Mitt Romney Chooses Paul Ryan As Election Running Mate

[Jingthing]

Hmmm ...

Well they do seem better paired than McCain-Palin. Have you noticed the twinkle in Mitt's eye when his precious Paul is around?

Edited August 30, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

just as DECENT wealthy people have always done?

Mitt Romney has given huge amounts to charity regularly since he was a young man, including his entire inheritance when he came of age. That seems pretty decent to most people who are not just looking to distort his record for political gain.

I suppose some consider the Mormon Church a charity. To the best of my knowledge, the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints does not have the same approach to non denominational care and charity as do Christian or Jewish or Sikh or Non Affiliated religious groups.

Despite your obvious vendetta against Romney, there is no excuse for being dishonest about the Mormon charities that he has contributed money to.

For many years, The Church has been actively involved in humanitarian relief and development activities throughout the world. These include emergency relief assistance in times of disaster and humanitarian programs that strengthen the self-reliance of individuals, families, and communities.

Humanitarian projects are funded by donations from Church members and others. One-hundred percent of these donations go directly to help the poor and needy. In-kind material assistance is provided through items donated by Church members and others.

Church humanitarian efforts relieve suffering for families of all nationalities and religions and offer hope with the potential for a better life for millions of people around the world. https://www.lds.org/topics/humanitarian-service/church?lang=eng

[Ulysses G.]

Oh my. Ryan got caught lying in his big speech. And its a Fox news contributor that calls him out

Sally Kohn is a far-left kook who became famous for marching with the Occupy Wall Street anarchists. Her opinion about any conservative is about as trustworthy as Anthony Weiner who also appears regularly on Fox to promote the liberal point of view. If someone is "lying" there is pretty good chance that it is not Paul Ryan.

No. There are verifiable facts pointed to in the article. It is so tired and repetitive to merely attack the source.

It is an opinion piece written by a liberal with an axe to grind and a record of not being very honest. Of course one has to consider the source,

[chuckd]

Oh my. Ryan got caught lying in his big speech. And its a Fox news contributor that calls him out

Sorry boys. Sally Kohn is a far-left kook who became famous for marching with the Occupy Wall Street anarchists. Her opinion about any conservative is about as trustworthy as Anthony Weiner - who also appears regularly on Fox to promote the liberal point of view.

On top of that, most of the spin in the Slate hit piece has been discredited by non-partisan fact-checkers. They report that the democrat campaign has been spinning the exact same issues. If someone is "lying" there is pretty good chance that it is not Paul Ryan.

Carry on with the dishonest smear campaign against Romney/Ryan, but, thankfully, it is not working with voters as they are ahead.

More to follow tomorrow on the linked article from Fox News. Now for some of Sally Kohn's more recent opinion pieces. I'm certain there is an article somewhere about the infamous "dog-on-the-car-roof" caper

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

Sally Kohn Archive

Paul Ryan's speech in 3 words

Published August 30, 2012

Paul Ryan's speech was three things: dazzling, deceiving and distracting.

Republicans should be careful what they wish for with Paul Ryan on the ticket

Published August 14, 2012

While the conservative base may be thrilled with Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate and at the prospect of gutting government to fund more tax breaks for billionaires and oil companies, ordinary Americans are not.

Obama's right, Americans can't succeed without government

Published July 17, 2012

President Obama's comments about business have been taken out of context. The president was clear: We succeed because of our individual initiative but also because of the public investments that help springboard that success.

Chief Justice Roberts does the right thing on ObamaCare

Published June 28, 2012

The Supreme Court has upheld ObamaCare. America, sometimes justice manages to be blind to politics and sometimes, just sometimes, even conservatives on the Court realize that we have a federal government for good reason.

It's time we start sharing the American Dream

Published June 18, 2012

I am proud of America. President Obama did the right thing providing a path to citizenship for America’s undocumented immigrants.

What Republicans and Democrats can learn from Wisconsin

Published June 06, 2012

Tuesday's Wisconsin recall election has ominous lessons for both parties in the November presidential election and more broadly. It's clear today that although Gov. Scott Walker survived both political parties have lessons to learn and work to do.

Tyler Clementi, Dharun Ravi and the problem with hate crimes laws

Published May 23, 2012

I fundamentally believe that the way to root out bias crime in America and bias in general is by acknowledging all of our inherent prejudices and judgments and dealing with them openly.

Bullying Mitt Romney?

