Meh, party conventions are always snooze fests. If you're not there, you wouldn't want to watch it anyway. Lots of fluff, no substance.
Biggest things of the night:
RNC allows the vetoing of delegates, thereby moving towards a de facto caucus selection process for candidates, essentially to prevent Ron Paul from forcing a messy and futile showdown.
Ann Romney gave a good speech
Everything else is basically a bunch of tripe. Same thing will happen at the DNC in a weeks time, but without Ann Romney or a power grab by party elders.
I support Christie and his politics yet his speaking style last night was, uncomfortable. Almost like he didnt want to endorse Romney. He seemed to talk more about the party and less about their candidate.
Ann Romneys speech started great and waned toward the end. By the time she got done I was happy to see her walk off the stage.
Ridiculous, to say the least. I can't believe with the recent changes from the Republican party that Romney is able to veto and replace delegates, effectively giving him the power to silence any opposition. This is a perfect example of why people are growing increasingly sick and tired of the two parties dominating politics.
Did that part pass? This link suggests that a compromise left out that particular provision.
Under the deal, delegates who are bound to a presidential candidate who hasn't bowed out of the race or released them to vote for another contender are barred from casting a vote for a different person.
During this convention, the change effectively would mean a delegate bound to Mitt Romney could not opt to throw his or her support behind Ron Paul, who has not freed his delegates. Any vote for another candidate would be voided and the delegate would lose his or her position.
Under the compromise, states would still able to select individual delegates under their own laws and party rules. GOP leaders agreed to remove the rules change provision that would have allowed state-party-selected delegates to be disavowed.
I expected they would eventually make a change like this almost immediately after Iowa's caucus when it seem like Ron Paul had likely grabbed a much larger portion of precinct delegates than his percentage of the vote.
Not sure why people are surprised/bothered by the unity thing - I'm as pro multi message as anyone but at the party convention only 3 months before Election Day diverse statements dilute the message.
Not sure why people are surprised/bothered by the unity thing - I'm as pro multi message as anyone but at the party convention only 3 months before Election Day diverse statements dilute the message.
It used to be that the nominee wasn't decided up to the convention. Remember the 1976 Republican primary? Ford and Reagan were neck and neck with each other going into the RNC. The Republican nomination was still in the air until Ford won the nomination there, and only barely.
The conventions serve no purpose today because the nominees already are decided well before the conventions begin. All they have become are scripted, cheerleader-esque parties.
The conventions serve no purpose today because the nominees already are decided well before the conventions begin. All they have become are scripted, cheerleader-esque parties.
Not that there's anything wrong with a party. My only complaint about the development is that it's a symptom of our ridiculously long (and lengthening) election cycles.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Right, just meant in the modern context - these days, for the past 20 some odd years it's been more of an advertising thing, a one-sided debate for the candidate, than anything particularly valid or diverse.
Just been looking through his response on the AMA and they all seem... safe. Not that I would expect anything else from any political figure but it's not really an informative piece.
Got to admit, I do like all the people nitpicking the grammar, and then crowing about correcting the President's grammar.
All I can say is: lol, Obama crashed reddit. ABUSE OF POWERRR
Do you think this will have any impact on the elections? Do you think Romney would try something like this? I kind of suspect it wouldn't end so well for Romney, as far as I can tell it didn't end bad for Obama.
I doubt it will have any actual impact on the election, I doubt Romney would do anything like this.
Honestly from a cynical analysis side of things it seems like Obama is trying desperately to get his young base (aka reddit users) as energized as they were 4 years ago. It's not going to happen. He is no longer the "fresh new face", now he's the establishment, he is "the man".
Does that mean he can't / won't win? No, of course not. But it does mean he has to run a totally different race than he did last time. "Change you can believe in" doesn't work when you had four years and the change people believed in didn't happen.
The answer is simple for why Romney wouldn't use Reddit or some other form of social media, Republicans are Anti-Net Neutrality and they always will be until they realize that the public wants their Internet the way they want it. Then again when Bush was in office the Internet didn't go anywhere, Republicans need to realize that the Digital Revolution is already here and for them to keep it from growing is a disgrace for business abroad.
