I explained what it was based on. Because he is one, he comes across as intelligent, as a serious man. When his entire campaign is predicated on two ideas: "Obama's a nice guy but he's in over his head" and "Obama's not like us" the two bars Romney needs to clear are "Is he presidential? Can we see him in the position?" Easily met. And "Is he at all like us?" Take all the dog whistles (doesn't know how to be an American; probably Muslim; a Manchurian candidate; wants to impose Sharia Law; Socialist/Communist/Fascist/Nazi; maybe not even from here/nobody asked for MY birth certificate - HO HO HO) and maybe, just maybe, Americans see the white guy, no matter how out of touch due to 'being born on third base and thinking he hit a triple...' Well, he can and has been consistently making the argument, one he intends to win, that Obama just isn't really American while he Romney embodies the American dream.
Reviews are in! Lyin Ryan's speech fools no one (not even factcheck.org)! Media Calls Out Paul Ryan Acceptance Speech For Falsehoods Departure From Usual: Traditional Media Call Out Ryan For Factually Dubious Speech FACT CHECK: Ryan takes factual shortcuts in speech
They won't say "tea party" at their convention because they've finally become ashamed of the association (Hey thumbs, "How does it feeeeeeel? To be on your own..."). The trade-off was they let the tea party write their entire platform. You think this is bad? Look at what they did on abortion rights.
You can disagree all you want. You know very well Ryan was attempting to mislead the American people into believing the plant closed during the Obama administration and that his words were very carefully chosen to meet the letter of the lying law. Lawyerly, slick, and dishonest. He did this in stump speeches and was roundly slammed for getting it wrong. Then it might have been an honest mistake; to repeat it, having been so thoroughly corrected, was a deliberate attempt to mislead the American people. It was a lie. Every time the GOP says Obama is unAmerican or doesn't know how to be an American or has different values than real Americans; any time they question his citizenship or religion or patriotism; any time they misrepresent his ideology (and by the way it is literally impossible to be both a socialist and a fascist or to favor both gay marriage and Sharia Law)... the clear message is "he's not like us." (But Romney is, LOL.) Call it racist or not. It's never, EVER happened to a white president. But whether racist or not, these are dog whistles and they are clearly part of a broad strategy employed by the entire party and from the moment he took office. BS. Prove it.
"I like firing people" was out of context and that was unconscionable; I grant you that. But there is a major difference here -- it was in keeping with the theme that Romney, the man who decided himself to stake his candidacy on his success in business, made most of his money by firing people. He does like firing people; it's what made him mega-rich. The ad in question was dishonest too, I agree. But it was not an Obama ad. It was a Super PAC ad. And don't you dare blame Super PAC's doing dishonest hit-and-runs, for which they have no accountability, on Obama or Democrats. The Obama Super PAC's should run any damn thing they want. They have no choice but to fight fire with fire. Thank the Roberts Court and Citizens United for that -- the most gigantic, and most wrong-headed, decision passed down by the Court in a century and one that absolutely devastes campaign finance laws and frustrates any attempt to reform them to the point it's not worth trying. But Obama did not "approve that message." So why don't you be honest about that even if your party can't? And it's not for nothing that a ****-ton of people lost insurance due to Bain specifically and Romney by association as the boss of the company. You don't think any of them died? I think the makers of that ad screwed up but not like you think they did; I think they just had the wrong spokesperson. Every time a Bain-bought company closed, laid off workers, or canceled or reduced benefits, Romney made money. You don't think anyone died as a result of losing their insurance as a result of Bain/Romney? If not, you are unbelievably naive.
Really? So you think any American should be able to own anything with no questions asked? I mean if someone who didn't own a farm wanted to buy a 1,000 lbs of ammonia nitrate no questions asked you would be OK with that?
Actually it wasn't closed it was shut down and could still be started up if things improve with GM. Anyway do you hold Obama responsible for the shuttering of a plant when he wasn't yet in office?
All Martian Manhunter references get rep from me. Want rep? This is a sure-fire path to it. From me at least.
