freeman2 wrote:Uh nice try DF. Your guy is making up lies that Obama did not deliver with regard to promises he made about an auto plant

It would be a very generous interpretation of the Senator's remarks in October to say he was not promising Janesville anything.

You have to be a politically naive not to realize that the purpose of that lie was to deceive voters into thinking that Obama did not help out auto workers in a larger sense..

Nonsense. He was telling people about a promise made and not kept. You can dispute whether the promise was made or not, but on a preponderance of the evidence, I think I win that case--and this isn't a criminal trial.

So why don't you explain what Ryan was trying to do there other than deceive people instead of making your usual baseless personal attacks.

No personal attack. I said I didn't know if you were picking up the Goebbels line or not. However, your State party chair had used it. He said:

California Democratic Chairman John Burton told reporters at a DNC breakfast in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Monday that the Republican party has embraced the philosophy of Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels by “telling the big lie.” . . .

In a video posted on the Chronicle’s website, Burton called Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan a “horse’s ass” for making the claim that President Barack Obama was linked to a Janesville, Wisconsin General Motors plant which he promised would continue to produce automobiles under his administration.

Burton called that claim, which Ryan made in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, a “bold faced lie.”

Since it seems your exact argument and your exact language, it was not illogical to ask. Was it?

Another Democrat has compared Republicans to the Nazis:

Pat Lehman of the Kansas Delegation said to the Wichita Eagle about Republicans’ voter fraud claims: “It’s like Hitler said, if you’re going to tell a lie, tell a big lie, and if you tell it often enough and say it in a loud enough voice, some people are going to believe you.”

I'm not the one making personal attacks. It's your side invoking the Nazi theme. And, these aren't crazed street people. They are leaders in the DNC.

I had not seen those comments by the Democrat you referred to; I was certainly not comparing Romney to the Nazis. I was using big lie because it reminded me of the attacks by the Swift Boat folks on Kerry. I thought it was a big lie to say Kerry was a coward when he was a hero. How could you really attack a military hero? Well the Republicans did so (and effectively). Maybe that term "big lie" is too loaded but we need some kind of phrase to describe a lie that is just so outlandish and yet gets believed.How could you attack Obama for saving the auto industry,. Oh, just say he promised to do so and then failed to deliver. What about the auto bailout that he signed that saved the American auto industry? Nah, let's say he promised to save this auto plant (meaning to plant the seed that he failed on his promise to save the auto industry) and that he failed to deliver on his promise. What do you call that?

But I can understand your remarks better now that you quoted that Democratic chair. I had not seen any comments like that prior to my post, but I can see why you would wonder about a possible connection.

Doctor Fate wrote:Check the dates. You're wrong again.

I was referring to the first part, in February 2008.

On the 'Big Lie'. Goebbels did use it as part of his propaganda techniques. However, when Hitler used the phrase in Mein Kampf, he was accusing the Jews and Marxists of using it, and was actually saying it was more easy to spot. Goebbels also used it to describe others - in 1941 attacking Britain for using it - but in the sense that we now all know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

The 1951 American film, 'The Big Lie' is anti-communist, rather than anti-fascist.

I think it is wrong (as the two Democrats DF quoted) to use refer to particular Nazis when describing the big lie. However, it is a real tactic and has been employed by all kinds of people since the 1930s for all kinds of purposes. It's also been applied as an accusation against all kinds of people as well.

But freeman does have a point - what do we call such lies, particularly in politics?

I'm just curious if anyone else heard Michelle Obama's speech. It was really masterful -- the best speech I've heard in a long time -- even though I disagreed with much of it, and I'm not a big fan. Apparently the transcript does not do the actual speech justice.

sass

I'm struggling to believe that this non-story is still getting so much traction. From what I've read it does look like Ryan tried to blame Obama for something that wasn't his responsibility, but really who cares ? Politicians do that kind of thing approximately all the time, especially in the runup to elections.

This is a troubling attitude. The media at large are questioning claims made by various candidiates and asking them to back up their assertions or claims. Finally. For too long the media has accepted a great deal of nonsense without forcing the claimants to back the statements up.
On Daily Show last night, Tom Brokaw said he described Ryans claims about Janesville as "overreaching" on his news broadcast. Stewart, called that a weak substitute for the word "lieing". Perhaps a better word is somewhere in between.
If politicians are held strictly to account for their claims and language they will perform their tasks with greater forethought and that will do society some good.