If Romney gets elected President in November, him along with other members of the GOP will try to pass more laws similiar to SOPA/PIPA, to crack down hard on Internet Piracy, and to try to ban the fundamentals of what makes the Internet great in the first place. They will try to arrest people for downloading copywritten content or pirating any other forms of work like they did in the past.
Romney might be the "lesser of two evils" If you believe that Obama is trying to bankrupt our country until he can enact socialism on us or try to make our country weaker while also turning our foreign allies against us If you believe the stuff in Dinesh D'Souza's Anti-Obama Documentary called, "2016: Obama's America".
It probably won't make much of a difference who wins the Election this year cause the real battle in Washington is the race for Congress and to help the GOP attain enough Senate seats for a balanced Congress If most women in this country would have enough common sense to disregard the comments Todd Akin made regarding "legitimate rape". It's no wonder why there's a huge gender gap in the National Polls for this Election between both parties.
Quote from Mad Hat »
What made Obama president 4 years ago was a couple of things:
-He was black.
-He was a democrat (Bush hate).
-He had Sarah Palin for an opponent.
But his opponent wasn't Sarah Palin it was John McCain who was a stern reminder that the most handsome or good looking candidate usually wins the White House. I do agree that Obama being black played a huge factor in getting elected but the selling point of Obama was his "Hope and Change" slogan being that we believed he could fix the U.S. Economy but what did he do in his 1st term instead? Focused more on foreign policy after implementing the Stimulus that saved the Global Economy (at least for the time being anyway). He killed Osama bin Laden, helped take out Ghaddafi in Libya without Congressional approval, waged a cyber war against Iran in which we're winning at right now, and helped save the Internet by vetoing SOPA/PIPA.
Obama to my knowledge hasn't laid out any legit plan to get the U.S. Economy back on track If he's re-elected for a 2nd term. He says stuff about helping the Middle Class and nothing else. It's like as If he's avoiding the real issue of this Election being the U.S. Economy and Jobs just to use other issues as a distraction to get himself re-elected. I guess we'll see what he says at the Democratic National Convention next week but I honestly don't understand why Obama is avoiding the issue of the U.S. Economy and creating Jobs. He says stuff like "The Private Sector is doing just fine" but where's his proof on that? What plans does he have for a 2nd term? The American public has the right to know...
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
John McCain may have been the official opponent, but the Democrats attacked Palin to get at McCain. Selecting Palin as a running mate was McCain's critical error. The left wing took McCain's age and basically turned the campaign into "When McCain dies in office from old age, Sarah Palin will be President! Do you want her for President?"
I voted for Obama because of this. Worked for a Republican Congressman the summer before too. She killed my vote.
But his opponent wasn't Sarah Palin it was John McCain who was a stern reminder that the most handsome or good looking candidate usually wins the White House.
No, he lost because John McCain 2008 was not John McCain 2000. He was a much weaker candidate, largely because of the need to pander to the Tea Party and evangelical base, something he didn't do back in 2000. I had thought he was one of the last good Republicans out there.
I actually voted for him anyway, because Obama's hope-mongering angered me even more, and I knew everyone who was hardcore Obama was going to be severely disappointed (the political climate was not one where Obama could implement the fundamental changes he imagined he would).
But both candidates severely insulted my intelligence in 2008, both pandering to the stupid and gullible through different methods.
Obama to my knowledge hasn't laid out any legit plan to get the U.S. Economy back on track If he's re-elected for a 2nd term. He says stuff about helping the Middle Class and nothing else. It's like as If he's avoiding the real issue of this Election being the U.S. Economy and Jobs just to use other issues as a distraction to get himself re-elected. I guess we'll see what he says at the Democratic National Convention next week but I honestly don't understand why Obama is avoiding the issue of the U.S. Economy and creating Jobs. He says stuff like "The Private Sector is doing just fine" but where's his proof on that? What plans does he have for a 2nd term? The American public has the right to know...
Did you look? Because I found this in about 5 seconds after googling 'Obama Economic Plan':
This is why candidates have websites where you can research stuff. Just because rhetoric says he doesn't have a plan doesn't make it true. Political speeches are about getting people fired up, not about seriously discussing policy.
