking about infrastructure or not. The point is that he believes that gov't is responsible for private sector success. Not completely responsible, maybe not even primarily responsible. But the comment illustrates pretty clearly to me that he believes gov't is far more responsible than I (and most Americans, BTW) would concede. The GOP kinda diminshes this point by making it a soundbite, but I do think it's one of the few important distinctions between the candidates rhetoric (in reality, both sides want to increase the scope of gov't in our lives, just in different ways).

I'm not sure what's so radical or "socialist" about someone pointing out that governments, by and large, are responsible for infrastructure development and maintenance, and that private industry sure as hell does rely on that infrastructure so they can do what private industry does. I must have missed the part where Obama said "And therefore, government should get at least [insert some huge scary number] percent of the credit for our economy and for private-industry success." I don't think he's trying to quantify it at all. He's just saying -- hey, guess what, you can't go running around saying the government plays absolutely no role whatsoever in the success or support of our economy -- which is pretty much what they GOP says, since it fits neatly with their desire to shrink government until they can drown it in a bathtub.
Is this still Wombat?

twatts

Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 30, 2012, 11:57:43 AM

The point of making this "You didn't build that" an issue is not whether Obama was talking about infrastructure or not. The point is that he believes that gov't is responsible for private sector success. Not completely responsible, maybe not even primarily responsible. But the comment illustrates pretty clearly to me that he believes gov't is far more responsible than I (and most Americans, BTW) would concede. The GOP kinda diminshes this point by making it a soundbite, but I do think it's one of the few important distinctions between the candidates rhetoric (in reality, both sides want to increase the scope of gov't in our lives, just in different ways).


So if the majority of Americnas jumped off the Golden Gate???  What you and the Majority believe and are willing to concede doesn't make it true or false... 

Quote
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. 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.

I don't see where he is inferring that "Gov't" is (even partially) responsible for "success" (sic)...  He says "somebody else made that happen".  That someone could be any number of private citizens OR gov't workers who make up our Society.  If you want to suggest "Society" "made that happen", I would agree...  But to suggest that Gov't bought all those hot-dogs for Snoopy's in Raleigh, that's ridiculous...  (Although, it is the Gov't that mandates what can't and can go into those hot-dogs, maintains a system to track hot-dogs that may or may not cause illness, and helps fund the roads and rails that got the hot-dogs to his store...  but that's another story...)

BTW, I got into on WRAL with the Snoppy's guy...  He stated that the Police and Fire Dept didn't help him build his business...  I responded that the Police's function is to preserve civil society, with which peaceful busniess transaction could take place...  Otherwise, someone would have robbed his store first day...

Back to work...

Terry


Oh! That! No, no, no, you're not ready to step into The Court of the Crimson King. At this stage in your training an album like that could turn you into an evil scientist.

----------------------

I want super-human will
I want better than average skill
I want a million dollar bill
And I want it all in a Pill

sls.stormyrider

well  - I watched the speech live, which is always different from reading the text the next day

Ryan made it pretty clear that Obama (or his admin, which is essentially the same thing) was responsible for the factory closing in WI and also that Obama was responsible for the bond rating to go down. By saying something happened under his watch is blaming him, imo.

I think Ryan's nose grew a little last night.
"toss away stuff you don't need in the end
but keep what's important, and know who's your friend"
"It's a 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses."

runawayjimbo

Quote from: V00D00BR3W on August 30, 2012, 12:40:39 PM
I'm not sure what's so radical or "socialist" about someone pointing out that governments, by and large, are responsible for infrastructure development and maintenance, and that private industry sure as hell does rely on that infrastructure so they can do what private industry does. I must have missed the part where Obama said "And therefore, government should get at least [insert some huge scary number] percent of the credit for our economy and for private-industry success." I don't think he's trying to quantify it at all. He's just saying -- hey, guess what, you can't go running around saying the government plays absolutely no role whatsoever in the success or support of our economy -- which is pretty much what they GOP says, since it fits neatly with their desire to shrink government until they can drown it in a bathtub.

But that's exactly my point. No one is saying "Man, if only these roads & bridges weren't here I'd be a lot better off." Even the most strident paleo-libertarian/anarcho-capitalist is not "running around saying the gov't plays absolutely no role whatsoever in the success or support of the economy." And that's why when Obama says "you didn't build that" I absolutely don't believe that he was talking about roads and bridges because everyone understands that commerce is dependent on infrastructure.  This is such a ridiculous strawman I don't even understand why it has to be acknowledged.

