Since When Did Paul Ryan Become a Liar?

[Jarhead]

It is so cool to listen to the very Repubs that wanted GM and Chrysler to fail are now mad that he (Obama) couldn't save a plant in Ryans hometown. Before he was President.

Are you rethugs understanding why so many people view you as hypocrites?

Who wanted GM and Chrysler to fail???? Why do liberals always equate pointing out something is failing to wanting it to fail? That is crazy BS talk. First of all liberals will say that the RNC is the party of big business then in the next breath will say that the RNC wants to see big business fail. BS pure and simple.

GM needs another infusion of cash or have you not noticed? How long are we going to prop them up on your grandchildren's dime. Maybe if they could produce an electric car for under 40,000 they might have done better.

When you support some bullshit managed bankruptcy, when there was absolutely no private bank financing to allow them to reorganize, then you absolutely are wishing the company to fail. Remember how much you hate the unions. And remember the UAW.
What a great way to break the union if you allow the auto companies to fail.

Yes rethugs wanted the auto companies to fail.

As to whether or not the rethugs are the party of big business seems to depend solely on the size of the contribution to their re election fund. And really the only big business I hear rethugs protecting are the oil companies, Wall street and defense contractors. And they all give big bucks to the rethug party.

Correction...

We wanted any company; large or small; that mismanaged its money or overall operations to fail....if, in fact, its actions resulted in failure.
That is the way capitalism works.
Have the goivernment interfere and choose winners and losers? It falls apart.

GM mismanages....and it gets propped up by the government.

Ford doesnt mis manage and not only doesnt get a dime from the government.....but its coimpetitor was given an uinfair advantage despite its mismanagement.

Reward the mismanagers at the expense of the properly managed companies.

Sounds like a fair plan.

FYI....know what you are talking about before you claim to know the intentions of the GOP.

Othewrwise you look like an asshole.

 

[Synthaholic]

The thing about Ryan is that he has always resided in a counter-factual universe. He is a product of the hermetically sealed right-wing subculture.

Bingo. What's changed is that the press is no longer pushing the myth of Ryan the Bold Truthteller. He's gotten caught caught in so many lies lately, large and small, that the sympathetic narrative now is, at best, "well, everybody does it."

His credibility and reputation have taken a major hit in the last few weeks. And since he apparently can't help himself and will no doubt continue to lie his pants off, it seems likely he'll have done very serious damage to himself by November.

Lawrence O'Donnell, on the day Ryan was announced, said that this will basically destroy Ryan's image, and thus, his career. Looks like he is right.

Ryan could very well lose both his races.

Rob Zerban For Congress

 

[Synthaholic]

It is so cool to listen to the very Repubs that wanted GM and Chrysler to fail are now mad that he (Obama) couldn't save a plant in Ryans hometown. Before he was President.

Are you rethugs understanding why so many people view you as hypocrites?

zeke, you dip shit idiot:

You can't track a simple conversation. Perhaps this entire message board is over your head.

Liberal Dimocraps wanted to bail out the various companies like GM using taxpayer money. Many people opposed it upon the ground that it is not a power that the government is authorized to wield and the self-regulatory aspects of capitalism would have permitted the various failing companies to either solve the problems on their own or go out of business permitting other companies to grow.

That said, you ******* dishonest hack idiot, it is NOT the case that anybody in the GOP wanted Pres. Obama to honor HIS OWN commitment to save that plant. What is getting NOTED (to your horror, you ******* *****) is that The ONE lied.

It was within his power (albeit not Constitutionally permissible power) to "save" that plant. It was STILL OPEN when he had already been the President for several months. It closed ON HIS WATCH contrary to his own ******* useless dishonest words.

That's the reality. Suck on it.

Five ways Paul Ryan’s GM attack was dishonest




1. The timeline: As I wrote earlier, Ryan doesn’t mention that GM announced on June 3, 2008, that it would close the plant. Not only was Obama still more than six months from his inauguration, but he also only clinched the Democratic nomination that same day. The plant effectively shut down in December 2008, with a skeleton crew staying on until April 2009. As I said this morning, “there was no way Obama could have saved that auto plant without also discovering time travel.”