Here's how Ryan answered direct criticism about his Janesville claims. He's parsing and hairsplitting, but the damage is done, whatever committed apologists like Fate come up with in details like decommissioing staff. A side note: only a few have pointed out that a true conservative would have said "let the factory go bankrupt and let the system work".... But here Ryan seems to be siding with the idea that direct government intervention in Jnaesville would have been a good thing. (Or why is he criticizing the president for not intervening?) He's really all over the map.

"What they are trying to suggest is that I said that Barack Obama was responsible for a plan shutdown in Janesville. That is not what I was saying. Read the speech," Ryan said on the "Today" show. "What I was saying is the president ought to be held to account for his broken promises. After our plant was shut down he said that he would lead an effort to retool plants like the Janesville plant to get people back to work. It's still idle."

Ryan was also asked about his acceptance speech criticism of Obama for rejecting the recommendations of a bipartisan debt-reduction commission the president appointed. Ryan did not mention in his convention remarks that he was on that commission and voted against the same plan

.
The second is a wonderful exa,mple of hypocrisy, no?
Ryans biggest problem in all of this, is that his image as a straight shooter has gone down the drain. Not just Janesville "overreaching" but he's been caught in a few whoopers. His convention speech was a lightning rod for fact checkers, and consumed much of the post convention coverage...
Then he went and got caught lieing about his marathon race time....
I know that one of Mitts advisors said, "we won't be ruled by fact checkers", but if the media has finally decided that at least part of their job is to seek objective truth and make politicians acountable for their claims, its a good thing.

sass

. I'm willing to bet the Republicans would far rather spend the rest of the campaign batting away stories like this than have to give any concrete answers to where the cuts in Ryan's budget will fall

.
If in the process of dealing with his convention claims he's branded as a gross exagerator, a serial liar and a person for whom facts are flexible ... all his claims are questioned. Including his claims for his budget. Which, by the way, the campaign Would like to deep six since its potential affect on the middle class is rightfully questioned. There is a great demand for specifity and detail that Ryan and Mitt will never address.

Its still a long campaign. And by the time the Democratic convention is over, the election will be seen as a battle for who serves the middle class interests best.
For the small sliver of undecided in the middle, part of that is trust and identification. Ryans image prior to the self induced attacks on his credibility, helped Mitt here because he was identifiable as a stand up kinda guy. Mitt, doesn't possess that quality in spades. (Taxes...)

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Check the dates. You're wrong again.

I was referring to the first part, in February 2008.

Right, but isn't that negated by the October statement he made--after the meltdown?

freeman2 wrote:I had not seen those comments by the Democrat you referred to; I was certainly not comparing Romney to the Nazis. I was using big lie because it reminded me of the attacks by the Swift Boat folks on Kerry. I thought it was a big lie to say Kerry was a coward when he was a hero. How could you really attack a military hero?

One word: McCain.

Further, I would note that Kerry was not exactly a poster boy for American heroes. He threw his medal(s) away (allegedly) and definitely lied to Congress about alleged war crimes. So, it's not like he wasn't easy to go after.

How could you attack Obama for saving the auto industry,. Oh, just say he promised to do so and then failed to deliver. What about the auto bailout that he signed that saved the American auto industry?

That is an absolute generalization, covering far too much ground with too few words and giving far too much credit to the President. Even if GM went bankrupt, it was not going to go away. And, the way he handled things was less than legal.

Nah, let's say he promised to save this auto plant (meaning to plant the seed that he failed on his promise to save the auto industry) and that he failed to deliver on his promise. What do you call that?

Reading too much in to what Ryan said. I think your cat ears believed they heard a dog whistle.

But I can understand your remarks better now that you quoted that Democratic chair. I had not seen any comments like that prior to my post, but I can see why you would wonder about a possible connection.

I thought that may have been the case. The wording was what caught my eye.

rickyp wrote:Here's how Ryan answered direct criticism about his Janesville claims. He's parsing and hairsplitting, but the damage is done, whatever committed apologists like Fate come up with in details like decommissioing staff. A side note: only a few have pointed out that a true conservative would have said "let the factory go bankrupt and let the system work".... But here Ryan seems to be siding with the idea that direct government intervention in Jnaesville would have been a good thing. (Or why is he criticizing the president for not intervening?) He's really all over the map.

No, he's not all over the map. You, who want to critique his use of the English language, simply have no command of it.

Obama referred to Janesville on at least two occasions. The second was after the meltdown. It appeared he was making a commitment to that particular plant (I doubt anyone in that audience on that occasion would have believed anything else). He didn't follow through. That is the heart of Ryan's criticism. Nothing more and nothing less.

