Lyin' Ryan: Sub 3:00 Marathon

[Anonymous]

I like the phrasing "stints in McDonalds..." so if he spent 6 weeks one summer in high school working there that makes him one of the working class or whatever. Half my friends painted houses during college summers, but what's the point?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:"In an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt last week, Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan said he's run a sub-3:00 marathon."

"Runner's World checked 11 years of results for Grandma's Marathon, from 1988 through 1998, and found a finisher in the 1990 race by the name of Paul D. Ryan, 20, of Minneapolis."

"The finishing time listed was 4 hours, 1 minute and 25 seconds."

http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/08/31/paul-ryan-says-hes-run-sub-300-marathon/

Is it a big deal that Paul Ryan claimed to have run a marathon more than an hour faster than he actually did? No, if that was the only lie he has told recently, it wouldn't be a big deal. But, after the whoppers he told during his nomination speech, this guy is starting to look pathological.

So, Jeff, does this mean you're voting for Obama? I recall you posted about a year ago that Obama would not get your vote again!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:"In an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt last week, Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan said he's run a sub-3:00 marathon."

"Runner's World checked 11 years of results for Grandma's Marathon, from 1988 through 1998, and found a finisher in the 1990 race by the name of Paul D. Ryan, 20, of Minneapolis."

"The finishing time listed was 4 hours, 1 minute and 25 seconds."

http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/08/31/paul-ryan-says-hes-run-sub-300-marathon/

Is it a big deal that Paul Ryan claimed to have run a marathon more than an hour faster than he actually did? No, if that was the only lie he has told recently, it wouldn't be a big deal. But, after the whoppers he told during his nomination speech, this guy is starting to look pathological.

So, Jeff, does this mean you're voting for Obama? I recall you posted about a year ago that Obama would not get your vote again!

No. I'll vote for either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:"In an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt last week, Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan said he's run a sub-3:00 marathon."

"Runner's World checked 11 years of results for Grandma's Marathon, from 1988 through 1998, and found a finisher in the 1990 race by the name of Paul D. Ryan, 20, of Minneapolis."

"The finishing time listed was 4 hours, 1 minute and 25 seconds."

http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/08/31/paul-ryan-says-hes-run-sub-300-marathon/

Is it a big deal that Paul Ryan claimed to have run a marathon more than an hour faster than he actually did? No, if that was the only lie he has told recently, it wouldn't be a big deal. But, after the whoppers he told during his nomination speech, this guy is starting to look pathological.

So, Jeff, does this mean you're voting for Obama? I recall you posted about a year ago that Obama would not get your vote again!

No. I'll vote for either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson.

I understand the principle, but you live in DC. If you lived in VA I would have to say that a vote for Stein or Johnson is a vote for decades of scary Supreme Court decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Veteran Marathon runner, in the age 70+ class. I have completed both NY and Boston, in sub 4:45 times. Let me assure you that anyone misrepresenting their finishing time is regarded as the lowest of the low. People who do that are regarded as cheating, low life, slime balls. There is a unwritten honor code amoung athletes and lying about your accomplishments is just about the worst of the worst. You'll never hear a runner round off their time, we're usually excruciatingly boring to listen to, we're exact, talking about our times to the tenth of a second.

I couldn't have said it any better. Running is a purist sport. It's about not taking short cuts, giving it your best and tipping your hat to your fellow runners -- whether they finish ahead of you or not. It's a blacklisting offense to lie about your time.

Fine but I don't t think losing the vote of marathon runners will really sway an election. Not a lot of people outside your sphere care, and certainly don't care as much as you do. Just like Biden saying he's a good golfer (claims a handicap of 6 but no one really believes that). It seems to matter only to golf purists. And if you throw out from the next election all the people who know their golf handicap and think Biden lies about it, I don't think the Obama/Biden ticket will suffer much.

It's not about winning marathon runners' votes.