2. The deceptive framing: Still, many conservatives have said Ryan’s argument is that Obama hasn’t improved the economy enough to bring the plant back. But if that Ryan’s defense, he clearly tried to imply to viewers that Obama was promising that the plant would stay open. He has been even more explicit about his meaning on the stump, saying in Ohio only two weeks ago, “I remember President Obama visiting it when he was first running, saying he’ll keep that plant open. One more broken promise.” Obama, of course, made no such promise, but Ryan would prefer voters didn’t think that.

3. The inconsistent blame game: Note Ryan admits that “any fair measure of his record has to take [the economic crisis] into account.” Now, this is a step in the right direction truth-wise, but if that’s the case, how is President Obama to blame for a plant closure in (if we’re being extremely generous) April 2009, less than three months into his term? After all, Romney’s own campaign has said that Romney’s first year in office shouldn’t count toward his job creation record. So much for taking a “fair measure” of the president’s record.

4. The philosophical self-contradiction: Paul Ryan has made his name in part as a small-government man. Last night he promised he and Mitt Romney would protect voters from “a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us,” and he repeated the deceptive “you didn’t build that” attack. But saving the plant would have required a ‘big government’ bailout. Ryan himself knows this: Not only did he vote for the auto bailout, but in September 2008, Ryan joined other Wisconsin leaders in a meeting with GM CEO Rick Wagoner, where he helped “pitch a $224 million proposal that included roughly $50 million in state enterprise zone tax credits, local government grants worth $22 million and major contract concessions from the United Auto Workers union local.” (By contrast, the Bush administration praised the plant closure as a sign GM was “adapting well” to the downturn.) To invoke the Janesville closing and make a small-government argument is having it both ways.

5. The other Obama quote: Again, conservatives have argued that Ryan used the Janesville plant as a symbol of how the Obama recovery has failed. Indeed, the Romney campaign now insists that Ryan wasn’t blaming Obama for the plant closing. But if that’s so, then Ryan should have used a different Obama quote, from October 2008:

Reports that the GM plant I visited in Janesville may shut down sooner than expected are a painful reminder of the tough economic times facing working families across this country.​

This news is also a reminder that Washington needs to finally live up to its promise to help our automakers compete in our global economy. As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.​

So yes, in February 2008, Obama had said that the plant could be able to stay open, but in the midst of that fall economic collapse, he changed his view to account for reality. That’s what he was promising the voters of Janesville when he entered office, not what Paul Ryan claims that he was promising. You can argue whether the president has succeeded in “retooling plants” like Janesville’s. Regardless, using that quote, not Obama’s February one, would be honest. But it also wouldn’t be Paul Ryan.

 

[CausingPAIN]

It is so cool to listen to the very Repubs that wanted GM and Chrysler to fail are now mad that he (Obama) couldn't save a plant in Ryans hometown. Before he was President.

Are you rethugs understanding why so many people view you as hypocrites?

zeke, you dip shit idiot:

You can't track a simple conversation. Perhaps this entire message board is over your head.

Liberal Dimocraps wanted to bail out the various companies like GM using taxpayer money. Many people opposed it upon the ground that it is not a power that the government is authorized to wield and the self-regulatory aspects of capitalism would have permitted the various failing companies to either solve the problems on their own or go out of business permitting other companies to grow.

That said, you ******* dishonest hack idiot, it is NOT the case that anybody in the GOP wanted Pres. Obama to honor HIS OWN commitment to save that plant. What is getting NOTED (to your horror, you ******* *****) is that The ONE lied.

It was within his power (albeit not Constitutionally permissible power) to "save" that plant. It was STILL OPEN when he had already been the President for several months. It closed ON HIS WATCH contrary to his own ******* useless dishonest words.

That's the reality. Suck on it.

Five ways Paul Ryan’s GM attack was dishonest




1. The timeline: As I wrote earlier, Ryan doesn’t mention that GM announced on June 3, 2008, that it would close the plant. Not only was Obama still more than six months from his inauguration, but he also only clinched the Democratic nomination that same day. The plant effectively shut down in December 2008, with a skeleton crew staying on until April 2009. As I said this morning, “there was no way Obama could have saved that auto plant without also discovering time travel.”