Published May 16, 2012

Sure I'm a Democrat and want President Obama to win re-election, but first and foremost I'm an American and I'd like the presidential candidates from both parties to be kind and decent human beings.

Obama should say more on marriage equality

Published May 09, 2012

President Obama should make a much more full-throated and bold speech on marriage equality -- not because gay activists pressured him, not because the media dogged him, but because it's the right thing to do. Here is what I think he should say.

President Barack Obama is set to be the Democratic nominee for an election he will most likely win

Published April 25, 2012

Mitt Romney and the Republicans will keep pinning their hopes on a dream of a chance at victory, while President Obama hangs his hat on the very real and very impressive accomplishments of his leadership.

http://www.foxnews.c...kohn/index.html

Edited August 30, 2012 by chuckd

[Jingthing]

Despite your obvious vendetta against Romney, there is no excuse for being dishonest about the Mormon charities that he has contributed money to.

For many years, The Church has been actively involved in humanitarian relief and development activities throughout the world. These include emergency relief assistance in times of disaster and humanitarian programs that strengthen the self-reliance of individuals, families, and communities.

Humanitarian projects are funded by donations from Church members and others. One-hundred percent of these donations go directly to help the poor and needy. In-kind material assistance is provided through items donated by Church members and others.

Church humanitarian efforts relieve suffering for families of all nationalities and religions and offer hope with the potential for a better life for millions of people around the world. https://www.lds.org/...church?lang=eng

You just published church propaganda of a very secretive church that does not publish their financial information. Yet you expect people to take that as some kind of divine truth? Nope. It is supposedly off limits in the campaign to discuss Mormon issues, such as the fact that the Mormon church is radically anti-gay rights. Last time I checked presidents are supposed to be presidents of ALL citizens including the gay ones. Yet those close to Romney openly say the most vital thing in this man's life who aims to be the U.S. president is his Mormonism. That's the reason the man appears so stiff and fake to the public, not someone people can relate to, because he is actively HIDING who who is, he can't show his true self so he appears creepily unnatural. This the Romney who has given personal donations in addition to required tithing to groups labeled as hate groups that work to "convert" gay men away from homosexuality. Some of this math does not compute. BTW, Ryan, though obviously not Mormon, shares his elder male partners activist anti-civil rights sentiments.

The LDS church has donated some $1.1 billion towards humanitarian aid around the world between 1985 and 2011. During that time period the average membership of the LDS church was 10 million members (today it's 14 million). Doing some simple math quickly shows that on average during the past 25 years, Mormons have contributed $5 per member per year toward humanitarian causes. That seems embarrassingly low for a Christ-centered entity

http://mormonthink.c...ing.htm#secrecy Edited August 30, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

Oh my. Ryan got caught lying in his big speech. And its a Fox news contributor that calls him out

Sorry boys. Sally Kohn is a far-left kook who became famous for marching with the Occupy Wall Street anarchists. Her opinion about any conservative is about as trustworthy as Anthony Weiner - who also appears regularly on Fox to promote the liberal point of view.

On top of that, most of the spin in the Slate hit piece has been discredited by non-partisan fact-checkers. They report that the democrat campaign has been spinning the exact same issues. If someone is "lying" there is pretty good chance that it is not Paul Ryan.

Carry on with the dishonest smear campaign against Romney/Ryan, but, thankfully, it is not working with voters as they are ahead.

More to follow tomorrow on the linked article from Fox News. Now for some of Sally Kohn's more recent opinion pieces. I'm certain there is an article somewhere about the infamous "dog-on-the-car-roof" caper

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

Sally Kohn Archive

Paul Ryan's speech in 3 words

Published August 30, 2012

Paul Ryan's speech was three things: dazzling, deceiving and distracting.

Republicans should be careful what they wish for with Paul Ryan on the ticket

Published August 14, 2012

While the conservative base may be thrilled with Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate and at the prospect of gutting government to fund more tax breaks for billionaires and oil companies, ordinary Americans are not.

Obama's right, Americans can't succeed without government

Published July 17, 2012

President Obama's comments about business have been taken out of context. The president was clear: We succeed because of our individual initiative but also because of the public investments that help springboard that success.

Chief Justice Roberts does the right thing on ObamaCare

Published June 28, 2012

The Supreme Court has upheld ObamaCare. America, sometimes justice manages to be blind to politics and sometimes, just sometimes, even conservatives on the Court realize that we have a federal government for good reason.