John McCain may have been the official opponent, but the Democrats attacked Palin to get at McCain. Selecting Palin as a running mate was McCain's critical error. The left wing took McCain's age and basically turned the campaign into "When McCain dies in office from old age, Sarah Palin will be President! Do you want her for President?"
To be fair, it was a good point. One that in hindsight proves to be even more poignant with her antics. She's a fame hound.
It's hard to judge the Republican speeches. Ryan gave a good speech that is sure to please his base. But to an informed viewer it was completely riddled with lies and misleading statements, and devoid of most specifics. I'm not sure how an independent would view the speech.
I found Ann Romneys speech to be hilarious. I have never seen such blatant pandering before. "I love women!"
-Paul Ryan killed the debt commission and blamed Obama for it
-he blamed Obama for not saving a factory that closed before Obama became president
-he made attacking Obama's Medicare "cuts" a large part of his speech when he keeps those exact cuts in his plan
Please, any republican here, defend those three points of his speech. I would love to hear it.
What made Obama president 4 years ago was a couple of things:
-He was black.
-He was a democrat (Bush hate).
-He had Sarah Palin for an opponent.
You're omitting a VERY important detail.
Obama won because he played up a message of change. In a country that was growing tired of partisan bickering, Obama promised to be something different from the usual Washington politics. It was this idea that Obama was something glittering and new and totally different from anything seen before or since. He was the great media darling. I guess people wanted to believe that this guy who was inexperienced and hadn't really been anywhere would turn out to be completely different than anyone who came before.
But Obama can't use the "I'm the shiny, brand new thing!" twice. We've already seen three years of Obama. They're underwhelming, and are all the more so when you compare his presidency to how much he hyped himself up. The best you can do is say Obama's doing a decent job, but doing a decent job is hardly impressive compared to the idea that someone is some great symbol of hope about to bring a great wave of change to the world.
The question really is what are the strengths Obama's going to run on? Obama can't spin his inexperience to be something beneficial in this campaign because he's been president for three years now. He can't say he's experienced because he ran on the idea that he wasn't experienced three years ago. It can't be that he's going to bring the parties together because he told us that last time and we're more divided as a country than we were before.
He's probably going to run on Obamacare, which is very divisive, and Osama Bin Laden. He can't run on the economy unless it starts picking up.
It's hard to judge the Republican speeches. Ryan gave a good speech that is sure to please his base. But to an informed viewer it was completely riddled with lies and misleading statements, and devoid of most specifics. I'm not sure how an independent would view the speech.
I found Ann Romneys speech to be hilarious. I have never seen such blatant pandering before. "I love women!"
-Paul Ryan killed the debt commission and blamed Obama for it
-he blamed Obama for not saving a factory that closed before Obama became president
-he made attacking Obama's Medicare "cuts" a large part of his speech when he keeps those exact cuts in his plan
Please, any republican here, defend those three points of his speech. I would love to hear it.
On the last it's even worse than presented in the article LogicX from my own looking at it against the HCR bill - in Obama's case, it's stuff that's covered under HCR that's just moved off the general budget, whereas in Ryan's it's gone completely.
Now it's possible I'd read it wrong in my own analysis of it - but I'm pretty sure I didn't.
1) The debt commission was known to be a failure from the start. The left wing sent their most rabid tax hounds to it, and the right wing sent their most loyal cutter to it. There was no way that commission was going to achieve anything - trying to blame it's failure solely on Ryan is ignorant an idiotic.
Yes blaming it solely on Obama makes much more sense.
2) Don't feel like arguing this one. There are conflicting stories here - some stories say the plant was actually closed in December 2008. Others say it had stopped production but was still open in December 2008.
So you admit the attack is disingenuous?
3) ObamaCare cuts $716B from Medicare. Ryan's plan never cut anywhere even remotely close to that amount. So trying to say Ryan's cuts to Medicare are the same as Obama's cuts to Medicare is just outright lies.
Um, yes it does? I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Ryan's budget included the same cuts.
Did I blame it on Obama? Quit putting words in my mouth.
We are talking about what Ryan did. And he blamed Obama. Obama tried to get compromises in the committee but Ryan shut things down. You are so blinded by partisanship that you can't understand simple black and white facts.
