"Larger truth". It seems these people took 1984 as a guide for how to run the country."Well, maybe the details are wrong, but that's okay because we're telling a "larger truth',"....
Ryan's double-speak..
-
Grim Reaper
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
Show examples from his articles which prove "lying and hate-mongering".Lord Jim wrote:Fixed.rubato wrote:Equating Limbaugh and Coulter with Krugman is astonishingly ignorant.
Two of them have been caught lying and hate-mongering on a constant basis. The other one is a Nobel-prize winning liar and hate monger.
yrs,
rubato
Twy. Then twy to show why it is that conservative states produce the highest percentages of teen pregnancy in white, black and hispanic populations. And Liberal states produce the lowest levels.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
It's certainly symptomatic of an extraordinary level of cynical confidence that being dishonest doesn't matter, even when you're caught red-handed..."Larger truth". It seems these people took 1984 as a guide for how to run the country.
The really sad thing is, that there's a lot of evidence that this confidence is well placed....
This is something I want to explore in greater depth in the thread I mentioned earlier that I plan to start sometime over the weekend.
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
So nothing about Krugman's "lying and hate-mongering" so far?
A big zero?
Nothing?
yrs,
rubato
A big zero?
Nothing?
yrs,
rubato
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
Here is Krugman's latest column. Show us the lying? You pathetic Liar?
________________
Advertise on NYTimes.com
Op-Ed Columnist
The Medicare Killers
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 30, 2012 556 Comments
Paul Ryan’s speech Wednesday night may have accomplished one good thing: It finally may have dispelled the myth that he is a Serious, Honest Conservative. Indeed, Mr. Ryan’s brazen dishonesty left even his critics breathless.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugman
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
Readers’ Comments
Some of his fibs were trivial but telling, like his suggestion that President Obama is responsible for a closed auto plant in his hometown, even though the plant closed before Mr. Obama took office. Others were infuriating, like his sanctimonious declaration that “the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves.” This from a man proposing savage cuts in Medicaid, which would cause tens of millions of vulnerable Americans to lose health coverage.
And Mr. Ryan — who has proposed $4.3 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade, versus only about $1.7 trillion in specific spending cuts — is still posing as a deficit hawk.
But Mr. Ryan’s big lie — and, yes, it deserves that designation — was his claim that “a Romney-Ryan administration will protect and strengthen Medicare.” Actually, it would kill the program.
Before I get there, let me just mention that Mr. Ryan has now gone all-in on the party line that the president’s plan to trim Medicare expenses by around $700 billion over the next decade — savings achieved by paying less to insurance companies and hospitals, not by reducing benefits — is a terrible, terrible thing. Yet, just a few days ago, Mr. Ryan was still touting his own budget plan, which included those very same savings.
But back to the big lie. The Republican Party is now firmly committed to replacing Medicare with what we might call Vouchercare. The government would no longer pay your major medical bills; instead, it would give you a voucher that could be applied to the purchase of private insurance. And, if the voucher proved insufficient to buy decent coverage, hey, that would be your problem.
Moreover, the vouchers almost certainly would be inadequate; their value would be set by a formula taking no account of likely increases in health care costs.
Why would anyone think that this was a good idea? The G.O.P. platform says that it “will empower millions of seniors to control their personal health care decisions.” Indeed. Because those of us too young for Medicare just feel so personally empowered, you know, when dealing with insurance companies.
Still, wouldn’t private insurers reduce costs through the magic of the marketplace? No. All, and I mean all, the evidence says that public systems like Medicare and Medicaid, which have less bureaucracy than private insurers (if you can’t believe this, you’ve never had to deal with an insurance company) and greater bargaining power, are better than the private sector at controlling costs.
I know this flies in the face of free-market dogma, but it’s just a fact. You can see this fact in the history of Medicare Advantage, which is run through private insurers and has consistently had higher costs than traditional Medicare. You can see it from comparisons between Medicaid and private insurance: Medicaid costs much less. And you can see it in international comparisons: The United States has the most privatized health system in the advanced world and, by far, the highest health costs.