2. The deceptive framing: Still, many conservatives have said Ryan’s argument is that Obama hasn’t improved the economy enough to bring the plant back. But if that Ryan’s defense, he clearly tried to imply to viewers that Obama was promising that the plant would stay open. He has been even more explicit about his meaning on the stump, saying in Ohio only two weeks ago, “I remember President Obama visiting it when he was first running, saying he’ll keep that plant open. One more broken promise.” Obama, of course, made no such promise, but Ryan would prefer voters didn’t think that.

3. The inconsistent blame game: Note Ryan admits that “any fair measure of his record has to take [the economic crisis] into account.” Now, this is a step in the right direction truth-wise, but if that’s the case, how is President Obama to blame for a plant closure in (if we’re being extremely generous) April 2009, less than three months into his term? After all, Romney’s own campaign has said that Romney’s first year in office shouldn’t count toward his job creation record. So much for taking a “fair measure” of the president’s record.

4. The philosophical self-contradiction: Paul Ryan has made his name in part as a small-government man. Last night he promised he and Mitt Romney would protect voters from “a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us,” and he repeated the deceptive “you didn’t build that” attack. But saving the plant would have required a ‘big government’ bailout. Ryan himself knows this: Not only did he vote for the auto bailout, but in September 2008, Ryan joined other Wisconsin leaders in a meeting with GM CEO Rick Wagoner, where he helped “pitch a $224 million proposal that included roughly $50 million in state enterprise zone tax credits, local government grants worth $22 million and major contract concessions from the United Auto Workers union local.” (By contrast, the Bush administration praised the plant closure as a sign GM was “adapting well” to the downturn.) To invoke the Janesville closing and make a small-government argument is having it both ways.

5. The other Obama quote: Again, conservatives have argued that Ryan used the Janesville plant as a symbol of how the Obama recovery has failed. Indeed, the Romney campaign now insists that Ryan wasn’t blaming Obama for the plant closing. But if that’s so, then Ryan should have used a different Obama quote, from October 2008:

Reports that the GM plant I visited in Janesville may shut down sooner than expected are a painful reminder of the tough economic times facing working families across this country.​

This news is also a reminder that Washington needs to finally live up to its promise to help our automakers compete in our global economy. As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.​

So yes, in February 2008, Obama had said that the plant could be able to stay open, but in the midst of that fall economic collapse, he changed his view to account for reality. That’s what he was promising the voters of Janesville when he entered office, not what Paul Ryan claims that he was promising. You can argue whether the president has succeeded in “retooling plants” like Janesville’s. Regardless, using that quote, not Obama’s February one, would be honest. But it also wouldn’t be Paul Ryan.

I feel the part of the body that you need to understand all this is already missing! Who will step up and take responsibility as well as liability for this unfortunate accident?

But don't you just hate that, rational common sense, don't you just really hate that.

 

[CausingPAIN]

start at 3:45 and it not about ed

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk3IPJKR1Wg]The Ed Show Paul Ryans Republican Convention Auto Lie Backfires - YouTube[/ame]

 

[HUGGY]

Since When Did Paul Ryan Become a Liar?

Probably when he was between 3-5 years old. That's when sociopathes usually develope their character flaws.

 

[BlindBoo]

Hey that's a trick question isn't it?

He's always been a liar. I mean after all he is a career politician.

 

[Liability]

It is so cool to listen to the very Repubs that wanted GM and Chrysler to fail are now mad that he (Obama) couldn't save a plant in Ryans hometown. Before he was President.

Are you rethugs understanding why so many people view you as hypocrites?

zeke, you dip shit idiot:

You can't track a simple conversation. Perhaps this entire message board is over your head.

Liberal Dimocraps wanted to bail out the various companies like GM using taxpayer money. Many people opposed it upon the ground that it is not a power that the government is authorized to wield and the self-regulatory aspects of capitalism would have permitted the various failing companies to either solve the problems on their own or go out of business permitting other companies to grow.

That said, you ******* dishonest hack idiot, it is NOT the case that anybody in the GOP wanted Pres. Obama to honor HIS OWN commitment to save that plant. What is getting NOTED (to your horror, you ******* *****) is that The ONE lied.

It was within his power (albeit not Constitutionally permissible power) to "save" that plant. It was STILL OPEN when he had already been the President for several months. It closed ON HIS WATCH contrary to his own ******* useless dishonest words.