I wasn't suggesting Obama was trying to quantify how much of an indivdual's success is due to the prudent actions of a benevolent gov't. But I do believe the comments (and the whole passage from speech, not just the cherry-picked "build that" line) demonstrate that Obama's vision of the "American system" values merit much less than I do. I understand that not every successful person pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and overcame adversity to get to where they are. I am aware that not every person who has fallen on hard times did so because they'd rather sit at home at smoke bongs and play video games. And yes, I realize that without roads and bridges, businesses would not be able to prosper (I can't believe I actually had to type that). But that doesn't change the fact that I believe that, in general, people's success is determined by the individual far more than it is because we have such wonderful schools educating the burger flippers of tomorrow. Is it fair that these determining factors are often inherent traits that cannot be taught or bought or practiced? No, but then again, I'm not good looking enough to bang Kate Upton but you don't hear me bitching about it.

I mean, the only other possible explanation for the comments would be that it was a not-so-thinnly veiled pitch for more taxes on the rich, a horse that he's been beating since the '08 campaign. But that still leads me to the same conclusion: that Obama believes that benefits of a centrally planned, state controlled economy is more virtuous than one based on merit. And obviously (to borrow one of the president's favorite lines), that is a vision that I fundamentally disagree with.

Oh yeah, and shrinking the size of gov't to about a fifth of the economy is totally the equivalent of "drowning it in a bathtub". :roll:


Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on August 30, 2012, 01:23:56 PM
So if the majority of Americnas jumped off the Golden Gate???  What you and the Majority believe and are willing to concede doesn't make it true or false... 

I wasn't suggesting that my opinion was true because the majority of Americans shared my belief; I was simply stating my own opinion and pointing out that it is aligned with the majority in this country (for my own benefit really since that really doesn't happen too often). But you already knew that.

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on August 30, 2012, 01:23:56 PM
Quote
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. 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.

I don't see where he is inferring that "Gov't" is (even partially) responsible for "success" (sic)...  He says "somebody else made that happen".  That someone could be any number of private citizens OR gov't workers who make up our Society.  If you want to suggest "Society" "made that happen", I would agree...  But to suggest that Gov't bought all those hot-dogs for Snoopy's in Raleigh, that's ridiculous...  (Although, it is the Gov't that mandates what can't and can go into those hot-dogs, maintains a system to track hot-dogs that may or may not cause illness, and helps fund the roads and rails that got the hot-dogs to his store...  but that's another story...)

So the great teacher he is talking about, was that at a charter school, or did the fictional successful person have access to them because of a voucher program (or even funding the student rather than the school)? And where can I "invest" in roads and bridges, because shit, people use them so that sounds like a good investment. And seriously, who the fuck else made that business happen?

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on August 30, 2012, 01:23:56 PM
BTW, I got into on WRAL with the Snoppy's guy...  He stated that the Police and Fire Dept didn't help him build his business...  I responded that the Police's function is to preserve civil society, with which peaceful busniess transaction could take place...  Otherwise, someone would have robbed his store first day...

I don't know who Snoppy is but he sounds like that idiot at VDB's gym who gets so caught up in the rhetoric he completely misses the point of the underlying message. I'm glad that doesn't happen in politics too often.

Quote from: slslbs on August 30, 2012, 01:29:58 PM
well  - I watched the speech live, which is always different from reading the text the next day

Ryan made it pretty clear that Obama (or his admin, which is essentially the same thing) was responsible for the factory closing in WI and also that Obama was responsible for the bond rating to go down. By saying something happened under his watch is blaming him, imo.

I think Ryan's nose grew a little last night.

I watched as well and I agree the lines were catered to an audience hungry for some red meat. It was the selective and unanimous outrage that erupted in the media that annoyed me. I expect it from Jonathan Chait and Joan Walsh and Michael Tomasky. But when the AP declares "FACT CHECK: Ryan takes factual shortcuts in speech", it's a bit too much for me, especially when none of the items mentioned are factually inaccurate. They may make Ryan look like a dooshbag hypocrite (not hard because, well, he is), but they are not the inaccuracies the AP claims them to be. I fully recognize that my reading of "you didn't build that" is open for debate because people have different perspectives shaping their interpretations. But I don't believe what he said was a lie.

But I look forward to the media calling out Obama's rhetorical hyperboles next week.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

twatts

Oh! That! No, no, no, you're not ready to step into The Court of the Crimson King. At this stage in your training an album like that could turn you into an evil scientist.

----------------------

I want super-human will
I want better than average skill
I want a million dollar bill
And I want it all in a Pill