So Vouchercare would mean higher costs and lower benefits for seniors. Over time, the Republican plan wouldn’t just end Medicare as we know it, it would kill the thing Medicare is supposed to provide: universal access to essential care. Seniors who couldn’t afford to top up their vouchers with a lot of additional money would just be out of luck.
Still, the G.O.P. promises to maintain Medicare as we know it for those currently over 55. Should everyone born before 1957 feel safe? Again, no.
For one thing, repeal of Obamacare would cause older Americans to lose a number of significant benefits that the law provides, including the way it closes the “doughnut hole” in drug coverage and the way it protects early retirees.
Beyond that, the promise of unchanged benefits for Americans of a certain age just isn’t credible. Think about the political dynamics that would arise once someone born in 1956 still received full Medicare while someone born in 1959 couldn’t afford decent coverage. Do you really think that would be a stable situation? For sure, it would unleash political warfare between the cohorts — and the odds are high that older cohorts would soon find their alleged guarantees snatched away.
The question now is whether voters will understand what’s really going on (which depends to a large extent on whether the news media do their jobs). Mr. Ryan and his party are betting that they can bluster their way through this, pretending that they are the real defenders of Medicare even as they work to kill it. Will they get away with it?
------------------------
yrs,
rubato
________________
Advertise on NYTimes.com
Op-Ed Columnist
The Medicare Killers
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 30, 2012 556 Comments
Paul Ryan’s speech Wednesday night may have accomplished one good thing: It finally may have dispelled the myth that he is a Serious, Honest Conservative. Indeed, Mr. Ryan’s brazen dishonesty left even his critics breathless.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugman
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
Readers’ Comments
Some of his fibs were trivial but telling, like his suggestion that President Obama is responsible for a closed auto plant in his hometown, even though the plant closed before Mr. Obama took office. Others were infuriating, like his sanctimonious declaration that “the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves.” This from a man proposing savage cuts in Medicaid, which would cause tens of millions of vulnerable Americans to lose health coverage.
And Mr. Ryan — who has proposed $4.3 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade, versus only about $1.7 trillion in specific spending cuts — is still posing as a deficit hawk.
But Mr. Ryan’s big lie — and, yes, it deserves that designation — was his claim that “a Romney-Ryan administration will protect and strengthen Medicare.” Actually, it would kill the program.
Before I get there, let me just mention that Mr. Ryan has now gone all-in on the party line that the president’s plan to trim Medicare expenses by around $700 billion over the next decade — savings achieved by paying less to insurance companies and hospitals, not by reducing benefits — is a terrible, terrible thing. Yet, just a few days ago, Mr. Ryan was still touting his own budget plan, which included those very same savings.
But back to the big lie. The Republican Party is now firmly committed to replacing Medicare with what we might call Vouchercare. The government would no longer pay your major medical bills; instead, it would give you a voucher that could be applied to the purchase of private insurance. And, if the voucher proved insufficient to buy decent coverage, hey, that would be your problem.
Moreover, the vouchers almost certainly would be inadequate; their value would be set by a formula taking no account of likely increases in health care costs.
Why would anyone think that this was a good idea? The G.O.P. platform says that it “will empower millions of seniors to control their personal health care decisions.” Indeed. Because those of us too young for Medicare just feel so personally empowered, you know, when dealing with insurance companies.
Still, wouldn’t private insurers reduce costs through the magic of the marketplace? No. All, and I mean all, the evidence says that public systems like Medicare and Medicaid, which have less bureaucracy than private insurers (if you can’t believe this, you’ve never had to deal with an insurance company) and greater bargaining power, are better than the private sector at controlling costs.
I know this flies in the face of free-market dogma, but it’s just a fact. You can see this fact in the history of Medicare Advantage, which is run through private insurers and has consistently had higher costs than traditional Medicare. You can see it from comparisons between Medicaid and private insurance: Medicaid costs much less. And you can see it in international comparisons: The United States has the most privatized health system in the advanced world and, by far, the highest health costs.