It's time we start sharing the American Dream

Published June 18, 2012

I am proud of America. President Obama did the right thing providing a path to citizenship for America’s undocumented immigrants.

What Republicans and Democrats can learn from Wisconsin

Published June 06, 2012

Tuesday's Wisconsin recall election has ominous lessons for both parties in the November presidential election and more broadly. It's clear today that although Gov. Scott Walker survived both political parties have lessons to learn and work to do.

Tyler Clementi, Dharun Ravi and the problem with hate crimes laws

Published May 23, 2012

I fundamentally believe that the way to root out bias crime in America and bias in general is by acknowledging all of our inherent prejudices and judgments and dealing with them openly.

Bullying Mitt Romney?

Published May 16, 2012

Sure I'm a Democrat and want President Obama to win re-election, but first and foremost I'm an American and I'd like the presidential candidates from both parties to be kind and decent human beings.

Obama should say more on marriage equality

Published May 09, 2012

President Obama should make a much more full-throated and bold speech on marriage equality -- not because gay activists pressured him, not because the media dogged him, but because it's the right thing to do. Here is what I think he should say.

President Barack Obama is set to be the Democratic nominee for an election he will most likely win

Published April 25, 2012

Mitt Romney and the Republicans will keep pinning their hopes on a dream of a chance at victory, while President Obama hangs his hat on the very real and very impressive accomplishments of his leadership.

http://www.foxnews.c...kohn/index.html

Wow, looks like Fox News really is Fair and Balanced!

[geriatrickid]

Oh my. Ryan got caught lying in his big speech. And its a Fox news contributor that calls him out

Sorry boys. Sally Kohn is a far-left kook who became famous for marching with the Occupy Wall Street anarchists. Her opinion about any conservative is about as trustworthy as Anthony Weiner - who also appears regularly on Fox to promote the liberal point of view.

On top of that, most of the spin in the Slate hit piece has been discredited by non-partisan fact-checkers. They report that the democrat campaign has been spinning the exact same issues. If someone is "lying" there is pretty good chance that it is not Paul Ryan.

Carry on with the dishonest smear campaign against Romney/Ryan, but, thankfully, it is not working with voters as they are ahead.

Ok, she's a kook. Now please state which of the whoppers that she says Ryan made, are incorrect and where she has it wrong. Thank you.

[Neurath]

Forget the spin, the posturing for audience and the hyperbolic vitriol and foolishness. A calm analysis of Congressman Ryan's acceptance speech is now up at:

http://factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spin/

[Jingthing]

Ryan was sold as some kind "truth telling" Mr. Smith comes to Washington kind of wholesome hayseed. Now he has shown he can avoid the truth like the best of them! The bloom is off the rose.

[Ulysses G.]

Despite your obvious vendetta against Romney, there is no excuse for being dishonest about the Mormon charities that he has contributed money to.

For many years, The Church has been actively involved in humanitarian relief and development activities throughout the world. These include emergency relief assistance in times of disaster and humanitarian programs that strengthen the self-reliance of individuals, families, and communities.

Humanitarian projects are funded by donations from Church members and others. One-hundred percent of these donations go directly to help the poor and needy. In-kind material assistance is provided through items donated by Church members and others.

Church humanitarian efforts relieve suffering for families of all nationalities and religions and offer hope with the potential for a better life for millions of people around the world. https://www.lds.org/...church?lang=eng

You just published church propaganda of a very secretive church that does not publish their financial information.

The Catholic church does not publish most of its financial data. Are you going to turn that into a conspiracy theory too?

The facts are that the Mormon church does a lot of good all around the world with charitable donations and sleazy insinuations and baltant lies by Romney's political opponents will not change that.

[Ulysses G.]

Ok, she's a kook. Now please state which of the whoppers that she says Ryan made, are incorrect and where she has it wrong. Thank you.

\

Lets just start with the first one. According to the kook:

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

According to politifact:

To put it in simple terms, Standard & Poor's had two main reasons for the downgrade: First, that the size of the U.S. debt is very large and growing, and second, that politicians seem unable to agree on what steps to take to reduce it. It called the political process "contentious and fitful," and said the firm was "pessimistic" that the White House and Congress would be able to agree on measures to significantly reduce the debt anytime soon.

As to which political party was in the right, the ratings agency did not explicitly tip its hand. The report said it took no position on whether taxes should be raised or spending should be cut.

