If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Fox News article calls out Paul Ryan for lying   (foxnews.com) divider line 115
    More: Strange, children playing, auto bailouts, speeches, out-of-pocket expenses  
•       •       •

5769 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Aug 2012 at 7:22 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



115 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-30 04:14:18 AM
Written by an openly gay Democrat.
 
2012-08-30 04:18:59 AM
They have to toss out one "counter" article every once in a while, to all the GOP propaganda they normally run, to claim they are "Fair and Balanced".
 
2012-08-30 04:20:09 AM
The third article trending in the opinion section is a piece written by a guy who basically states "Republicans are clearly being mature adults; it's a good thing we're not stooping to personal attacks on Obama."

Cute.
 
2012-08-30 04:56:51 AM
I am stunned. When the lies are so blatant that even fox has to call you out, you are in big trouble.
 
2012-08-30 05:28:07 AM

borg: Written by an openly gay Democrat.


I for one can see how whether or not this writer is gay is a very important point to make. Thanks for driving that most important of points home for us.
 
2012-08-30 05:30:53 AM
Mitt Romney has been catastrophically struggling

Fox is not calling him out. Sally Kohn is. And when you read her other articles you will understand why she is headlined on Fox every day and is only second to none behind the blowhard.
 
2012-08-30 06:35:55 AM
[wtfamireading?]

I mean that in a good way.

FOX calling Ryan out on his lies and sins of omissions? What is this?

Is this to try to get the jump on the inevitable fact checker articles that will roll later on today?

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

Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush


Both correct and both correctly noted earlier in this Fark thread but I really never would have imagined FOX being one of the first corporate news outlets to point it out.

What else we got here?

Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said.

Wow, that's about as close as anyone on FOX will ever get to calling out the "Obama says you didn't build your own business" lie that is the centerpiece of the 2012 GOP ticket.

Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan

OMG, the 716 billion dollar "theft" lie exposed as well?

What sins of omission did she cover?

Ryan didn't mention his extremist stance on banning all abortions with no exception for rape or incest, a stance that is out of touch with 75% of American voters

Ryan didn't mention his previous plan to hand over Social Security to Wall Street.

Ryan didn't mention his numerous votes to raise spending and balloon the deficit when George W. Bush was president


OMG I'm in total agreement with a FOX opinion article. Somebody hold me! I'mma skeered.
 
2012-08-30 06:54:58 AM

Relatively Obscure: borg: Written by an openly gay Democrat.

I for one can see how whether or not this writer is gay is a very important point to make. Thanks for driving that most important of points home for us.


If you look her up, she's an activist for gay and liberal causes. Since the Republican platform isn't exactly gay or liberal friendly, it's a fair fact to note. It's no different than pointing out when someone from the Family Research Council writes an article against the Democratic platform.

She's not a journalist, she's an advocate. There's nothing wrong with that, but context is key.
 
2012-08-30 06:55:15 AM

quatchi: OMG I'm in total agreement with a FOX opinion article. Somebody hold me! I'mma skeered.


I'll hold you, but I'm afraid, too. Is this what madness feels like?
 
2012-08-30 07:13:21 AM
It's FAUX News and everything they say is a lie. So the article has to be a complete fabrication.

/ what I have learned on FARK
 
2012-08-30 07:17:58 AM
Did I wake up this morning in Bizarro World?

Or did the leftist lamestream drive by upper east side elitist hollywood limosine union liberal ivory tower MSM write that?
 
2012-08-30 07:19:03 AM
Why no comments section on that page, I need a good scare/laugh.
 
2012-08-30 07:28:09 AM
Hrm...looks like opposite day. Guess I'm going to work naked.
 
2012-08-30 07:31:37 AM
Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue
 
2012-08-30 07:32:14 AM
I read this headline and then Chrome crashed, coincidence?
 
2012-08-30 07:32:44 AM
Curiouser and curiouser.

/didn't click
 
2012-08-30 07:34:00 AM

Lsherm: Relatively Obscure: borg: Written by an openly gay Democrat.

I for one can see how whether or not this writer is gay is a very important point to make. Thanks for driving that most important of points home for us.

If you look her up, she's an activist for gay and liberal causes. Since the Republican platform isn't exactly gay or liberal friendly, it's a fair fact to note. It's no different than pointing out when someone from the Family Research Council writes an article against the Democratic platform.

She's not a journalist, she's an advocate. There's nothing wrong with that, but context is key.


So when discussing pro-Romney columns should we be noting when the author is openly straight?
 