So Vouchercare would mean higher costs and lower benefits for seniors. Over time, the Republican plan wouldn’t just end Medicare as we know it, it would kill the thing Medicare is supposed to provide: universal access to essential care. Seniors who couldn’t afford to top up their vouchers with a lot of additional money would just be out of luck.
Still, the G.O.P. promises to maintain Medicare as we know it for those currently over 55. Should everyone born before 1957 feel safe? Again, no.
For one thing, repeal of Obamacare would cause older Americans to lose a number of significant benefits that the law provides, including the way it closes the “doughnut hole” in drug coverage and the way it protects early retirees.
Beyond that, the promise of unchanged benefits for Americans of a certain age just isn’t credible. Think about the political dynamics that would arise once someone born in 1956 still received full Medicare while someone born in 1959 couldn’t afford decent coverage. Do you really think that would be a stable situation? For sure, it would unleash political warfare between the cohorts — and the odds are high that older cohorts would soon find their alleged guarantees snatched away.
The question now is whether voters will understand what’s really going on (which depends to a large extent on whether the news media do their jobs). Mr. Ryan and his party are betting that they can bluster their way through this, pretending that they are the real defenders of Medicare even as they work to kill it. Will they get away with it?
------------------------
yrs,
rubato
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
Paul Krugman Is a Liar: Does the New York Times Care?
By Richard Baehr
Paul Krugman's New York Times column for August 23 on extending the Bush tax cuts is not merely misleading; it is an outright and deliberate fabrication. For more than a decade, Krugman has been writing two columns a week for the New York Times opinion pages. Opinion pieces are designed to express a point of view, but the argument is supposed to be supported by facts.
Krugman is a Princeton economics professor who won a Nobel Prize in Economics. So the alternative explanation for Krugman's column today -- that he is just stupid, and very bad with numbers -- [of course rube, in your case, that explanation works perfectly well]would seem far less likely than that he lies in order to deliberately mislead Times readers and the general public.
Krugman never liked the Bush tax cuts of 2001. The economy was in recession at the time the cuts were passed, and Krugman, who is a Keynesian, generally supports lots of stimulus to address weak economies. However, he prefers massive injections of government spending to tax cuts, and if tax cuts are a part of any stimulus package, he thinks the cuts should not include any tax reductions for wealthy people. The Bush tax cuts included cuts for all taxpayers, and they were set to expire at the end of 2010.
Krugman, who seems utterly unconcerned with deficits today -- he wants much more government spending and an extension of most of the Bush tax cuts -- railed at the Bush tax cuts in 2001 for their impact on the deficit (estimated revenue loss of $1.2 trillion for ten years when passed). He admits in his column today that extending the Bush tax cuts that President Obama wants to continue for another ten years is expensive. Those tax cuts are for individuals earning less than $200,000 a year, or families earning less than $250,000. In his article, Krugman does not provide any numbers for the cost of extending the tax cuts for those earning less than the target amounts. Those tax cuts are by far the biggest share of the cost of extending the Bush 2001 tax cuts. Despite that, Krugman lets loose this whopper in relation to the cost of extending the 2001 tax cuts to the highest earners:
Quite simply, if you take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans and pick the one with the highest income, he is not likely to get a majority of the tax benefit of that group. Far from it.And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But that's the least of it: the policy center's estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he's going to get the majority of that group's tax break.
The article Krugman links to in order to support his conclusion was written by Adam Looney for the purportedly non-partisan Tax Policy Center, a joint effort by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute (about as non-partisan on tax matters as the Cato Institute and Grover Norquist). But even this liberal analysis does not support Krugman's lie. Krugman provides data that the total cost for extending the Bush 2001 tax cuts to the top one tenth of one percent of Americans, the 120,000 with the highest annual incomes, would be $360 billion over ten years. But this number is the result of extending not only the 2001 Bush cuts on income tax rates, but also extending the 2003 tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. This is a common game for Krugman -- mix and match, and hope nobody notices. In his article, Krugman never mentions the 2003 tax cuts, but instead focuses exclusively on the income tax rates in the 2001 tax cuts.