In the Fox News interview, Chambers was asked if the tea party movement was responsible for the downgrade as Democrats alleged. He declined to take the bait and assign blame.

"I think that there's lots of blame to go around, and what we need to come to in the United States is a way of forging consensus, so that we can take the tough choices that lie ahead, because the fiscal situation in the United States is not sustainable," he said. http://www.politifac...de-proved-she-/

In other words, the downgrade was due to the growing US debt and the actions of both parties. It can not be blamed exclusively on "the Republicans" as Sally Kohn did.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[koheesti]

Ok, she's a kook. Now please state which of the whoppers that she says Ryan made, are incorrect and where she has it wrong. Thank you.

\

Lets just start with trhe first one.

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

I just watched the speech and "the kook" is wrong. Did Ryan "try to pin" the downgrade on anyone? No, he didn't. He is merely pointing out where the Obama presidency started, and where it is ending. From the transcript of Ryan's speech...

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.

(APPLAUSE)

It began with a perfect AAA credit rating for the United

States. It ends with the 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 the

moment that has already passed, like a ship trying to sail on

yesterday's wind.

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz251oJxPhv

Edited August 30, 2012 by koheesti

[koheesti]

Ryan was sold as some kind "truth telling" Mr. Smith comes to Washington kind of wholesome hayseed. Now he has shown he can avoid the truth like the best of them! The bloom is off the rose.

Obama was sold as The Messiah who said of his own coming election "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

[chuckd]

Forget the spin, the posturing for audience and the hyperbolic vitriol and foolishness. A calm analysis of Congressman Ryan's acceptance speech is now up at:

http://factcheck.org.../ryans-vp-spin/

Let us take a quick look at factcheck.org, an organization that is funded by the liberal based Annenberg Foundation. Prior to entering the political arena, Obama and his good friend William Ayers were involved rather heavily with the Annenberg Foundation. What is this connection?

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

To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.

Ayers co-chaired the organization’s Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer’s led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an “ex officio member”. They both also sat together on the board of the CAC’s Governance Committee. Obama and Ayers were two parts of a group of four who were instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern the CAC. Keep in mind that the “A” in CAC is for Annenberg, the owners of FactCheck.org. The funding for Ayer’s projects and those of his cronies was approved by Board Chair, Barack Obama.

http://www.freerepub...s/2923825/posts

There are other links:

From 1994 to 2002, Obama served on the boards of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project; and of the Joyce Foundation.[31] He served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1999.[31]

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Barack_Obama

and...

Board of Directors, 1994:[1]

Barack Obama - (Director 1994–2002) - Associate (1993–1996), Of counsel (1997–2004), Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland; Lecturer (1992–1996), Senior Lecturer (1996–2004), University of Chicago Law School; Illinois State Senator (1997–2004); winner (1993), Crain's Chicago Business "40 Under 40" award; former President (1990–1991), Harvard Law Review; former Executive Director (1985–1988), Developing Communities Project[10]

Board of Directors, 2008:[17]

William C. Ayers - (Director 1999– ) - Distinguished Professor of Education, University of Illinois at Chicago

http://en.wikipedia....Fund_of_Chicago

Finally...

There is the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which William Ayers was instrumental in establishing. Obama was President of this branch of the Annenberg Foundation.

"Barack Obama, elected by the Board of Directors as founding chairman and president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (1995–1999), resigned as chairman and president in September 1999 to run as a candidate in the 2000 Democratic primary for the 1st Congressional District of Illinois, and was succeeded by Edward Bottum (1999–2001)."

http://en.wikipedia....nberg_Challenge

Obama was affiliated with the Annenberg Foundation, which funds factcheck.org, for several years prior to entering politics. Perhaps he has friends in high places that are fact checking items such as political rhetoric. In other words, don't believe everything that is on the internet.

[geriatrickid]

In your diatribe against fact check you have done everything but address the comments/statements made by fact check. Is fact check incorrect and if so, please explain why.

BTW, the Annenberg Center is housed at the University of Pennsylvania, which is hardly a bastion of commie subterfuge. It is subject to oversight and is transparent. What I find amusing at your attempt to deride this reputable organization is that it was founded by Reaganites. The Annenbergs were very clse to the Reagans. BTW President Nixon appointed Wally Ambassador to the UK.