That's the reality. Suck on it.

Five ways Paul Ryan’s GM attack was dishonest




1. The timeline: As I wrote earlier, Ryan doesn’t mention that GM announced on June 3, 2008, that it would close the plant. Not only was Obama still more than six months from his inauguration, but he also only clinched the Democratic nomination that same day. The plant effectively shut down in December 2008, with a skeleton crew staying on until April 2009. As I said this morning, “there was no way Obama could have saved that auto plant without also discovering time travel.”

2. The deceptive framing: Still, many conservatives have said Ryan’s argument is that Obama hasn’t improved the economy enough to bring the plant back. But if that Ryan’s defense, he clearly tried to imply to viewers that Obama was promising that the plant would stay open. He has been even more explicit about his meaning on the stump, saying in Ohio only two weeks ago, “I remember President Obama visiting it when he was first running, saying he’ll keep that plant open. One more broken promise.” Obama, of course, made no such promise, but Ryan would prefer voters didn’t think that.

3. The inconsistent blame game: Note Ryan admits that “any fair measure of his record has to take [the economic crisis] into account.” Now, this is a step in the right direction truth-wise, but if that’s the case, how is President Obama to blame for a plant closure in (if we’re being extremely generous) April 2009, less than three months into his term? After all, Romney’s own campaign has said that Romney’s first year in office shouldn’t count toward his job creation record. So much for taking a “fair measure” of the president’s record.

4. The philosophical self-contradiction: Paul Ryan has made his name in part as a small-government man. Last night he promised he and Mitt Romney would protect voters from “a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us,” and he repeated the deceptive “you didn’t build that” attack. But saving the plant would have required a ‘big government’ bailout. Ryan himself knows this: Not only did he vote for the auto bailout, but in September 2008, Ryan joined other Wisconsin leaders in a meeting with GM CEO Rick Wagoner, where he helped “pitch a $224 million proposal that included roughly $50 million in state enterprise zone tax credits, local government grants worth $22 million and major contract concessions from the United Auto Workers union local.” (By contrast, the Bush administration praised the plant closure as a sign GM was “adapting well” to the downturn.) To invoke the Janesville closing and make a small-government argument is having it both ways.

5. The other Obama quote: Again, conservatives have argued that Ryan used the Janesville plant as a symbol of how the Obama recovery has failed. Indeed, the Romney campaign now insists that Ryan wasn’t blaming Obama for the plant closing. But if that’s so, then Ryan should have used a different Obama quote, from October 2008:

Reports that the GM plant I visited in Janesville may shut down sooner than expected are a painful reminder of the tough economic times facing working families across this country.​

This news is also a reminder that Washington needs to finally live up to its promise to help our automakers compete in our global economy. As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.​

So yes, in February 2008, Obama had said that the plant could be able to stay open, but in the midst of that fall economic collapse, he changed his view to account for reality. That’s what he was promising the voters of Janesville when he entered office, not what Paul Ryan claims that he was promising. You can argue whether the president has succeeded in “retooling plants” like Janesville’s. Regardless, using that quote, not Obama’s February one, would be honest. But it also wouldn’t be Paul Ryan.

All false.

Since WHAT Ryan said was, simply, the truth, he didn't lie at all.

Your problem is: you can't abide the truth.

Simple indisputable FACT: the plant was OPEN in 2009.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Since When Did Paul Ryan Become a Liar?

when he won his first Election like 99% of the other Politicians.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

It is so cool to listen to the very Repubs that wanted GM and Chrysler to fail are now mad that he (Obama) couldn't save a plant in Ryans hometown. Before he was President.

Are you rethugs understanding why so many people view you as hypocrites?

i got news for you Zeke.....a hell of a lot of People also view the Democrats as Hypocrites.......
i personally view both as such......

 

[Mustang]

Since When Did Paul Ryan Become a Liar?

A week ago, Paul Ryan’s political assets included — alongside his chiseled torso, plainspoken Midwestern demeanor, and the unshakable loyalty of the entire Republican Party — a firm reputation for honesty among the mainstream media. That reputation has suffered a massive, swift erosion. News stories about his speech at the Republican National Convention focused on its many rhetorical sleights of hand. Over the weekend, the revelation that he dramatically misstated a marathon time added a crucial, accessible piece of evidence to the indictment. Now liberals are calling him “Lyin’ Ryan” — a nickname that, a few weeks ago, would have seemed silly, like “Wimpy Palin.” Now mainstream pundits are defending Ryan with versions of the “well, all politicians fib” defense. Given that this constituency was once portraying Ryan as unusually honest, this represents a huge retreat for his political brand. What happened?