The Tax Policy Center lays out these numbers for extending the Bush 2001 income tax rate cuts to the top two brackets -- $36 billion a year on average for ten years. But these brackets account for far more than the top 0.1% of earners, the group Krugman singles out. In fact, the group in the 33% and 35% tax brackets impacted by the Obama proposal is twenty times as large -- over two million taxpayers (or as the president commonly states, 2% of all Americans). The Tax Policy Center analysis indicates that extending all the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 would cost $3.7 trillion over ten years. Extending only the tax rate cuts from the 2001 Bush tax cuts would cost $1.57 trillion over ten years -- more than 77% of which, $1.21 billion, would be the cost for extending the 10%, 15%, and 28% rates. The cost of extending the tax cuts for the two top brackets is $360 billion over that period, less than 25% of that total. Part of the $360 billion cost is attributable to the top 0.1%, the 120,000 highest earners. How much? It is not clear from the Tax Policy Center study. But let us assume it is 50% of the total. Then the total cost of extending the 2001 tax cut to the top 0.1% of earners would be just over 10% of the total cost of extending all the tax cuts. So if you take a group of a thousand randomly selected Americans, there is no way that the highest earner in the group would get a majority of the total tax savings from that group.
The Tax Policy Center also estimates that the total cost of extending all the 2001 and 2003 cuts for all taxpayers would be $680 billion more than the cost of just following the Obama recommendations and raising some of the rates. In other words, Obama's proposals call for extending 82% of the $3.7 trillion in tax cuts from these years, at a cost of over $3 trillion to the Treasury. The Tax Policy Center estimates that the top 0.1% would receive an average of $310,000 a year in extra tax cuts over ten years if all 2001 and 2003 cuts were extended. Krugman summarizes this as 120,000 taxpayers receiving on average $3 million over ten years, or $360 billion in total. Again, it does not take a Nobel Prize-winner to see that 360 billion is less than 10% of $3.7 trillion in total tax cuts. So if one were more honest than Krugman, and looked at a thousand randomly selected Americans and picked the highest earner, and looked at his total tax savings over the next ten years from extending all the 2001 and 2003 cuts, the highest-income individual's share would be less than 10% of the total, hardly a majority of the group's tax savings.
I have no problem with the National Tax Center arguing that the cuts for the highest earners are wrong or unfair or too much. At least they provide honest numbers to make their case. But why does Krugman feel the need to lie and argue that the share for his group is more than five times its real share of total tax savings?
A close look at the National Tax Center numbers shows that the biggest costs by far from extending all the tax cuts are for retaining the lower rates for the lowest three tax brackets and for Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) relief. You won't find this in a Paul Krugman column.
Of course, other articles are needed to discuss the fact that lowering tax rates in 2001 was considered deficit expansion, but raising rates in 2011 is considered deficit neutral, or analyzing whether government spending or tax cuts does more to produce economic growth and create jobs. In the real world, any rise in tax rates is anti-stimulative. Krugman has argued for trillions more in stimulus spending (and an enormous increase in deficits and national debt) because the economy remains weak. So his push for raising some tax rates has nothing to do with his concern about deficits, or a concern with the state of the economy and economic growth. It can be explained only by the desire to spread wealth around -- to redistribute.
In any case, the New York Times need to answer for why it continues to allow a serial liar to fill its treasured space on the Op Ed page.
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
and where is the lie? exactly? you have failed again.
weak. very weak.
yrs,
rubato
weak. very weak.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
These people may be able to help you with that rubeand where is the lie? exactly?
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
Of course the biggest way that lumping those three together makes perfect sense is the fact that they are all cynical self promoters who have figured out they can make a great living by tossing fish (in the form of statements that their followers all ready believe) to their unthinking seal-like fans who then bark and clap their flippers in approval....
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
Still a big zero.
I'll help you. To prove the Krugman has lied you have to quote something from a publicly avail. written source and then show evidence that it is untrue and that it is implausible that Krugman did not know it or that he showed a lack of due care in fact checking.
Right?
Until then you are a zero. And Krugman is a widely respected economist with a Clark Medal (predictor of the Nobel and Friedman won one too) and Nobel prize in economics. And so far his reputation for telling the truth is unblemished.