When the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) was established in 1993, its founders, Ambassadors Walter and Leonore Annenberg, sought to increase the impact of the scholarship produced at Penn’s Annenberg School for Communication, the Policy Center’s home. It was their hope that the APPC would apply its knowledge about communication to improve the well-being of those in the U.S. and throughout the globe. In the subsequent years, APPC research has been put to use in studies of adolescent health, HIV and AIDS, media content analysis and political civility. APPC's ongoing funding comes from an endowment established for it by the Annenberg Foundation in 1993.

Edited August 30, 2012 by geriatrickid

[Ulysses G.]

In your diatribe against fact check you have done everything but address the comments/statements made by fact check. Is fact check incorrect and if so, please explain why.

Yeah, chuckd. I'm sure that you do not mind devoting hours and hours researching this stuff and proving it incorrect and then someone can just post some more distorted "facts" and demand that you research that too and you can start all over again. It's lucky that you have nothing better to do with your life.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

In your diatribe against fact check you have done everything but address the comments/statements made by fact check. Is fact check incorrect and if so, please explain why.

This is what I said in post number 514:

"More to follow tomorrow on the linked article from Fox News. "

Please be patient but tune in tomorrow for some further developments.

[uptheos]

I bet Romney won't bow as low as Obama or kiss the Saudi's ring.

[Scott]

Continued excessive discussion of everyone's sources is going to cause a problem.

Stick to the topic. The topic isn't about other posters. The topic isn't about news sources and reporters.

[Neurath]

It's a good thing to calmly evaluate the credibility of an information source. Of course, if that evaluation consists entirely of determining whether content agrees with what you already think - if it does, good source, if it doesn't, bad source - then, well, you're stuck always with what you already think. An affliction, but a depressingly common one as evidenced.

Anyone interested in precisely what the "Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania" (the folks who run factcheck.org) is they can do so here http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/About.aspx and then compare it concretely to Chuckd's "six degrees of separation" spoof above.

Factcheck will do a demolition of the Democrat convention speeches in the next week just as they have done with the hyperbole of the Ryan speech just now.

Be that as it may, when Factcheck say: http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obama-twists-romneys-economic-record/ and then proceed to a demolition of Obama's claims I wonder if a person with similar inclinations to Chuckd, but instinctively jerking a different ideological knee, were able to connect the Annenberg Foundation to Koch brothers? Wearily, I have to admit that it would be possible. Anyway, I leave that as a challenge to those with access to the same pharmaceuticals as.......... It will be impossible without them.

[Scott]

And now we WILL end posts which focus solely on sources rather than content.

[Jingthing]

Here is hoping the swing voters (base voters are set) take the time to check the FACTS about the lies Ryan and Romney are spinning. I know the press is reluctant to use the word lie, but I'm not!

With tonight’s speech, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have doubled down on their twin bets of 2012 — that journalists will sit back and name winners and losers without regard to who is telling the truth, and that voters are too ignorant to care about the truth. Do not let them be right.

http://www.washingto...ff430_blog.html

I spoke too soon!

It was, by any reasonable standards, a staggering, staggering lie. Here’s Paul Ryan about Barack Obama:

He created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/paul-ryan-fails----the-truth/2012/08/29/bbfe1eac-f254-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_blog.html

I think this is good news and makes it easier to beat the team of "moralistic" liars. Telling such blatant lies will make it much easier for Biden to tear Ryan apart in their debate.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Here is hoping the swing voters (base voters are set) take the time to check the FACTS about the lies Ryan and Romney are spinning.

They are not the ones who are claiming that their opponents are responsible for causing cancer, killing people, are felons, have not paid taxes for 10 years, etc. Now, THOSE are lies!

Edited August 30, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

Luckily, there are fact-checkers checking the fact checkers, because many of them have an agenda.

But, then again, Obama did kinda ask for it. This is what he said in the speech that Ryan alluded to:

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. 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.

In saying that “this plant will be here for another hundred years” when he is our president, he was suggesting that under him the plant would have some kind of a future. Ryan’s Big Lie then is that instead of saying the president “suggested” he said the president “promised” he’d keep the plant open? So sue him! But, as it turns out, the plant wasn’t closed when Obama gave his speech on Feb 13, 2008. It was open. http://reason.com/bl...d-fact-checkers

Edited August 30, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

Luckily, there are fact-checkers checking the fact checkers, because many of them have an agenda.

But, then again, Obama did kinda ask for it. This is what he said in the speech that Ryan alluded to:

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. 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.

