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.

(Yahoo)   Fact-Checking the debate: Biden lied about Libya, and kinda fudged a few facts on other issues, Ryan just out and out made a whole lot of "stuff" up, and his comments about Iran were as truthful as his marathon times   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 122
    More: Followup, Biden, Iran, Libya, Douglas Elmendorf, Independent Payment Advisory Board, affiliated institution, Catholic Charities, deputy assistant  
•       •       •

3480 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Oct 2012 at 12:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-12 10:23:22 AM
Well the headline is missing leading which is the worst criticism that the article could charge Ryan with.

However the article did say that Biden lied. For all you Democrats out there that wanted to know how to beat a lair in a debate, you just got your example. Now if Romney actually lied in the debate and Obama was half as smart as Ryan Obama could have pulled of a win as well.
 
2012-10-12 10:28:46 AM
oops

Maybe the fact checkers should check their facts.

Ryan as was right, again.
 
2012-10-12 10:31:05 AM
Biden didn't lie. The requests never made it as far as the White House. You're believing a guy that really was the weak link. Why, if he thought the protection was inadequate, didn't he raise more hell about it? This was a fustercluck. What ever happened to the host country supplying security? Why did Republicans cut funding for security at Hillary's State Dept when they seem to want to spend money everywhere else that involves weapons? The Republicans weakened our diplomatic corps and the Democratic administration didn't fill the gap soon enough. Say what you will, but Obama didn't do this.
 
2012-10-12 10:35:10 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: oops

Maybe the fact checkers should check their facts.

Ryan as was right, again.

Bush thought that Kadhaffi was a reformer. Assad was a Moderate-hardliner (if there is such a thing) in that, until the uprisings, he seemed to be heading the right direction. Why didn't Bush take him out if he was so bad?
 
2012-10-12 10:36:16 AM
"Let's look at this from the view of the ayatollahs. What do they see? They see this administration trying to water down sanctions in Congress for over two years. They're moving faster toward a nuclear weapon. They're spinning the centrifuges faster. - Paul Ryan"

Stuxnet changes the output frequency for short periods of time to 1410Hz and then to 2Hz and then to 1064Hz. Modification of the output frequency essentially sabotages the automation system from operating properly. Other parameter changes may also cause unexpected effects.

If they were spinning faster it is because our sabotage was doing what it was built to do, spinning centrifuges faster would not help Iran
 
2012-10-12 10:38:16 AM

olddeegee: Democratic administration didn't fill the gap soon enough. Say what you will, but Obama didn't do this.


Well at least you finished the sentence before you contradicted yourself...

And yes it did get to the highest parts of the administration. And no cutting funding doesn't mean that you have to lower security in Libya. Maybe just maybe you should make the cuts in say the Bahamas and Canada? Just to name a couple off the top of my head. If you really believe that there is no fat in the state department I get a brand new bridge to sell you.
 
2012-10-12 10:40:50 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: oops

Maybe the fact checkers should check their facts.

Ryan as was right, again.


Actually he's not. The genesis of the charge comes from remarks Hillary Clinton made on Capitol Hill where she said "Assad, who some here have called a reformer" before going on to make it clear the Adminstration did not share that view. The remark was a veiled jab at John Kerry who'd been trying to do his own private diplomacy in Syria
 
2012-10-12 10:41:07 AM
Every post-debate factcheck: "Here are a balanced number of incorrect assertions by both parties."
 
2012-10-12 10:42:29 AM
To be fair, Iranians have light brown skin so Ryan confuses them with other socialist countries like Kenya.
 
2012-10-12 10:44:40 AM

bdub77: Every post-debate factcheck: "Here are a balanced number of incorrect assertions by both parties."


Ap admitted to having a "Michelle Bachmann Rule" during the GOP debates limiting the number of lies they'd call her out on so she didn't fill up all the column inches of their fact-check stories
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-12 10:47:00 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: oops

Maybe the fact checkers should check their facts.

Ryan as was right, again.


Ryan: "We should not have called Bashar Assad a reformer when he was turning his Russian-provided guns on his own people."

Trolls article: "In fact, administration officials described Assad as a reformer at least a year before the armed uprising in Syria broke out in 2011. "


Or maybe a certain troll needs to RTFA before linking to it.
 
2012-10-12 10:47:24 AM
Allow me to quote a nifty analysis at length:

"Another Ryan claim, this time about reducing the Pentagon budget:

If these cuts go through, our Navy will be the smallest -- the smallest it has been since before World War I.