2012-08-30 07:36:14 AM
I like the new talking point about the Janesville plant. It's a good example of how the Dems are cooperating with Politi"Fact" to sling mud at the opposition in order to sour the public on the opposition regardless of truth.

PF rates Ryan's GM plant false because (1) Obama didn't "promise" to keep the plant open, and (2) it the plant was closed under Bush. But here are the facts, as recited by PF itself:

1. Obama told the folks at the plant - while the powers that be were debating a GM bailout - that if government backs GM, the Janesville plant could be open for another 100 years. If you don't understand that to mean "support the bailout and you won't lose your job," you're not paying attention.

2. The plant closed in May 2009. My records indicate that Obama had taken office by then. As Ryan says, take some responsibility, people.

PF gets around this by saying that it "effectively closed" on Dec. 23, 2008 with the layoff of 1,200 workers, acknowledging that it remained open to manufacture trucks for Isuzu for the next 4 months. But the plant had had 7,100 workers in 1978, but they were let go in waves over the following decades. So why wasn't the plant "effectively" closed when its workforce was cut by half? Three-quarters? Seven-eighths? The answer is that they want to come to the conclusion that the plant "closed" under Bush, but it rather annoyingly remained open, so they redefine the terms.

Look, if I get to redefine your words for you, I can prove that everything you say is a lie. When a "fact checker" needs to say that "closed" really means "effectively closed" to make its point (a point that is eviscerated if the actual definition of "closed" is applied) they've shed their role as fact checker and donned the shining garb of the shill.
 
2012-08-30 07:38:14 AM
I like the slogan in the photo, "We can chance it."
 
2012-08-30 07:39:05 AM

borg: Written by an openly gay Democrat.


To be fair, an openly gay democrat willingly contributing to Fox news is even weirder. Their open hostility to both of those things would result in a sane person with either of those characteristics avoiding the place entirely. Well, unless it was a gay/dem lawyer looking for a discrimination lawsuit to pad his win record, I guess.
 
2012-08-30 07:40:35 AM

EnviroDude: It's FAUX News and everything they say is a lie. So the article has to be a complete fabrication.

/ what I have learned on FARK


Well, in the actual polls that matter (adjusted to EC vote) Obama still has a comfortable lead - but if the numbers get any softer (and they should, with the inevitable "convention bump"), you'll be seeing more pro-Obama stuff on faux news. Rupert doesn't want to lose his main meal ticket, you know.
 
2012-08-30 07:42:20 AM
When the Voice of the Republican Party starts calling out their lies, they might have just given up on this round. Maybe they figure if they lose badly enough, and Obama screws up the next 4 years, they can come back stronger in 2016. (Hence the attack-ad propaganda flick entitled "2016")
 
2012-08-30 07:43:46 AM

jso2897: EnviroDude: It's FAUX News and everything they say is a lie. So the article has to be a complete fabrication.

/ what I have learned on FARK

Well, in the actual polls that matter (adjusted to EC vote) Obama still has a comfortable lead - but if the numbers get any softer (and they should, with the inevitable "convention bump"), you'll be seeing more pro-Obama stuff on faux news. Rupert doesn't want to lose his main meal ticket, you know.


jso2897: EnviroDude: It's FAUX News and everything they say is a lie. So the article has to be a complete fabrication.

/ what I have learned on FARK

Well, in the actual polls that matter (adjusted to EC vote) Obama still has a comfortable lead - but if the numbers get any softer (and they should, with the inevitable "convention bump"), you'll be seeing more pro-Obama stuff on faux news. Rupert doesn't want to lose his main meal ticket, you know.


What's the European Community's voting pattern got to do with Presidential polling?
 
2012-08-30 07:46:05 AM

Myrl_Redding: I like the slogan in the photo, "We can chance it."


Nice eye ...yeah, that's certainly a keeper.
 
2012-08-30 07:46:10 AM

Jim_Callahan: borg: Written by an openly gay Democrat.

To be fair, an openly gay democrat willingly contributing to Fox news is even weirder. Their open hostility to both of those things would result in a sane person with either of those characteristics avoiding the place entirely. Well, unless it was a gay/dem lawyer looking for a discrimination lawsuit to pad his win record, I guess.


He only works there so he can pick up conservative politicians. He likes the self-loathing types.
 
2012-08-30 07:47:03 AM

Garet Garrett: The plant closed in May 2009. My records indicate that Obama had taken office by then.


Really?

Wow.
 
2012-08-30 07:47:33 AM
It's election season and politicians will do what politicians have always done.
And Paul Ryan has been a politician his entire adult life.