It's about revealing more of the character of this repulsive, phony, pathologically lying charlatan Ryan, as he proves he is so completely unworthy of any higher office (maybe any office).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the poster who said completing a marathon is a significant life event. A sub three hour marathon would make you an elite runner. Four hours is still impressive. But regardless, you never forget your time and it's a really, really weird thing to lie about. This added to all the lies in his speech make me think he's a compulsive liar.

Lyin' Ryan.

Sure, competing a marathon is a significant life event and something to be proud of. but is is POSSIBLE that when you've been elected to Congress, are widely known on the political stage, and are nominated to run for vice president before you turn 45 you might not think it is the most important detail in your life? again, is it possible that he has different priorities about what's important in his life than you do about what's important in yours? IT WAS 20 YEARS AGO. whether you like him or not, he has done a lot more important things since then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the poster who said completing a marathon is a significant life event. A sub three hour marathon would make you an elite runner. Four hours is still impressive. But regardless, you never forget your time and it's a really, really weird thing to lie about. This added to all the lies in his speech make me think he's a compulsive liar.

Lyin' Ryan.

Sure, competing a marathon is a significant life event and something to be proud of. but is is POSSIBLE that when you've been elected to Congress, are widely known on the political stage, and are nominated to run for vice president before you turn 45 you might not think it is the most important detail in your life? again, is it possible that he has different priorities about what's important in his life than you do about what's important in yours? IT WAS 20 YEARS AGO. whether you like him or not, he has done a lot more important things since then.

He has done more important things than run a marathon. But there is nothing inconsequential about lying. When giving the most important speech of his life, he couldn't resist fattening it up with lies. If you've got a good argument to make, you don't need to lie. And if Obama had lied about his marathon time, the faux, right-wing outrage machine would be working overtime...for weeks.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, cause politicians never exaggerate or have their way with the truth or half truths. Than never happens. It's such a noble profession and when a politician speaks, I know it to be Gospel.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, cause politicians never exaggerate or have their way with the truth or half truths. Than never happens. It's such a noble profession and when a politician speaks, I know it to be Gospel.

Politicians routinely try to spin things to their advantage. This includes stretching the truth, not providing the full story, leaving out context, etc. But, Romney/Ryan seem to have taken this to a whole new level. Ryan's convention speech alone is a mastery of deception. Can you point to a similar speech that remotely compares? If someone had told you that a major American political party would select as a central theme of its nominating convention an out-of-context quote, would you have believed them?

As has been said several times in this thread, if Romney/Ryan had something factual on which to run, they would not have to engage in deception of epic proportions. This is not business as usual, this is a whole new ballgame for deception.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, cause politicians never exaggerate or have their way with the truth or half truths. Than never happens. It's such a noble profession and when a politician speaks, I know it to be Gospel.

Politicians routinely try to spin things to their advantage. This includes stretching the truth, not providing the full story, leaving out context, etc. But, Romney/Ryan seem to have taken this to a whole new level. Ryan's convention speech alone is a mastery of deception. Can you point to a similar speech that remotely compares? If someone had told you that a major American political party would select as a central theme of its nominating convention an out-of-context quote, would you have believed them?

As has been said several times in this thread, if Romney/Ryan had something factual on which to run, they would not have to engage in deception of epic proportions. This is not business as usual, this is a whole new ballgame for deception.

We can disagree, right? I don't like it, I'm not defending it, I don't think it's right, I do think it's the same old crapolla. The dems just get irate when the republicans are better at it.

[Anonymous]

Hillary escaped sniper fire.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, cause politicians never exaggerate or have their way with the truth or half truths. Than never happens. It's such a noble profession and when a politician speaks, I know it to be Gospel.

Politicians routinely try to spin things to their advantage. This includes stretching the truth, not providing the full story, leaving out context, etc. But, Romney/Ryan seem to have taken this to a whole new level. Ryan's convention speech alone is a mastery of deception. Can you point to a similar speech that remotely compares? If someone had told you that a major American political party would select as a central theme of its nominating convention an out-of-context quote, would you have believed them?