Politifact address this back when Romney said something similar:

Counting the number of ships or aircraft is not a good measurement of defense strength because their capabilities have increased dramatically in recent decades. Romney's comparison "doesn't pass 'the giggle test,' " said William W. Stueck, a historian at the University of Georgia.

Consider what types of naval ships were used in 1916 and 2011. The types of ships active in both years, such as cruisers and destroyers, are outfitted today with far more advanced technology than what was available during World War I. More importantly, the U.S. Navy has 11 aircraft carriers (plus the jets to launch from them), 31 amphibious ships, 14 submarines capable of launching nuclear ballistic missiles and four specialized submarines for launching Cruise missiles -- all categories of vessels that didn't exist in 1916.

Here's another way to put this. What do you think would happen if the U.S. Navy of 2011 fought the U.S. Navy of 1916? Is that a useful comparison? And if the U.S. Navy had to fight any other fleet on planet earth?

This graphic gets at what would happen:
"

i48.tinypic.com

And that's just the decks. That says nothing about the vastly superior planes flying off of those decks, and less than nothing about the millions of man-hours represented by the highly trained pilots, officers, and crews on those vessels. Our Navy could take on every other Navy in the world simultaneously and have a very strong chance of not just winning, but winning easily. Think 07 Patriots or 85 Bears versus the Rhode Island high school All Stars.

This is just one glaring example of a general trend: Ryan knows the numbers, but he doesn't know the context or the meaning of those numbers. Yes, his math will probably reduce the budget, assuming his projections play out. But at what human cost? And at what consequence to the standard of living for millions? He has no idea about this. And it shows.
 
2012-10-12 10:47:38 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: olddeegee: Democratic administration didn't fill the gap soon enough. Say what you will, but Obama didn't do this.

Well at least you finished the sentence before you contradicted yourself...

And yes it did get to the highest parts of the administration. And no cutting funding doesn't mean that you have to lower security in Libya. Maybe just maybe you should make the cuts in say the Bahamas and Canada? Just to name a couple off the top of my head. If you really believe that there is no fat in the state department I get a brand new bridge to sell you.


This is an especially stuipid argument on your part. I presume the amount of money we spend for security in Canada, if zeroed out completely and applied to Libya, would have certainly built a bulletproof fortress defended by a battalion of Marines. The fat in this case is between the ears of anyone that thinks the Republican Congress doesn't own a significant part of this in the first place.

Go ahead, vote for Romney. I'm sure he's got the plan to fix everything. Maybe, just maybe, he'll actually tell us some day and maybe, just maybe, he wont contradict his policy statements on an hourly basis which would help the voting public decide.

Why would you vote for Romney, really? What policies has he provided any detail on will work to help the nation? What behavior has Romney exhibited that makes you believe that he'd actually stick to those policies?
 
2012-10-12 10:48:27 AM

Magorn: Ap admitted to having a "Michelle Bachmann Rule" during the GOP debates limiting the number of lies they'd call her out on so she didn't fill up all the column inches of their fact-check stories


Remember, Jerry: They're not lies if you believe them.
 
2012-10-12 10:51:59 AM
the navy thing was hilarious. does ryan think our greatest threat we face is the kaiser?
 
2012-10-12 10:53:07 AM

bdub77: Every post-debate factcheck: "Here are a balanced number of incorrect assertions by both parties."


This bugs the shiat out of me. Make a complete list, don't just pick like 3 from each and call it a day.
 
2012-10-12 10:53:14 AM
If the Republicans really wanted more people to embrace their 'evolution doesn't exist' stance they should just point out that there's no farking way a decent human being could possibly share any DNA with the moral bankrupt cancerous shiatstain that is Paul Ryan.
 
2012-10-12 10:53:24 AM

FlashHarry: the navy thing was hilarious. does ryan think our greatest threat we face is the kaiser?


That's not the only reason it was hilarious. See below.
 
2012-10-12 10:59:46 AM

LasersHurt: bdub77: Every post-debate factcheck: "Here are a balanced number of incorrect assertions by both parties."

This bugs the shiat out of me. Make a complete list, don't just pick like 3 from each and call it a day.


but both sides bad

and also the liberal media
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-12 11:05:08 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: olddeegee: Democratic administration didn't fill the gap soon enough. Say what you will, but Obama didn't do this.

Well at least you finished the sentence before you contradicted yourself...

And yes it did get to the highest parts of the administration. And no cutting funding doesn't mean that you have to lower security in Libya. Maybe just maybe you should make the cuts in say the Bahamas and Canada? Just to name a couple off the top of my head. If you really believe that there is no fat in the state department I get a brand new bridge to sell you.