No, I do not. Because both sides have conflicting stories regarding that plant. The left wing says it was already closed in December 2008. The right wing says it was open, but all production was halted, in December 2008.
And? Obama took office on January 20th.
First off, PolitiFact has a well known left wing bias.
Just because Republicans tell more lies doesn't mean it has a bias.
Second, nowhere in that Politi"Fact" article is any information that says the Ryan plan cut the exact same money from Medicare. Ryan said his budget included Medicare cuts, but never said how much the cuts were. This left leaning "source" thus claims that the cuts are the same ones in ObamaCare. Disingenuous at best, outright lies at worst from Politi"Fact".
Quote from Politifact »
Stephanopoulos: "You know, several independent fact-checkers have taken a look at that claim, the $500 billion in Medicare cuts, and said that it's misleading. And in fact, by that accounting, your budget, your own budget, which Gov. Romney has endorsed, would also have $500 billion in Medicare cuts.
Ryan: "Well, our budget keeps that money for Medicare to extend its solvency. What Obamacare does is it takes that money from Medicare to spend on Obamacare. ..."
We are talking about what Ryan did. And he blamed Obama. Obama tried to get compromises in the committee but Ryan shut things down. You are so blinded by partisanship that you can't understand simple black and white facts.
I never blamed Obama. Quit putting your version of events in my mouth. And I'm pretty damned far from being partisan...just because I'm not extreme left wing like you doesn't make my moderate position "partisan" to anyone but you and other extreme left wing nuts.
Just because Republicans tell more lies doesn't mean it has a bias.
Bull****. Both parties lie out their ass - quit turning a blind eye to the **** ups of your party and only concentrating on Republicans. Makes you look like a ****ing hypocrite.
Now you're letting your partisanship show. Read what you quoted - Ryan did not say his budget would cut that much money from Medicare. You are making an idiotic assumption to support your horrible position.
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Second, nowhere in that Politi"Fact" article is any information that says the Ryan plan cut the exact same money from Medicare. Ryan said his budget included Medicare cuts, but never said how much the cuts were. This left leaning "source" thus claims that the cuts are the same ones in ObamaCare. Disingenuous at best, outright lies at worst from Politi"Fact".
Actually, the evidence is in how they are applying the word "cuts".
Both Obama and Ryan propose to cut medicare spending by reducing the need for medicare payouts in the future. The current estimation of those cuts is $700 billion. The problem comes in Ryan saying "Obama is robbing $700 billion from medicare" while saying "Our plan cuts spending without cutting coverage [by cutting the same $700 billion in future medicare spending]". That's where the problem lies, and why what Ryan is saying is so disingenuous - he's using the same figure to say what he is doing is right and what Obama is doing is wrong.
Politifact clearly lays this out as do many other sources. It has nothing to do with bias, unless you're claiming people are changing quotes from people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Biggest things of the night:
RNC allows the vetoing of delegates, thereby moving towards a de facto caucus selection process for candidates, essentially to prevent Ron Paul from forcing a messy and futile showdown.
Ann Romney gave a good speech
Everything else is basically a bunch of tripe. Same thing will happen at the DNC in a weeks time, but without Ann Romney or a power grab by party elders.
Ann Romneys speech started great and waned toward the end. By the time she got done I was happy to see her walk off the stage.
Did that part pass? This link suggests that a compromise left out that particular provision.
I expected they would eventually make a change like this almost immediately after Iowa's caucus when it seem like Ron Paul had likely grabbed a much larger portion of precinct delegates than his percentage of the vote.
Ann Romney's speech was pushing obsequious re: women, women, women. Christie did his job.
When's the DNC one anyway?
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
It used to be that the nominee wasn't decided up to the convention. Remember the 1976 Republican primary? Ford and Reagan were neck and neck with each other going into the RNC. The Republican nomination was still in the air until Ford won the nomination there, and only barely.
The conventions serve no purpose today because the nominees already are decided well before the conventions begin. All they have become are scripted, cheerleader-esque parties.
Not that there's anything wrong with a party. My only complaint about the development is that it's a symptom of our ridiculously long (and lengthening) election cycles.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Aaaaaaaaaaand it crashed.
Obama crashed reddit? Clearly he is anti-internets! (Seriously though, it's cool that he's doing an AMA)
There's the link...