As has been said several times in this thread, if Romney/Ryan had something factual on which to run, they would not have to engage in deception of epic proportions. This is not business as usual, this is a whole new ballgame for deception.

We can disagree, right? I don't like it, I'm not defending it, I don't think it's right, I do think it's the same old crapolla. The dems just get irate when the republicans are better at it.

Yes, of course we can disagree. But, can you cite any Democratic deception that is anywhere comparable? As for Hillary, that is the more typical type of exaggeration we expect from politicians and she certainly paid the price for it. If the Democrats devote an entire night of their convention to the theme that Romney likes to fire people, maybe you will have a case. But, right now, I think the Republicans are in unchartered territory.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, cause politicians never exaggerate or have their way with the truth or half truths. Than never happens. It's such a noble profession and when a politician speaks, I know it to be Gospel.

Politicians routinely try to spin things to their advantage. This includes stretching the truth, not providing the full story, leaving out context, etc. But, Romney/Ryan seem to have taken this to a whole new level. Ryan's convention speech alone is a mastery of deception. Can you point to a similar speech that remotely compares? If someone had told you that a major American political party would select as a central theme of its nominating convention an out-of-context quote, would you have believed them?

As has been said several times in this thread, if Romney/Ryan had something factual on which to run, they would not have to engage in deception of epic proportions. This is not business as usual, this is a whole new ballgame for deception.

We can disagree, right? I don't like it, I'm not defending it, I don't think it's right, I do think it's the same old crapolla. The dems just get irate when the republicans are better at it.

Yes, of course we can disagree. But, can you cite any Democratic deception that is anywhere comparable? As for Hillary, that is the more typical type of exaggeration we expect from politicians and she certainly paid the price for it. If the Democrats devote an entire night of their convention to the theme that Romney likes to fire people, maybe you will have a case. But, right now, I think the Republicans are in unchartered territory.

Again, it's because the Republicans are better at it than the Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Spinning is one thing and a natural for politics. When one bases their acceptance speech on lies, runs away from his prior political stances/positions with lies and then lies about a marathon time, which a meaningless political event, one has to question the pathology of his inability to speak the truth. We seek a bare modicum of integrity from our leaders. I don't believe Lyin Ryan meets that standard and his lies are an insult to my intelligence

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, cause politicians never exaggerate or have their way with the truth or half truths. Than never happens. It's such a noble profession and when a politician speaks, I know it to be Gospel.

Politicians routinely try to spin things to their advantage. This includes stretching the truth, not providing the full story, leaving out context, etc. But, Romney/Ryan seem to have taken this to a whole new level. Ryan's convention speech alone is a mastery of deception. Can you point to a similar speech that remotely compares? If someone had told you that a major American political party would select as a central theme of its nominating convention an out-of-context quote, would you have believed them?

As has been said several times in this thread, if Romney/Ryan had something factual on which to run, they would not have to engage in deception of epic proportions. This is not business as usual, this is a whole new ballgame for deception.

We can disagree, right? I don't like it, I'm not defending it, I don't think it's right, I do think it's the same old crapolla. The dems just get irate when the republicans are better at it.

Yes, of course we can disagree. But, can you cite any Democratic deception that is anywhere comparable? As for Hillary, that is the more typical type of exaggeration we expect from politicians and she certainly paid the price for it. If the Democrats devote an entire night of their convention to the theme that Romney likes to fire people, maybe you will have a case. But, right now, I think the Republicans are in unchartered territory.

Again, it's because the Republicans are better at it than the Democrats.

Again, you have failed to cite anything the Democrats have done that is comparable. Perhaps, in your mind, "more blatant" or "greater scale" translate automatically into "better". In that case, our disagreement would be over your definition of words.