Here’s what has not happened: Paul Ryan did not begin telling an unprecedented series of lies that suddenly exposed a predilection for shading the truth. His marathon boast is certainly odd and may well be a deliberate lie, but it could also be a simple failure to recall. The New Yorker’s Nicholas Thompson, arguing for the prosecution, contends that “for someone who does run seriously,” missing a marathon time by as a vast a level as Ryan does is nearly impossible. On the other hand, given that the race occurred in 1990 and was Ryan’s only marathon, perhaps the explanation is that Ryan just isn’t a serious runner.

And Ryan’s Tampa speech, while pretty dishonest, was not especially so by Ryan’s standards. Here you can see why Ryan must view the sudden attack of the truth squad so bewilderingly. Ryan has been saying things like this, and worse, all along. The bit where he sadly shakes his head and blames President Obama for the failure of the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission that Ryan killed himself has been a staple of the Ryan shtick for two years. Reporters usually bat their eyes and coo sympathetically. Now it has become evidence of his duplicity .

Ryan seems to have fallen victim to circumstances he didn’t quite foresee. The Romney campaign has spent the last several weeks practically daring the national press corps to call out its lies. Well beyond the usual exaggerations of a national campaign, Romney has built its entire message around two accusations — “you didn’t build that” and “just send them a check” — that are obviously false. A day before Ryan’s speech, a Romney adviser told reporters, “We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.” The media that had spent the last two and a half years nuzzling gently in Ryan’s lap had been prodded with sharp sticks and reacted in the predictable fashion, though probably not predictable to Ryan himself.

The thing about Ryan is that he has always resided in a counter-factual universe. He is a product of the hermetically sealed right-wing subculture. Many of the facts taken for granted by mainstream economists have never penetrated his brain. Ryan burst onto the national scene with a dense, fact-laden attack on the financing of Obama’s health-care bill that was essentially a series of hallucinations, pseudo-facts cooked up and recirculated by conservative apparatchiks who didn’t know what they were talking about or didn’t care. His big-think speeches reflect the influence of fact-free conservatives and collapse under scrutiny.



*snip*

Ryan came of age in the era of RW talk radio. He turned 18 in 1988 (the same year that Limbaugh began broadcasting nationally). Additionally, I believe he's spent virtually his entire adult life either working for someone in congress or actually as a member of congress. Is it any wonder that he's factually challenged and has no problem with stretching the truth until it's unrecognizable?

 

[Stephanie]

Since When Did Paul Ryan Become a Liar?

Probably when he was between 3-5 years old. That's when sociopathes usually develope their character flaws.

well then Obama's must of developed around 2 years old, he's the perfect example of a sociopath

 

[HUGGY]

Since When Did Paul Ryan Become a Liar?

Probably when he was between 3-5 years old. That's when sociopathes usually develope their character flaws.

well then Obama's must of developed around 2 years old, he's the perfect example of a sociopath

Well well then... your mental retardation most likely happened in the womb. So there!

 

[Stephanie]

Since When Did Paul Ryan Become a Liar?

Probably when he was between 3-5 years old. That's when sociopathes usually develope their character flaws.

well then Obama's must of developed around 2 years old, he's the perfect example of a sociopath

Well well then... your mental retardation most likely happened in the womb. So there!

lol, you can dish it about others but not take truth about your dear leader eh

 

[HUGGY]

well then Obama's must of developed around 2 years old, he's the perfect example of a sociopath

Well well then... your mental retardation most likely happened in the womb. So there!

lol, you can dish it about others but not take truth about your dear leader eh

I don't have a leader...dear or otherwise. I view politicians as temporary employees. I like to "hire" the best one available.

 

[Synthaholic]

zeke, you dip shit idiot:

You can't track a simple conversation. Perhaps this entire message board is over your head.