Very interesting. Great move on his part.
Got to admit, I do like all the people nitpicking the grammar, and then crowing about correcting the President's grammar.
I doubt it will have any actual impact on the election, I doubt Romney would do anything like this.
Honestly from a cynical analysis side of things it seems like Obama is trying desperately to get his young base (aka reddit users) as energized as they were 4 years ago. It's not going to happen. He is no longer the "fresh new face", now he's the establishment, he is "the man".
Does that mean he can't / won't win? No, of course not. But it does mean he has to run a totally different race than he did last time. "Change you can believe in" doesn't work when you had four years and the change people believed in didn't happen.
The answer is simple for why Romney wouldn't use Reddit or some other form of social media, Republicans are Anti-Net Neutrality and they always will be until they realize that the public wants their Internet the way they want it. Then again when Bush was in office the Internet didn't go anywhere, Republicans need to realize that the Digital Revolution is already here and for them to keep it from growing is a disgrace for business abroad.
If Romney gets elected President in November, him along with other members of the GOP will try to pass more laws similiar to SOPA/PIPA, to crack down hard on Internet Piracy, and to try to ban the fundamentals of what makes the Internet great in the first place. They will try to arrest people for downloading copywritten content or pirating any other forms of work like they did in the past.
Romney might be the "lesser of two evils" If you believe that Obama is trying to bankrupt our country until he can enact socialism on us or try to make our country weaker while also turning our foreign allies against us If you believe the stuff in Dinesh D'Souza's Anti-Obama Documentary called, "2016: Obama's America".
It probably won't make much of a difference who wins the Election this year cause the real battle in Washington is the race for Congress and to help the GOP attain enough Senate seats for a balanced Congress If most women in this country would have enough common sense to disregard the comments Todd Akin made regarding "legitimate rape". It's no wonder why there's a huge gender gap in the National Polls for this Election between both parties.
But his opponent wasn't Sarah Palin it was John McCain who was a stern reminder that the most handsome or good looking candidate usually wins the White House. I do agree that Obama being black played a huge factor in getting elected but the selling point of Obama was his "Hope and Change" slogan being that we believed he could fix the U.S. Economy but what did he do in his 1st term instead? Focused more on foreign policy after implementing the Stimulus that saved the Global Economy (at least for the time being anyway). He killed Osama bin Laden, helped take out Ghaddafi in Libya without Congressional approval, waged a cyber war against Iran in which we're winning at right now, and helped save the Internet by vetoing SOPA/PIPA.
Obama to my knowledge hasn't laid out any legit plan to get the U.S. Economy back on track If he's re-elected for a 2nd term. He says stuff about helping the Middle Class and nothing else. It's like as If he's avoiding the real issue of this Election being the U.S. Economy and Jobs just to use other issues as a distraction to get himself re-elected. I guess we'll see what he says at the Democratic National Convention next week but I honestly don't understand why Obama is avoiding the issue of the U.S. Economy and creating Jobs. He says stuff like "The Private Sector is doing just fine" but where's his proof on that? What plans does he have for a 2nd term? The American public has the right to know...
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
I voted for Obama because of this. Worked for a Republican Congressman the summer before too. She killed my vote.
No, he lost because John McCain 2008 was not John McCain 2000. He was a much weaker candidate, largely because of the need to pander to the Tea Party and evangelical base, something he didn't do back in 2000. I had thought he was one of the last good Republicans out there.
I actually voted for him anyway, because Obama's hope-mongering angered me even more, and I knew everyone who was hardcore Obama was going to be severely disappointed (the political climate was not one where Obama could implement the fundamental changes he imagined he would).
But both candidates severely insulted my intelligence in 2008, both pandering to the stupid and gullible through different methods.
Did you look? Because I found this in about 5 seconds after googling 'Obama Economic Plan':
http://change.gov/agenda/economy_agenda/
This is why candidates have websites where you can research stuff. Just because rhetoric says he doesn't have a plan doesn't make it true. Political speeches are about getting people fired up, not about seriously discussing policy.
To be fair, it was a good point. One that in hindsight proves to be even more poignant with her antics. She's a fame hound.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I found Ann Romneys speech to be hilarious. I have never seen such blatant pandering before. "I love women!"