In saying that “this plant will be here for another hundred years” when he is our president, he was suggesting that under him the plant would have some kind of a future. Ryan’s Big Lie then is that instead of saying the president “suggested” he said the president “promised” he’d keep the plant open? So sue him! But, as it turns out, the plant wasn’t closed when Obama gave his speech on Feb 13, 2008. It was open. http://reason.com/bl...d-fact-checkers

I guess the team of truth seekers at Fact Check.org must have overlooked these articles. Maybe they don't know that Google is their friend?

One at a time, folks. About the GM plant closing...

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

Workers on Isuzu line keep building medium-duty trucks

By JIM LEUTE ( Contact ) Monday, Feb. 2, 2009

"Too bad about the GM thing, but I hear the Janesville plant is getting a new medium-duty truck," the relative told a salaried employee of the auto plant in Janesville at a holiday gathering.

Full-size sport utility vehicle production has ended at the local General Motors plant, but medium-duty truck production is continuing—not starting—in Janesville.

And it likely will continue into May, when the lights finally go off in the facility that has been producing vehicles since 1923.

When GM officials announced last June that SUV production would cease in Janesville, they also said that medium-duty truck production would conclude by the end of 2009, or sooner if market conditions dictate.

More here: http://gazettextra.c...ium-duty-truck/

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

...and...

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

Michigan Plants Will Build GM's Future Small Car

2009-06-26

UAW, state & local government support, and GM’s efficient, flexible manufacturing operations make competitive, profitable small car in U.S.

From the General Motors own news letter:

"Two other GM assembly plants in Spring Hill, Tenn. and Janesville, Wis. were also under consideration to build the future small car. Spring Hill will be placed in standby capacity status in Nov. 2009, as announced earlier this month. The plant could be brought online at some point in the future should GM require additional capacity due to increased market demand. Janesville was placed on standby capacity in May 2009 and will remain in that status."

http://media.gm.com/...lCarPlants.html

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

Timeline on the Janesville closing is thus:

Plant closed in December 2008 for retooling to produce Isuzu pickups.

Plant operation continued until the plant was placed in standby status in May 2009

Obama inaugurated 21 January 2009

Edited August 31, 2012 by chuckd

[uptheos]

I just finished watching the republican convention and overall as an objective observer I thought they did a pretty good job and Paul Ryan appears an OK running mate.Then came the appearance of Clint Eastwood today. This was probably the lowest and stupidest thing I have ever seen at any convention. I didn't understand what he was trying to do, he was rambling and disrespectful. Whatever his views, his act was pitiful and a big mistake, which I think has damaged Romney's chances.

[Jingthing]

Ryan is a total fraud. He claims he is a deficit hawk but in actually he favored every program he could to increase the deficit, including the idiotic Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

[chuckd]

In your diatribe against fact check you have done everything but address the comments/statements made by fact check. Is fact check incorrect and if so, please explain why.

Let's look at what FactCheck said in Mr. Neurath's link. From his link: http://factcheck.org.../ryans-vp-spin/

"Accused President Obama’s health care law of funneling money away from Medicare “at the expense of the elderly.” In fact, Medicare’s chief actuary says the law “substantially improves” the system’s finances, and Ryan himself has embraced the same savings."

The Medicare actuary reports to a political Obama appointee and probably enjoys his job. What else would one expect the actuary to say, particularly when the signatories to the report consisted of Timothy Geithner, Hilda Solis and Kathleen Sebelius? Would the report have even been forwarded if it contained anything detrimental to Obamacare?

If FactCheck puts any credence in that report then perhaps they should change their name to RealityCheck.

Now to the statement of FactCheck that..."Accused President Obama’s health care law of funneling money away from Medicare “at the expense of the elderly.” Where is the lie in this statement?

It is a real fact that Obamacare uses those spending reductions from the Medicare budget totaling $716 Million and places the funds in the budget portion that pays for the overall costs of Obamacare.

In other words, Obamacare does indeed funnel money away from Medicare at the expense of the elderly by not having those funds in the Medicare Trust Fund to pay for the future.

The Ryan plan does keep the spending reductions but does not use the funds for reducing the costs of Obamacare but puts the funds in the Medicare Trust Fund to keep it solvent.

Check out this link and see what these cuts actually are. From the link:

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

Medicare Part II: President Obama’s Medicare Plan

August 22, 2012 JHealth Care & Entitlements

By: Nicole Kaeding

As part of PPACA, the President further cuts reimbursement rates to providers. According to the CBO, PPACA cuts $415 billion–total Medicare cuts amount to $716 billion–over the next ten years from provider payments. It’s important to note that these are not real “cuts” in the way that most Americans understand them, but rather “cuts” compared to Washington, D.C.’s distorted budgeting rules. These “cuts” are decreases in the rate that Washington increases spending.