Liberal Dimocraps wanted to bail out the various companies like GM using taxpayer money. Many people opposed it upon the ground that it is not a power that the government is authorized to wield and the self-regulatory aspects of capitalism would have permitted the various failing companies to either solve the problems on their own or go out of business permitting other companies to grow.

That said, you ******* dishonest hack idiot, it is NOT the case that anybody in the GOP wanted Pres. Obama to honor HIS OWN commitment to save that plant. What is getting NOTED (to your horror, you ******* *****) is that The ONE lied.

It was within his power (albeit not Constitutionally permissible power) to "save" that plant. It was STILL OPEN when he had already been the President for several months. It closed ON HIS WATCH contrary to his own ******* useless dishonest words.

That's the reality. Suck on it.

Five ways Paul Ryan’s GM attack was dishonest




1. The timeline: As I wrote earlier, Ryan doesn’t mention that GM announced on June 3, 2008, that it would close the plant. Not only was Obama still more than six months from his inauguration, but he also only clinched the Democratic nomination that same day. The plant effectively shut down in December 2008, with a skeleton crew staying on until April 2009. As I said this morning, “there was no way Obama could have saved that auto plant without also discovering time travel.”

2. The deceptive framing: Still, many conservatives have said Ryan’s argument is that Obama hasn’t improved the economy enough to bring the plant back. But if that Ryan’s defense, he clearly tried to imply to viewers that Obama was promising that the plant would stay open. He has been even more explicit about his meaning on the stump, saying in Ohio only two weeks ago, “I remember President Obama visiting it when he was first running, saying he’ll keep that plant open. One more broken promise.” Obama, of course, made no such promise, but Ryan would prefer voters didn’t think that.

3. The inconsistent blame game: Note Ryan admits that “any fair measure of his record has to take [the economic crisis] into account.” Now, this is a step in the right direction truth-wise, but if that’s the case, how is President Obama to blame for a plant closure in (if we’re being extremely generous) April 2009, less than three months into his term? After all, Romney’s own campaign has said that Romney’s first year in office shouldn’t count toward his job creation record. So much for taking a “fair measure” of the president’s record.

4. The philosophical self-contradiction: Paul Ryan has made his name in part as a small-government man. Last night he promised he and Mitt Romney would protect voters from “a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us,” and he repeated the deceptive “you didn’t build that” attack. But saving the plant would have required a ‘big government’ bailout. Ryan himself knows this: Not only did he vote for the auto bailout, but in September 2008, Ryan joined other Wisconsin leaders in a meeting with GM CEO Rick Wagoner, where he helped “pitch a $224 million proposal that included roughly $50 million in state enterprise zone tax credits, local government grants worth $22 million and major contract concessions from the United Auto Workers union local.” (By contrast, the Bush administration praised the plant closure as a sign GM was “adapting well” to the downturn.) To invoke the Janesville closing and make a small-government argument is having it both ways.

5. The other Obama quote: Again, conservatives have argued that Ryan used the Janesville plant as a symbol of how the Obama recovery has failed. Indeed, the Romney campaign now insists that Ryan wasn’t blaming Obama for the plant closing. But if that’s so, then Ryan should have used a different Obama quote, from October 2008:

Reports that the GM plant I visited in Janesville may shut down sooner than expected are a painful reminder of the tough economic times facing working families across this country.​

This news is also a reminder that Washington needs to finally live up to its promise to help our automakers compete in our global economy. As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.​

So yes, in February 2008, Obama had said that the plant could be able to stay open, but in the midst of that fall economic collapse, he changed his view to account for reality. That’s what he was promising the voters of Janesville when he entered office, not what Paul Ryan claims that he was promising. You can argue whether the president has succeeded in “retooling plants” like Janesville’s. Regardless, using that quote, not Obama’s February one, would be honest. But it also wouldn’t be Paul Ryan.

All false.

Since WHAT Ryan said was, simply, the truth, he didn't lie at all.

Your problem is: you can't abide the truth.

Simple indisputable FACT: the plant was OPEN in 2009.

No, the problem is: you refuse to admit that Ryan has been proven to be a liar.

No worries - you'll vote for him no matter what, and cannot be swayed. Fortunately, there are a lot of undecideds who will see the truth and either vote for President Obama (praise be unto Him!) or just refuse to vote for Lyin' Ryan.