An example of some of his lies:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/paul-ryan-fails----the-truth/2012/08/29/bbfe1eac-f254-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_blog.html
-Paul Ryan killed the debt commission and blamed Obama for it
-he blamed Obama for not saving a factory that closed before Obama became president
-he made attacking Obama's Medicare "cuts" a large part of his speech when he keeps those exact cuts in his plan
Please, any republican here, defend those three points of his speech. I would love to hear it.
You're omitting a VERY important detail.
Obama won because he played up a message of change. In a country that was growing tired of partisan bickering, Obama promised to be something different from the usual Washington politics. It was this idea that Obama was something glittering and new and totally different from anything seen before or since. He was the great media darling. I guess people wanted to believe that this guy who was inexperienced and hadn't really been anywhere would turn out to be completely different than anyone who came before.
But Obama can't use the "I'm the shiny, brand new thing!" twice. We've already seen three years of Obama. They're underwhelming, and are all the more so when you compare his presidency to how much he hyped himself up. The best you can do is say Obama's doing a decent job, but doing a decent job is hardly impressive compared to the idea that someone is some great symbol of hope about to bring a great wave of change to the world.
The question really is what are the strengths Obama's going to run on? Obama can't spin his inexperience to be something beneficial in this campaign because he's been president for three years now. He can't say he's experienced because he ran on the idea that he wasn't experienced three years ago. It can't be that he's going to bring the parties together because he told us that last time and we're more divided as a country than we were before.
He's probably going to run on Obamacare, which is very divisive, and Osama Bin Laden. He can't run on the economy unless it starts picking up.
On the last it's even worse than presented in the article LogicX from my own looking at it against the HCR bill - in Obama's case, it's stuff that's covered under HCR that's just moved off the general budget, whereas in Ryan's it's gone completely.
Now it's possible I'd read it wrong in my own analysis of it - but I'm pretty sure I didn't.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
That and Obamacare.
At least, that's what all the e-mails I've been getting talk about.
I think I should go sign up for Romney's mails too.
Yes blaming it solely on Obama makes much more sense.
So you admit the attack is disingenuous?
Um, yes it does? I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Ryan's budget included the same cuts.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/15/stephanie-cutter/ryans-plan-includes-700-billion-medicare-cuts-says/
We are talking about what Ryan did. And he blamed Obama. Obama tried to get compromises in the committee but Ryan shut things down. You are so blinded by partisanship that you can't understand simple black and white facts.
And? Obama took office on January 20th.
Just because Republicans tell more lies doesn't mean it has a bias.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-vicki-kennedy-jack-lew-paul-ryan/story?id=16673650&page=7#.UD-xsJavmSq
Reading is tech.
EDIT:
Here you go:
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spin/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/fact-check-obama-ryan-romney-backed-medicare-cuts/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-30/paul-ryan-fact-check-republican-convention/57432326/1
I never blamed Obama. Quit putting your version of events in my mouth. And I'm pretty damned far from being partisan...just because I'm not extreme left wing like you doesn't make my moderate position "partisan" to anyone but you and other extreme left wing nuts.
So if the plant was still open when Obama passed his bailout, then closed down...wouldn't that mean Ryan was telling the truth?
Bull****. Both parties lie out their ass - quit turning a blind eye to the **** ups of your party and only concentrating on Republicans. Makes you look like a ****ing hypocrite.
Now you're letting your partisanship show. Read what you quoted - Ryan did not say his budget would cut that much money from Medicare. You are making an idiotic assumption to support your horrible position.
Infraction for flaming.
Both Obama and Ryan propose to cut medicare spending by reducing the need for medicare payouts in the future. The current estimation of those cuts is $700 billion. The problem comes in Ryan saying "Obama is robbing $700 billion from medicare" while saying "Our plan cuts spending without cutting coverage [by cutting the same $700 billion in future medicare spending]". That's where the problem lies, and why what Ryan is saying is so disingenuous - he's using the same figure to say what he is doing is right and what Obama is doing is wrong.
Politifact clearly lays this out as do many other sources. It has nothing to do with bias, unless you're claiming people are changing quotes from people.