These “cuts,” however, could have horrific effects on health care for seniors. As providers continue to get squeezed by further reductions in payments, doctors will become less likely to accept Medicare patients. This will turn Medicare into its broken, costly cousin, Medicaid. Medicaid’s reimbursements are so low more than 30% of doctors don’t accept Medicaid patients and in some cases the health outcomes for Medicaid patients are worse than those for uninsured persons. PPACA puts Medicare on this path."

The article closes with this:

"During the debate for his signature health care law, the President promised not to change Medicare for seniors. We see in hindsight that he failed to keep this promise. To make matters worse, the President used Medicare as a critical vehicle to fund the rest of his vast new entitlement system while leaving bureaucrats in charge for the future.

Read more: http://americansforp.../#ixzz3pq78LAmT

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

How about more information?

FAQ: Decoding The $716 Billion In Medicare Reductions

By Mary Agnes Carey

KHN Staff Writer

AUG 17, 2012

The structure and financing of Medicare, the federal health insurance program that serves seniors and the disabled, has become a defining issue in the presidential and congressional campaigns since GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney picked as his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan. KHN’s Mary Agnes Carey answers some frequently asked questions about the numbers and policy surrounding the Medicare debate.

From the article:

Q. Is the federal government cutting its spending on Medicare?

A. No. Medicare spending will increase each year but at a slower rate. For example, before the health law was passed, Medicare was expected to grow by 6.8 percent a year for 2010 through 2019. With the health law, that yearly growth rate is projected to be 5.6 percent during that same time frame, according to an analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of the Foundation).

...and...

Q: Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has a Medicare overhaul plan that includes the Medicare spending reductions, right?

A: Yes, Ryan’s plan would keep the Democrat’s Medicare spending changes, but he says he would use the money to make sure Medicare remained solvent, rather than directing it toward other areas, including funding the health law’s exchanges or its expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor. Democrats say Ryan would use the Medicare savings to fund other areas of this budget plan, including tax cuts for wealthy Americans and increases in military spending.

In a recent blog post in National Review Online, James Capretta, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank, said it was an "oversimplification" to say that Ryan was keeping the Obama Medicare cuts. "Ryan's budget allows the substitution of sensible ways of saving money in Medicare for the arbitrary and harmful cuts contained in Obamacare," he writes.

Entire article here: http://www.kaiserhea...reductions.aspx

That's three down with two to go.

Edited August 31, 2012 by chuckd

[geriatrickid]

nevermind, waste of time replying.

[chuckd]

Thank you, GK.

Moving rapidly on to another of Ryan's alleged lies put forth by FactCheck: http://factcheck.org.../ryans-vp-spin/

"Accused Obama of doing “exactly nothing” about recommendations of a bipartisan deficit commission — which Ryan himself helped scuttle."

First let's look at the committee vote on the report.

The committee consisted of 18 Members with 14 favorable votes required to send it forward for Congressional action. Here is the voting result.

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

Final vote

A report was released on December 1, 2010, but failed a vote on December 3 with 11 of 18 votes in favor, with a supermajority of 14 votes needed to formally endorse the blueprint.[3] Voting for the report were Bowles, Coburn, Conrad, Crapo, Cote, Durbin, Fudge, Gregg, Rivlin, Simpson, and Spratt. Voting against were Baucus, Becerra, Camp, Hensarling, Ryan, Schakowsky and Stern.

http://en.wikipedia....lity_and_Reform

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

Of the six voting against the report, three were Republicans (Camp, Hensarling and Ryan). The remaining four were Democrats (Baucus, Becerra, Schakowsky, Stern)

So while the alleged lie is sort of, partially,. a teensy bit true that Ryan did indeed "help scuttle" the plan, it should be pointed out that if three of the four Democrats had voted FOR the bill and not AGAINST the bill, it would not have mattered how Ryan voted. The Democrats actually "scuttled" the report.

Moving on to the alleged lie from Ryan that Obama did "exactly nothing" about the deficit commission's recommendations. If anybody can point out any action that Obama took based on recommendations contained in the commission's report, please post it to this thread.

How is everybody feeling about FactCheck now? Still think they have no agenda?