Give me a break. It was a super-pac ad featuring a guy that was in an Obama ad earlier in the year and was on a conference call with Obama's campaign spokesperson telling the exact same false story. I didn't blame anyone for Super PAC's did I? Don't challenge my honesty. Obama did not "approve that Message" but you and I both know he approved it. Prove it. I want proof that someone died because Bain took their insurance away.
you didnt read the rest of my statement and 'no' to answer your question. A government needs to provide justification for banning something. Citizens don't need to justify ownership to be allowed to own something. government has justified its ban of ammonia nitrate
I challenged your honesty because you suggested that Obama approved the ad. That would have been against the law. And you should blame someone for Super PAC's: The GOP, because they have fought for them and Dems have fought for campaign finance reform. But I didn't say you blamed someone for PAC's; I said you blamed people for dishonest hit-and-runs. You don't get to do that unless you oppose the law that made them possible and the party that supported it. This is what happens when money=free speech as according to Citizens United. You guys asked for this and now you're complaining that it happened. I can't prove anything about someone dying from losing insurance in a situation specifically related to Bain -- how could I? I'm not oppo research. Do you doubt that someone with a pre-existing condition died because they didn't have insurance? While I can't tell you a Bain story I can tell you the story of one of my very best friends, a man I've known since I was 14, a man with whom I collaborated until he died at the age of 38 from skin cancer that got the better of him specifically because he was working off a gold card. The ACA would probably have saved his life as he responded extremely well to interferon treatments but when he started getting bad headaches a year later he waited six months for test results. They came the day after he died of a grand mal seizure due to the cancer having spread in the last months (well after the tests) throughout his entire body. Here are two youtube videos of my friend who died not because of Bain but because of the very same policies Romney is advocating today. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/T_rb1PAAZaA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7FqeI-P0FF0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Just heard Ryan doubling down. In an interview with Scott Pelley on CBS Pelley asked Ryan about him blaming Obama for the US Bond downgrade and read a quote from Standard & Poors citing Republican intransigence for the downgrade. Ryan claimed that talking to the team at Standard & Poors said something else. Here is the quote from S&P: "We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act." Now to be fair to Ryan the S&P report is critical of Congress as a whole and does cite a lack of leadership but it's disingenuous of Ryan to ignore his own role in as budget chair. It also contradicts his own statement that he and Romney wouldn't cast blame but accept responsibility.
Yes I did read the rest of your statement which essentially ignored that there is good reason for that government to provide a justification to limit high capacity magazines. In the wrong hands, ie people like Jared Loughner and James Holmes, they can do a lot of damage. Just like ammonia nitrate. It's a fact that Jared Loughner was only stopped when he had to reload. If he had a smaller magazine that might've happened sooner. Anyway my point is that you are saying it isn't relevant why someone wants to own any particular piece of property. Actually it is very relevant. A farmer has very good reason to own a 1,000 lbs of nitrate a guy living in an apartment in a city who works in an office probably doesn't.
What a silly statement. Does this mean I can't think it's wrong for a person to lie to his wife unless I support a law making it illegal? The idea that unless you support limiting free speech you can't be upset about people lying is preposterous. I am sorry about your friend.
worse and worse for Ryan Media Backlash Continues Against Paul Ryan’s Misleading Speech The media’s backlash against Paul Ryan and the factually unsound premises of his Wednesday convention speech continued well into Thursday, and turned what the GOP hoped would be glowing headlines into a less lustrous mix of fawning and criticism. “There are some things that I think were factually questionable,” said Fox News anchor Chris Wallace on Thursday, adding himself to the list of unexpected journalists to question the accuracy of the would-be vice president’s arguments. Time magazine’s Mark Halperin added on MSNBC that “there’s lots of substantive flaws to what he talked about.” Wallace and Halperin — along with many other reporters and punditss — also hailed Ryan as an effective speaker who rallied the Republican crowd with his fierce attacks on President Obama. But their criticisms of his substance threaten to undermine Ryan’s reputation as an honest broker, which has been central to his rise as the Republican Party’s intellectual standard bearer. That perception faces a test as more and more news anchors question Ryan’s facts. It’s a departure from traditional reporters’ tendency to praise Ryan as an earnest budget hawk — one further reflected in the Associated Press, Boston Globe, Washington Post, CNN, ABC News and other outlets. The Romney campaign is simultaneously under media scrutiny for attacks on Obama’s tweaks to welfare reform, Medicare and his views about entrepreneurship — attacks that have widely been dismissed as false or taken out of context. Earlier this week the Romney campaign — encouraged by conservative advocates — brushed off critics. Romney pollster Neil Newhouse famously said in Tampa, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.”
It was funny to hear Ryan say that's not how he interpreted what they said even after Pelley read him the direct quote. It was a great microcosm of the current state of the Republican Party.
Not so sure about the enthusiasm gap the GOP is supposed to have: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/ryan-speech-ratings-pail-to-palin-133875.html TAMPA, Fla. -- Roughly 20 million people watched Paul Ryan's convention speech last night, according to TVNewser. The turnout is drastically less than the 37.2 million who tuned in for Sarah Palin's GOP convention speech in 2008 and less than the roughly 24 million who tuned in for Joe Biden's Democratic convention speech that year, according to reports from the time. Granted, Obama's numbers will almost definitely be much lower too, but not even outdoing Biden 2008?