So you don't understand the budget process? That isn't surprising.

Money is allocated for specific purposes. Congress doesn't just hand Hillary a check to spend however she thinks best. The "fat" is there because congress put it there and there is nothing the executive branch can do about it. That's why the military buys things it doesn't wand and didn't request. They have to.

And I suspect that security in Canada and the Bahamas is pretty minimal anyway.

So, yes, it is the fault of congress.
 
2012-10-12 11:12:52 AM
Do Republicans have to project everything?

"Ryan and Romney clearly lied and here's where...."

"No, Biden lied!"
 
2012-10-12 11:14:33 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: oops

Maybe the fact checkers should check their facts.

Ryan as was right, again.


Pretty bad when you have to list the times he said something technically accurate.
 
2012-10-12 11:15:59 AM

zedster: "Let's look at this from the view of the ayatollahs. What do they see? They see this administration trying to water down sanctions in Congress for over two years. They're moving faster toward a nuclear weapon. They're spinning the centrifuges faster. - Paul Ryan"

Stuxnet changes the output frequency for short periods of time to 1410Hz and then to 2Hz and then to 1064Hz. Modification of the output frequency essentially sabotages the automation system from operating properly. Other parameter changes may also cause unexpected effects.

If they were spinning faster it is because our sabotage was doing what it was built to do, spinning centrifuges faster would not help Iran


Ryan had a dose of the Stuxnet also because he was spinning pretty fast at times.
 
2012-10-12 11:18:12 AM

FlashHarry: the navy thing was hilarious. does ryan think our greatest threat we face is the kaiser?


Well we know everyone likes to kick it like him.
 
2012-10-12 11:19:06 AM

dr_blasto: I'm sure he's got the plan to fix everything.


that plan. do whatever his masters in he party tell him to do.

When I asked a derpublican what the plan was, he said "Romney doesn't need a plan, as long as he signs the legislation we want him to sign."
 
2012-10-12 11:37:23 AM
Democrats "fudge"
But Republicans "lie"

Yeah, no bias there.


Biden either lied about the tax position ($1M vs. 250k as who gets affected) or 0bama did. Which is it?
 
2012-10-12 11:37:41 AM

vpb: So you don't understand the budget process? That isn't surprising.

Money is allocated for specific purposes. Congress doesn't just hand Hillary a check to spend however she thinks best. The "fat" is there because congress put it there and there is nothing the executive branch can do about it. That's why the military buys things it doesn't wand and didn't request. They have to.

And I suspect that security in Canada and the Bahamas is pretty minimal anyway.

So, yes, it is the fault of congress.



So why did they apply to the State Department for security increases? If it was Congress' job to supply it they would have applied to them. This was a botched job on the Administration you can't bury your head deep enough to change that fact. And if that was the only mistake it would have been understandable but the whole deal was just one mistake after another.
 
2012-10-12 11:40:03 AM
Looks like subby didn't actually read the article.

7/10 for the successful troll.
 
2012-10-12 11:43:06 AM

olddeegee: The Stealth Hippopotamus: oops

Maybe the fact checkers should check their facts.

Ryan as was right, again.
Bush thought that Kadhaffi was a reformer.


Hey, guess what, Bush isn't running for office.

but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, Buuuuuuuuushh!
 
2012-10-12 11:44:04 AM
lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-10-12 11:44:13 AM

Mugato: Do Republicans have to project everything?

"Ryan and Romney clearly lied and here's where...."

"No, Biden lied!"


you didn't read the article either.

figures.
 
2012-10-12 11:49:02 AM

LasersHurt: bdub77: Every post-debate factcheck: "Here are a balanced number of incorrect assertions by both parties."

This bugs the shiat out of me. Make a complete list, don't just pick like 3 from each and call it a day.


The "liberal media" is the greatest rhetorical tool the right wing ever invented. They knock themselves out to find a "middle" ground no matter how insanely skewed reality is.
 
2012-10-12 11:51:39 AM
Very little on a Friday morning, when at work, makes me happier than seeing multiple instances of:

tenpoundsofcheese [total*fark]
(ignored)
 
2012-10-12 11:56:14 AM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Very little on a Friday morning, when at work, makes me happier than seeing multiple instances of:

tenpoundsofcheese [total*fark]
(ignored)


i dunno man, i always enjoy seeing multiple instances of the new girls that haven't quite figured out the difference between "business casual" and "dressed up whore" yet.
 
