Anonymous wrote:Cute quote-cropping.
Are you old enough to remember a convention centered on a Wendy's slogan? If so I'm sure you'd distinguish that as all in good fun and funny. But yeah, I think 99% of politicians are cut from the same cloth.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those in quotes are your words. I said "it's the same old crapolla."

Possibly, you are on a mission to make me harm myself my banging my head against a cement wall. But, assuming you are not, the phrase "same old crapolla" implies that both sides have done the same. Here are three deceptions by the Republicans. Can you provide equal (or "the same") sort of deceptions from the Democrats:

1) An entire night of the nominating convention based on an out of context quote. This included selective editing of a video that was repeatedly shown;

2) A national advertising campaign approved by Romney that makes the patently false claim that Obama gutted the work requirements for welfare; and

3) Attacks on Obama for cutting $800 Billion from Medicare when, in fact, Obama slows future growth without service reductions, Ryan's budget included the exact same cuts, and Romney/Ryan plan to end Medicare as a guaranteed benefits program and replace it with vouchers.

If these examples are simply the "same old crapolla", you should easily be able to provide equivalent examples by Democrats. If you can't find examples, then, obviously, its not simply the same old crapolla.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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.

But what's odd about Ryan is how far he distorts the truth at moments when a zillion Twitter followers can correct him. Why would he be so clueless as to do that? That's what I don't get.

Amen to this. For example, he blames Obama for a GM plant's closure that closed before he became president. It's easy to fact check this and, low and behold, his own office announced its closure in October. So he's caught in a lie. Compounding the issue is that this claim also serves as a reminder to voters that Ryan actually voted against the auto rescue. So, in highly-prepared and vetted remarks, he makes a terrible unforced error. No wonder these guys are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Anonymous 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.

But what's odd about Ryan is how far he distorts the truth at moments when a zillion Twitter followers can correct him. Why would he be so clueless as to do that? That's what I don't get.

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.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jill Stein I could understand voting for, but Gary Johnson seems like a Tea Partier (who would slash every govt program) with liberal social views. Is he really any different from Ron Paul? I am just curious.

I don't think there is much difference between Johnson and Paul. But, I could be convinced to vote for Paul also if I was sure he wouldn't win. It's good to have people who will speak out in support of civil liberties and a non-interventionist foreign policy. But, I'll probably end up voting for Stein. I just don't know that much about her at this point.

Anonymous wrote:
Jill Stein I could understand voting for, but Gary Johnson seems like a Tea Partier (who would slash every govt program) with liberal social views. Is he really any different from Ron Paul? I am just curious.

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.

Jill Stein I could understand voting for, but Gary Johnson seems like a Tea Partier (who would slash every govt program) with liberal social views. Is he really any different from Ron Paul? I am just curious.

Anonymous wrote:Those in quotes are your words. I said "it's the same old crapolla."

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.

Anonymous wrote: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

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.

jsteele wrote:

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.