So...he's doing what comes naturally to him
 
2012-08-30 07:49:33 AM

CokeBear: When the Voice of the Republican Party starts calling out their lies, they might have just given up on this round. Maybe they figure if they lose badly enough, and Obama screws up the next 4 years, they can come back stronger in 2016. (Hence the attack-ad propaganda flick entitled "2016")


2016 can't be a conservative propaganda flick. It shared a producer with"Schindler's List", which itself was an attack on conservative values.
 
2012-08-30 07:49:43 AM

Relatively Obscure: borg: Written by an openly gay Democrat.

I for one can see how whether or not this writer is gay is a very important point to make. Thanks for driving that most important of points home for us.


I believe that borg was making a joke, but that's just like my opinion, man.

/We really need a sarcasm font.
 
2012-08-30 07:50:04 AM
Paul Ryan wasted a good opportunity to make himself and Mitt Romney appear more human to voters by discussing their shared struggles of trying to hold down their erections during the reading of their fathers' wills.
 
MFK
2012-08-30 07:51:07 AM

Garet Garrett: I like the new talking point about the Janesville plant. It's a good example of how the Dems are cooperating with Politi"Fact" to sling mud at the opposition in order to sour the public on the opposition regardless of truth.

PF rates Ryan's GM plant false because (1) Obama didn't "promise" to keep the plant open, and (2) it the plant was closed under Bush. But here are the facts, as recited by PF itself:

1. Obama told the folks at the plant - while the powers that be were debating a GM bailout - that if government backs GM, the Janesville plant could be open for another 100 years. If you don't understand that to mean "support the bailout and you won't lose your job," you're not paying attention.

2. The plant closed in May 2009. My records indicate that Obama had taken office by then. As Ryan says, take some responsibility, people.

PF gets around this by saying that it "effectively closed" on Dec. 23, 2008 with the layoff of 1,200 workers, acknowledging that it remained open to manufacture trucks for Isuzu for the next 4 months. But the plant had had 7,100 workers in 1978, but they were let go in waves over the following decades. So why wasn't the plant "effectively" closed when its workforce was cut by half? Three-quarters? Seven-eighths? The answer is that they want to come to the conclusion that the plant "closed" under Bush, but it rather annoyingly remained open, so they redefine the terms.

Look, if I get to redefine your words for you, I can prove that everything you say is a lie. When a "fact checker" needs to say that "closed" really means "effectively closed" to make its point (a point that is eviscerated if the actual definition of "closed" is applied) they've shed their role as fact checker and donned the shining garb of the shill.


Effectively closed means closed. Firing everyone except a skeleton crew to burn through the existing parts inventory means the plant closed.

The ONLY reason PolitiFact had to parse the phrase is because mouth breathers who don't understand how things work would point to it being sort of open and say "nuh-uh! look, they still makin' cars derp!"
 
2012-08-30 07:51:21 AM

borg: Written by an openly gay Democrat.



This Link It pays to know who the author actually is.
 
2012-08-30 07:52:34 AM
Michael Jackson isn't still black and kicking, right?
 
2012-08-30 07:53:05 AM
Is it backwards day? What? I am actually shocked. Is this a joke? Who's asleep at the wheel at FOXNEWS.
 
2012-08-30 07:59:30 AM
I wish Foxnews had not posted this

Nanny sure as shiat will be calling to come check her anti virus
 
2012-08-30 08:02:15 AM

Myrl_Redding: I like the slogan in the photo, "We can chance it."


i.imgur.com
 
2012-08-30 08:04:07 AM

EnviroDouche: It's FAUX News and everything they say is a lie. So the article has to be a complete fabrication.

/ what I have learned on FARK


img100.imageshack.us
 
2012-08-30 08:04:16 AM
There's a drinking game with Sally Kohn FOX articles. You open up the comments and do a shot every time someone attacks her sexuality somehow. Try not to die of alcohol poisoning.
 
2012-08-30 08:06:11 AM

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: borg: Written by an openly gay Democrat.


This Link It pays to know who the author actually is.


You can even click in TFA on the name of the author and see the titles and openings of other articles she wrote.

Sure I'm a Democrat and want President Obama to win re-election
and many others.
 
2012-08-30 08:10:19 AM
This discussion about the author's sexual orientation, how does that change the facts in the article? If an elephant had written it, would the facts be untrue? Address the issues please.
 
2012-08-30 08:14:27 AM

Garet Garrett: 2. The plant closed in May 2009. My records indicate that Obama had taken office by then. As Ryan says, take some responsibility, people.


It closed April 23. Obama had been in office for less than three months. When did the GM bailout go into effect?