 

[Synthaholic]

Since When Did Paul Ryan Become a Liar?

when he won his first Election like 99% of the other Politicians.....

Is Jimmy Carter the sole occupant of the other 1%?

 

[Stephanie]

Five ways Paul Ryan’s GM attack was dishonest




1. The timeline: As I wrote earlier, Ryan doesn’t mention that GM announced on June 3, 2008, that it would close the plant. Not only was Obama still more than six months from his inauguration, but he also only clinched the Democratic nomination that same day. The plant effectively shut down in December 2008, with a skeleton crew staying on until April 2009. As I said this morning, “there was no way Obama could have saved that auto plant without also discovering time travel.”

2. The deceptive framing: Still, many conservatives have said Ryan’s argument is that Obama hasn’t improved the economy enough to bring the plant back. But if that Ryan’s defense, he clearly tried to imply to viewers that Obama was promising that the plant would stay open. He has been even more explicit about his meaning on the stump, saying in Ohio only two weeks ago, “I remember President Obama visiting it when he was first running, saying he’ll keep that plant open. One more broken promise.” Obama, of course, made no such promise, but Ryan would prefer voters didn’t think that.

3. The inconsistent blame game: Note Ryan admits that “any fair measure of his record has to take [the economic crisis] into account.” Now, this is a step in the right direction truth-wise, but if that’s the case, how is President Obama to blame for a plant closure in (if we’re being extremely generous) April 2009, less than three months into his term? After all, Romney’s own campaign has said that Romney’s first year in office shouldn’t count toward his job creation record. So much for taking a “fair measure” of the president’s record.

4. The philosophical self-contradiction: Paul Ryan has made his name in part as a small-government man. Last night he promised he and Mitt Romney would protect voters from “a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us,” and he repeated the deceptive “you didn’t build that” attack. But saving the plant would have required a ‘big government’ bailout. Ryan himself knows this: Not only did he vote for the auto bailout, but in September 2008, Ryan joined other Wisconsin leaders in a meeting with GM CEO Rick Wagoner, where he helped “pitch a $224 million proposal that included roughly $50 million in state enterprise zone tax credits, local government grants worth $22 million and major contract concessions from the United Auto Workers union local.” (By contrast, the Bush administration praised the plant closure as a sign GM was “adapting well” to the downturn.) To invoke the Janesville closing and make a small-government argument is having it both ways.

5. The other Obama quote: Again, conservatives have argued that Ryan used the Janesville plant as a symbol of how the Obama recovery has failed. Indeed, the Romney campaign now insists that Ryan wasn’t blaming Obama for the plant closing. But if that’s so, then Ryan should have used a different Obama quote, from October 2008:

Reports that the GM plant I visited in Janesville may shut down sooner than expected are a painful reminder of the tough economic times facing working families across this country.​

This news is also a reminder that Washington needs to finally live up to its promise to help our automakers compete in our global economy. As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.​

So yes, in February 2008, Obama had said that the plant could be able to stay open, but in the midst of that fall economic collapse, he changed his view to account for reality. That’s what he was promising the voters of Janesville when he entered office, not what Paul Ryan claims that he was promising. You can argue whether the president has succeeded in “retooling plants” like Janesville’s. Regardless, using that quote, not Obama’s February one, would be honest. But it also wouldn’t be Paul Ryan.

All false.

Since WHAT Ryan said was, simply, the truth, he didn't lie at all.

Your problem is: you can't abide the truth.

Simple indisputable FACT: the plant was OPEN in 2009.

No, the problem is: you refuse to admit that Ryan has been proven to be a liar.

No worries - you'll vote for him no matter what, and cannot be swayed. Fortunately, there are a lot of undecideds who will see the truth and either vote for President Obama (praise be unto Him!) or just refuse to vote for Lyin' Ryan.

and you refuse to admit Obama is a proven liar...

 

[ScienceRocks]

Balancing the budget or having another vision for the future doesn't=a liar.

But in Ryans case it started about 15 years. His judgement is screwed.

 

[Synthaholic]

Since When Did Paul Ryan Become a Liar?

Probably when he was between 3-5 years old. That's when sociopathes usually develope their character flaws.

well then Obama's must of developed around 2 years old, he's the perfect example of a sociopath

How old are you, anyway?