2012-10-12 11:57:22 AM

thomps: i dunno man, i always enjoy seeing multiple instances of the new girls that haven't quite figured out the difference between "business casual" and "dressed up whore" yet.


my favs are the ones that know the difference but dress that way anyway. It just makes it dirtier.
 
2012-10-12 12:04:37 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: thomps: i dunno man, i always enjoy seeing multiple instances of the new girls that haven't quite figured out the difference between "business casual" and "dressed up whore" yet.

my favs are the ones that know the difference but dress that way anyway. It just makes it dirtier.


No, the cops aren't arresting you for being a John, it's was sexual harassing the real estate agent in front the Holiday Inn for their business conference
 
2012-10-12 12:04:47 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Very little on a Friday morning, when at work, makes me happier than seeing multiple instances of:

tenpoundsofcheese [total*fark]
(ignored: Worthless idiot)


Now it matches mine. Much more accurate, I think.
 
2012-10-12 12:09:42 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: olddeegee: The Stealth Hippopotamus: oops

Maybe the fact checkers should check their facts.

Ryan as was right, again.
Bush thought that Kadhaffi was a reformer.

Hey, guess what, Bush isn't running for office.

but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, Buuuuuuuuushh!

Obama's people never said that he was a reformer. Politifact: Where Ryan may have gone too far was in saying that the administration "called Bashar Assad a reformer." While Clinton did use the word, she said, "Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer."
Your turn. Find the quote where Obama said it. Seriously, I dare you. And, yeah,bbbbbbbbBush! That man caused most of the last decade's ills. The first was by not getting serious about Bin Laden, a *uckup that we're still paying for.
 
2012-10-12 12:10:01 PM
How do you convince people Ryan's lying when those same people think Snopes is a liberal plant, Bill Clinton personally murdered 50 people (but couldn't get his knob shined without making international news) and Satan buried brontosaurus pelvises to check if you're going to Sunday School?
 
2012-10-12 12:12:04 PM
Fact checking the fact checking. BWWWAAAAM!
 
2012-10-12 12:16:12 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Maybe just maybe you should make the cuts in say the Bahamas and Canada? Just to name a couple off the top of my head.



Yeah! Take all those grenade launchers and stinger missiles defending the Canadian and Bahamian embassies and use them where they could do some good!
 
2012-10-12 12:18:09 PM

whistleridge: Allow me to quote a nifty analysis at length:

"Another Ryan claim, this time about reducing the Pentagon budget:

If these cuts go through, our Navy will be the smallest -- the smallest it has been since before World War I.

Politifact address this back when Romney said something similar:

Counting the number of ships or aircraft is not a good measurement of defense strength because their capabilities have increased dramatically in recent decades. Romney's comparison "doesn't pass 'the giggle test,' " said William W. Stueck, a historian at the University of Georgia.

Consider what types of naval ships were used in 1916 and 2011. The types of ships active in both years, such as cruisers and destroyers, are outfitted today with far more advanced technology than what was available during World War I. More importantly, the U.S. Navy has 11 aircraft carriers (plus the jets to launch from them), 31 amphibious ships, 14 submarines capable of launching nuclear ballistic missiles and four specialized submarines for launching Cruise missiles -- all categories of vessels that didn't exist in 1916.

Here's another way to put this. What do you think would happen if the U.S. Navy of 2011 fought the U.S. Navy of 1916? Is that a useful comparison? And if the U.S. Navy had to fight any other fleet on planet earth?

This graphic gets at what would happen:"

[i48.tinypic.com image 631x799]

And that's just the decks. That says nothing about the vastly superior planes flying off of those decks, and less than nothing about the millions of man-hours represented by the highly trained pilots, officers, and crews on those vessels. Our Navy could take on every other Navy in the world simultaneously and have a very strong chance of not just winning, but winning easily. Think 07 Patriots or 85 Bears versus the Rhode Island high school All Stars.

This is just one glaring example of a general trend: Ryan knows the numbers, but he doesn't know the context or the meaning of those numbers. Yes, h ...


The Navy is getting smaller! We have totally lost the initiative in colliers.Link
 
2012-10-12 12:20:01 PM

BKITU: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Very little on a Friday morning, when at work, makes me happier than seeing multiple instances of:

tenpoundsofcheese [total*fark]
(ignored: PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEEE)

Now it matches mine. Much more accurate, I think.


And here's mine.
 