PF gets around this by saying that it "effectively closed" on Dec. 23, 2008 with the layoff of 1,200 workers, acknowledging that it remained open to manufacture trucks for Isuzu for the next 4 months.

With 74 workers.

But the plant had had 7,100 workers in 1978, but they were let go in waves over the following decades. So why wasn't the plant "effectively" closed when its workforce was cut by half? Three-quarters? Seven-eighths? The answer is that they want to come to the conclusion that the plant "closed" under Bush, but it rather annoyingly remained open, so they redefine the terms.

The decision to close the plant was taken while Bush was still president and implemented while he was still in office. A few workers were kept on to finish some remaining contractual obligations. As far as the 1,700 former workers were concerned, and the surrounding community, it was closed.

Look, if I get to redefine your words for you, I can prove that everything you say is a lie. When a "fact checker" needs to say that "closed" really means "effectively closed" to make its point

I'd say that if all the workers except for a clean-up crew are gone, the plant is closed. Actually, the plant never really closed at, because it's still on standby. I understand some of the doors and windows are open, too, and there are security guards keeping on an eye on it. It's not completely unattended. Therefore, according to your definition, it never closed. Do I have that right?

(a point that is eviscerated if the actual definition of "closed" is applied) they've shed their role as fact checker and donned the shining garb of the shill.

So you're saying that Obama should have somehow jumped in and reversed GM's 2008 decision? Rehire all the workers, get it up and going again? To fulfill a promise that he didn't make, with a rescue plan that only went into effect in July, 2009?
 
2012-08-30 08:14:36 AM

Garet Garrett: PF gets around this by saying that it "effectively closed" on Dec. 23, 2008 with the layoff of 1,200 workers, acknowledging that it remained open to manufacture trucks for Isuzu for the next 4 months


You do know that it remained open to finish the last order, don't you?

It "effectively closed" because the people who ran it said "we're closing after this order"

Do I have to redefine what words mean for you?
 
2012-08-30 08:16:01 AM

holeinthedonut: This discussion about the author's sexual orientation, how does that change the facts in the article? If an elephant had written it, would the facts be untrue? Address the issues please.


If an elephant had written it, it would have a far more republican slant.
 
2012-08-30 08:16:31 AM

holeinthedonut: This discussion about the author's sexual orientation, how does that change the facts in the article? If an elephant had written it, would the facts be untrue? Address the issues please.


Whoa there buddy. Why would you want to bring issues into this? I mean, do you want the voters to be informed or something? That's practically unAmerikun.

/turn on sarcasm meter
//way, way, way up
 
2012-08-30 08:17:04 AM

holeinthedonut: This discussion about the author's sexual orientation, how does that change the facts in the article? If an elephant had written it, would the facts be untrue? Address the issues please.


I think that was more to point out that it wasn't one of the normal Fox shills, so that our worldview can remain intact.
 
2012-08-30 08:17:51 AM

Lsherm: Relatively Obscure: borg: Written by an openly gay Democrat.

I for one can see how whether or not this writer is gay is a very important point to make. Thanks for driving that most important of points home for us.

If you look her up, she's an activist for gay and liberal causes. Since the Republican platform isn't exactly gay or liberal friendly, it's a fair fact to note. It's no different than pointing out when someone from the Family Research Council writes an article against the Democratic platform.

She's not a journalist, she's an advocate. There's nothing wrong with that, but context is key.


Whether or not someone is gay is pertinent to whether or not facts are facts.


Riiiggghhhht.
 
2012-08-30 08:19:49 AM

Relatively Obscure: borg: Written by an openly gay Democrat.

I for one can see how whether or not this writer is gay is a very important point to make. Thanks for driving that most important of points home for us.



That's the factor that will allow Faux News fans to dismiss every point made in the article.

/well sure but teh geys...
 
2012-08-30 08:20:45 AM

Lsherm: She's not a journalist, she's an advocate.


That's basically Fox News' entire mission statement.
 
2012-08-30 08:23:01 AM

Lsherm: Relatively Obscure: borg: Written by an openly gay Democrat.

I for one can see how whether or not this writer is gay is a very important point to make. Thanks for driving that most important of points home for us.

If you look her up, she's an activist for gay and liberal causes. Since the Republican platform isn't exactly gay or liberal friendly, it's a fair fact to note. It's no different than pointing out when someone from the Family Research Council writes an article against the Democratic platform.

She's not a journalist, she's an advocate. There's nothing wrong with that, but context is key.


Do you have any issues with the content of the article or is a strawman about the only thing you have here?
 
2012-08-30 08:29:14 AM
The article didn't mention the fact that Ryan wants to increase the US military budget.
 
Displayed 50 of 115 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report