"What they are trying to suggest is that I said that Barack Obama was responsible for a plan shutdown in Janesville. That is not what I was saying. Read the speech," Ryan said on the "Today" show. "What I was saying is the president ought to be held to account for his broken promises. After our plant was shut down he said that he would lead an effort to retool plants like the Janesville plant to get people back to work. It's still idle."

That's exactly what I said and a fair reading of Ryan's speech. If you try to draw more out of it, you will be "overreaching."

Ryan was also asked about his acceptance speech criticism of Obama for rejecting the recommendations of a bipartisan debt-reduction commission the president appointed. Ryan did not mention in his convention remarks that he was on that commission and voted against the same plan.

The second is a wonderful exa,mple of hypocrisy, no?

No. Ryan was clear at the time why he voted 'no.'

The President called the commission rather than present his own plan. He lauded the commission after the fact. He made little effort to use Bowles-Simpson as a public cudgel against the Republicans or as a starting point for his own plan.

Ryans biggest problem in all of this, is that his image as a straight shooter has gone down the drain.

Only to liberals and those incapable of discerning what they hear.

Not just Janesville "overreaching" but he's been caught in a few whoopers. His convention speech was a lightning rod for fact checkers, and consumed much of the post convention coverage...

Right. And, most of the "fact-checkers" were wrong--as I've pointed out about six times.

Then he went and got caught lieing about his marathon race time....

Who corrected the record on that? Really. Who was it? Do you know?

I know that one of Mitts advisors said, "we won't be ruled by fact checkers", but if the media has finally decided that at least part of their job is to seek objective truth and make politicians acountable for their claims, its a good thing.

Nice. Out of context. Why did he say that?

Because fact-checkers have been shown to be wrong.

Its still a long campaign. And by the time the Democratic convention is over, the election will be seen as a battle for who serves the middle class interests best.

Nice try. That is how Obama wants to frame it and he wants to lie to frame it that way--pretending that somehow his program will grow the middle class. How? By taxing the rich? By giving more government aid, which is just money from China and other lenders?

When does all the borrowing slow down? How much will future generations have to pay in taxes so that only a few have to be inconvenienced today?

I love how you think Obama, who has broken many, many pledges, is somehow more trustworthy than anyone else. Cut the deficit in half in his first term? Go through the budget line by line? No lobbyists? Keep unemployment under 8%? The list is long and the answers are not there.

fate

Only to liberals and those incapable of discerning what they hear.

The only portion of the populace that matter are that vanishingly small group of truly undecided, and a slightly larger group of voters who might be persuadable from their current positions.
How they react will depend on what media they read or watch. Its probably not media described as very Liberal OR very conservative.
Which makes Brokaw's comment about Ryan important. Thats how most of the MSM reacted to his convention speech claims.
Thats what sticks with the less involved part of the populace, not the endless parsing and explanations bouncing back and force on internet media or on discussion boards like this...

rickyp wrote:Which makes Brokaw's comment about Ryan important. Thats how most of the MSM reacted to his convention speech claims.
Thats what sticks with the less involved part of the populace, not the endless parsing and explanations bouncing back and force on internet media or on discussion boards like this...

So, Brokaw and the MSM are straight-shooters and the American people, especially undecideds, believe them?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Check the dates. You're wrong again.

I was referring to the first part, in February 2008.

Right, but isn't that negated by the October statement he made--after the meltdown?

If the crash negated it, then surely you need to drop it from your 'evidence' of a promise, then?

Ray Jay wrote:I'm just curious if anyone else heard Michelle Obama's speech. It was really masterful -- the best speech I've heard in a long time -- even though I disagreed with much of it, and I'm not a big fan. Apparently the transcript does not do the actual speech justice.

Not heard it. I'm not too keen on the American tradition of wives touting for their husbands politically, unless they themselves are political figures (which few are). And then when they've done that stump speech, everyone gets all prissy when the wife is then made an issue out of.

I did watch part of Castro's speech. I was a bit confused at first as it started off with his twin getting ready to introduce him, but it was pretty good. Still, another trope of American politics is the 'american way' speech, as politicians scramble to show how their life/family exemplifies it and their opponents would destroy that particular set of values.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman2 wrote:...How could you really attack a military hero?

One word: McCain.

What are you referring to here? That McCain was a great hero? That he was attacked on that war record in 2008 by liberals? Or that his 2000 candidacy was destroyed by a nasty whispering push-poll from republicans?

Poor guy has certainly had his hero status tarnished by everyone. He would have been a better President for 2001-9 than the winner, but unfortunately his time had passed by 2008.