2012-10-12 12:22:53 PM

olddeegee: whistleridge: Allow me to quote a nifty analysis at length:

"Another Ryan claim, this time about reducing the Pentagon budget:

If these cuts go through, our Navy will be the smallest -- the smallest it has been since before World War I.

Politifact address this back when Romney said something similar:

Counting the number of ships or aircraft is not a good measurement of defense strength because their capabilities have increased dramatically in recent decades. Romney's comparison "doesn't pass 'the giggle test,' " said William W. Stueck, a historian at the University of Georgia.

Consider what types of naval ships were used in 1916 and 2011. The types of ships active in both years, such as cruisers and destroyers, are outfitted today with far more advanced technology than what was available during World War I. More importantly, the U.S. Navy has 11 aircraft carriers (plus the jets to launch from them), 31 amphibious ships, 14 submarines capable of launching nuclear ballistic missiles and four specialized submarines for launching Cruise missiles -- all categories of vessels that didn't exist in 1916.

Here's another way to put this. What do you think would happen if the U.S. Navy of 2011 fought the U.S. Navy of 1916? Is that a useful comparison? And if the U.S. Navy had to fight any other fleet on planet earth?

This graphic gets at what would happen:"

[i48.tinypic.com image 631x799]

And that's just the decks. That says nothing about the vastly superior planes flying off of those decks, and less than nothing about the millions of man-hours represented by the highly trained pilots, officers, and crews on those vessels. Our Navy could take on every other Navy in the world simultaneously and have a very strong chance of not just winning, but winning easily. Think 07 Patriots or 85 Bears versus the Rhode Island high school All Stars.

This is just one glaring example of a general trend: Ryan knows the numbers, but he doesn't know the context or the meaning of those n ...


And sailing cutters. Dude, we're toast!
 
2012-10-12 12:24:07 PM

whistleridge: Allow me to quote a nifty analysis at length:

"Another Ryan claim, this time about reducing the Pentagon budget:

If these cuts go through, our Navy will be the smallest -- the smallest it has been since before World War I.

Politifact address this back when Romney said something similar:

Counting the number of ships or aircraft is not a good measurement of defense strength because their capabilities have increased dramatically in recent decades. Romney's comparison "doesn't pass 'the giggle test,' " said William W. Stueck, a historian at the University of Georgia.

Consider what types of naval ships were used in 1916 and 2011. The types of ships active in both years, such as cruisers and destroyers, are outfitted today with far more advanced technology than what was available during World War I. More importantly, the U.S. Navy has 11 aircraft carriers (plus the jets to launch from them), 31 amphibious ships, 14 submarines capable of launching nuclear ballistic missiles and four specialized submarines for launching Cruise missiles -- all categories of vessels that didn't exist in 1916.

Here's another way to put this. What do you think would happen if the U.S. Navy of 2011 fought the U.S. Navy of 1916? Is that a useful comparison? And if the U.S. Navy had to fight any other fleet on planet earth?

This graphic gets at what would happen:"

[i48.tinypic.com image 631x799]

And that's just the decks. That says nothing about the vastly superior planes flying off of those decks, and less than nothing about the millions of man-hours represented by the highly trained pilots, officers, and crews on those vessels. Our Navy could take on every other Navy in the world simultaneously and have a very strong chance of not just winning, but winning easily. Think 07 Patriots or 85 Bears versus the Rhode Island high school All Stars.

This is just one glaring example of a general trend: Ryan knows the numbers, but he doesn't know the context or the meaning of those numbers. Yes, h ...


All that and the biggest problem with the Navy is it's setup for the last war. We need more green-water/brown-water forces for places like the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Mexico instead of a blue water fleet of large ships setup for giant cold water battles on the open ocean.

Hell we could save money and keep converting car carriers
 
2012-10-12 12:24:44 PM
The purpose of a fact-check should be to identify every single lie or half-truth that an individual says. It should not be "balanced"; it should be accurate.
 
2012-10-12 12:25:04 PM
As soon as I saw AP I knew it would be a bullshiat analysis. And I was right.
 
2012-10-12 12:27:03 PM

shotglasss: As soon as I saw AP I knew it would be a bullshiat analysis. And I was right.


Oh what a shock, a bare assertion from you without anything to back it up. That's new.
 
2012-10-12 12:31:06 PM

zedster: We need more green-water/brown-water forces


we could always just tone it down on the spicy foods
 
2012-10-12 12:33:52 PM
RYAN: "There were requests for more security."


And the republican controlled House voted those requests down by cutting their budget.
 
Displayed 50 of 122 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