Summations Only

Filling up another thread with unevidenced crap I see.Do you have any clue what a blithering idiot you sound like when you use Palinisms like "sheeple" and "lamestream"? Your words are not even original.You actually expect to be taken serious when you don't even understand enough to spell Bain Capital correctly.I won't ask you to support any of these utterly ridiculous points, because like everything you post you have absolutely nothing to back it up.Please crawl back under your rock until you have something of actual substance to contribute. This isn't even funny. This is incredibly sad and telling.
Politically ignorant? Really? Do you even understand the basics of socialism, communism and marxism? Do you know the difference? Can you tell us anything about Free Market Theory and Adam Smith?You're not even a good caricature of yourself anymore.

Quote from Ryno's interview yesterday.

quote:

---

His statements were outrageous, over the pail. I don’t know anybody who would agree with that. Rape is rape period, end of story,

---

Over the pail? Or you freaking serious? A man running for VP doesn't even know the idiom or what it really means.The idiom is Beyond the Pale. Freaking morons.Don't try to tell me he meant pale and it was transcribed wrong. Over the Pale makes him seem even more ignorant.

There are some morons up in this area that did this. They literally dumped their guns into a pit of oil. If you want your guns to be in good working order at a later date this is not the way to do it.From what I understand the guns they put in were a couple AK like rifles, an AR knockoff, a couple home defense shotguns and a few 9mm and 357's. From what I have been told by someone that claims to have been there, they did not disassemble the weapons at all.Imagine what the wooden gun stocks will be like when they pull the guns out. Oil also has a nasty tendency to break down plastics. I wonder how long it took the oil to break down the plastic sheeting.They did to themselves what they feared Obama would do. They took away their own guns. What good is it to have the guns if they have no ready access to them.When, in the words of the nutballs, "the shit hits the fan", they will not have access to these weapons they are so afraid of losing.

Door. Ass. Don't let them hit. You might hurt the door.

What is worse his original marathon lie or his lameass lying backpedal?
Ryan told radio host Hugh Hewitt he had run a "two hour and fifty-something" marathon. Lets look at the transcript.Mr Ryan is intimating that he has run multiple marathons. This we know is not true. He ran one marathon. The Grandma's marathon in Duluth, MN in 1990. His time was nothing close to 2 hours and 50 something. That would be an elite runner time. His time was 4 hours and 1 minute. Now here is his explanation for his mistake.

quote:

---

If I were to do any rounding, it would certainly be to four hours, not three.

---

Maybe that explains why his budget and economic ideas are complete trainwrecks. He obviously has no idea how to round or even what the concept means.Lying is natural for him and evidently in the past the lying has been risk free. Why would someone make such a blatant easily researched lie unless they feel they are never going to be held accountable.All the other lies of the Romney/Ryan campaign have slid right by. This one may resonate with the American people because it is so obvious and so egregious. Also, it is something people can relate to and see.4 hours and 1 minute is nowhere near 3 hours 50 something. Their assumption of the stupidity of the American people may have gone one lie too far.

Big issue? Do you even read what people post?The premise of the post is that not only is he willing to lie he is willing to lie in order to explain the previous lie.The other point is that a simple lie like this may resonate with the American public more than the lies he and Romney have made about policy and economic issues.

But that is not the issue is it? That you seem to think that the running times are the issue is kind of astounding to me. It is the ease of lying and the seeming culture of lying he is coming from that is the issue.
That he is willing to and thinks it is ok to blatantly lie about something so innocuous speaks volumes.

Maybe Paul Krugman can explain it to you.

quote:

---

Obviously nobody cares how fast Mr. Ryan can run, and even his strange marathon misstatement wouldn’t be worth talking about in isolation. What makes this incident so striking is, instead, the way it resonates with the essential Rosie-Ruizness of Mr. Ryan’s whole political persona, which is built around big boasts about accomplishments he hasn’t accomplished.

​

For Mr. Ryan, as you may recall, has positioned himself as an icon of truth-telling and fiscal responsibility, while offering policy proposals that are neither honest nor responsible. He calls for huge tax cuts, while proposing specific spending cuts that, while inflicting immense hardship on our most vulnerable citizens, would fall far short of making up for the revenue loss. His claims to reduce the deficit therefore rely on assertions that he would make up for the lost revenue by closing loopholes that he refuses to specify, and achieve further huge spending cuts in ways that he also refuses to specify.

​

But didn’t the Congressional Budget Office evaluate Mr. Ryan’s plan and conclude that it would indeed reduce the deficit? I’m glad you asked that. You see, the budget office didn’t actually evaluate his plan, because there weren’t enough details. Instead, it let Mr. Ryan specify paths for future spending and revenue, while noting in what sounds to me like a hint of snark that No proposals were specified that would generate that path.

​

So Mr. Ryan basically told the budget office to assume that his plan would slash the deficit, then claimed the resulting report as vindication of his deficit-slashing claims. Sorry, but that’s the policy equivalent of sneaking into a marathon near the finish line, then claiming victory.

---

It ain't about marathon times.

You seem to just want to start a flame war and be contrary so I will just let you have your little hissy fit, ok.It would take you all five minute to research Ryan and lies. There is a thing called google.

quote:

---

Campaign professionals vetting Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as a potential Republican vice presidential candidate warned Mitt Romney‘s strategists that the Congressman had a history of exaggeration and prevarication that could become a campaign issue and distraction but the GOP presidential nominee’s team ignored the warnings.

---

Romney ignored warnings about Ryan’s history of lies, exaggerations How about Romneys 533 lies in 30 weeks. When I post information here I expect people have basic knowledge of reality and what is happening in the world around them. You might want to examine this subject critically and actually look up some information yourself.

A member of the 1% thinks another member of the 1% is a nice guy and this is relevant somehow? Hal Prewitt

Thomas Sowell? Really? Obviously you and this joker have no concept about Soviet history. There was no redistribution of the wealth of the kulaks. There were food shortages prior to the destruction of the kulaks and collectivism of farms was a response to these shortages. The wealthy peasants, kulaks, protested this and in turn were destroyed. Their wealth, I will get to that, was not redistributed. The totalitarian state appropriated it. To equate US tax policy to dekulakization is utterly wrong and offensive. It is a right wing myth that is offensive to anyone that believes in a free society.Lets look at wealth in the USSR. There was little personal wealth. This was not completely due to "communism". You might want to research pre-soviet Russia. The vast majority of wealth was in the hands of the aristocracy. The vast majority of people, over 80%, were peasants. The redistribution of wealth was from all people to the state. This was not due to redistribution of wealth. This was due to collectivism, which was a soviet policy to control all facets of agriculture and the restless peasant class.You want to compare that to US tax policy? Shame on you.

Yes.
Try some research.
Russian famine of 1601
Russian famine of 1921
1921-1922 famine in TatarstanThat is without even trying. You might want to look at the famines in 1230, 1891-1892, 1916-1917, 1947 also.

Thus had nothing to do with redistribution of wealth.

A liar for conservatism I see. I am that poster and I do not like your insinuations. Anyone that read the exchange would clearly so you are misrepresenting the exchange completely.I first rebutted the crap you posted from Thomas Sewell. I even used arguments and facts. Something you seem to not be able to do. Then you posted the info from the library of congress claiming that it was the worst famine in communism. I then referred you to other Russian famines to show that that famine was just one of many. Sill waiting for you to show us where the "redistribution of wealth" was.Now you claim you don't support your right wing CRAP because you don't want to argue with people that prove you are posting crap. Classic wingnut.
"Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up."If you don't want to support this crap with evidence quit posting it. Must I remind you.

quote:

---

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

---

So if you can't support it, don't post it.

What is it with fundies and wingers that anytime there is evidence opposing their POV, they suddenly have a persecution complex and accuse others of personal attacks?Then we find out that they have no support for the crap they posted.