Maybe if you read more? Try subscribing to The Economist?
yrs,
rubato
I'll help you. To prove the Krugman has lied you have to quote something from a publicly avail. written source and then show evidence that it is untrue and that it is implausible that Krugman did not know it or that he showed a lack of due care in fact checking.
Right?
Until then you are a zero. And Krugman is a widely respected economist with a Clark Medal (predictor of the Nobel and Friedman won one too) and Nobel prize in economics. And so far his reputation for telling the truth is unblemished.
Maybe if you read more? Try subscribing to The Economist?
yrs,
rubato
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
Meanwhile, Ryan lies again!
This time its a little inflation of his athletic achievements.
_____________________________-
http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... n-man.html
Friday, August 31, 2012
The (If I Were To Do Any Rounding, It Would Certainly Be To Four Hours, Not Three) Marathon Man
Paul Ryan appears to have inflated his accomplishments as a marathon runner by some margin:
Paul Ryan Says He’s Run Sub-3:00 Marathon: We have some new information on Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan's claim in a radio interview of a sub-3:00 marathon.
A spokesman for the Romney-Ryan campaign e-mailed Runner's World today to say Ryan ran Grandma's Marathon in Duluth, Minnesota, while a college student in 1991.
When asked about Ryan’s finishing time, the spokesman said, "His comments on the [radio] show were the best of his recollection."
Ryan's name does not show up in the 1991 race results provided by Grandma's. 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.
Ryan's middle name is Davis, and he was 20 in 1990. The finishing time listed was 4 hours, 1 minute and 25 seconds.
We are awaiting confirmation from the Ryan camp that the vice presidential nominee is the Paul D. Ryan listed in the race results – and, if he is, whether he ran any other marathons faster than 4:01:25. ...
In the interview, after Ryan told Hewitt that he ran in high school, Hewitt asked if Ryan still runs. Ryan replied, "Yeah, I hurt a disc in my back, so I don't run marathons anymore. I just run ten miles or less." When Hewitt asked Ryan what his personal best is, Ryan replied, "Under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something."
Runner's World has been unable to find any marathon results by Ryan. Requests for more information from Ryan's Washington and Wisconsin offices, and from the Romney-Ryan campaign, have so far gone unanswered. ...
In the interview, after Ryan told Hewitt that he ran in high school, Hewitt asked if Ryan still runs. Ryan replied, "Yeah, I hurt a disc in my back, so I don't run marathons anymore. I just run ten miles or less." When Hewitt asked Ryan what his personal best is, Ryan replied, "Under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something." ...
Nicholas Thompson at the New Yorker follows up:
... I contacted the campaign this evening about the discrepancy. Ryan, through a spokesman, responded that he'd just mixed things up. “The race was more than 20 years ago, but my brother Tobin—who ran Boston last year—reminds me that he is the owner of the fastest marathon in the family and has never himself ran a sub-three. If I were to do any rounding, it would certainly be to four hours, not three. He gave me a good ribbing over this at dinner tonight." ...
Paul Krugman earlier today:
... I remember the 2000 campaign, when Al Gore was constantly hounded by claims of fibbing on trivial issues — claims that, by the way, were all, as far as I could tell, fabricated. These alleged fibs supposedly showed some deep defect in his character. So if Ryan is making false claims about his physical prowess, this is absolutely fair game. ...
Ryan's budget claims, and many of his claims about Obama are just as outlandish, so it does seem to fit with his character.
... "
_______________________
Now little LJ? The lie is that he SAID he ran a sub-3 hour marathon where the evidence is that he ran a 4 hours plus marathon. See how that works? It is implausible except for someone who lies habitually to himself to mis-remember a time by more than one hour.
But habitual lying is a Republican trait.
yrs,
rubato
This time its a little inflation of his athletic achievements.
_____________________________-
http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... n-man.html
Friday, August 31, 2012
The (If I Were To Do Any Rounding, It Would Certainly Be To Four Hours, Not Three) Marathon Man
Paul Ryan appears to have inflated his accomplishments as a marathon runner by some margin:
Paul Ryan Says He’s Run Sub-3:00 Marathon: We have some new information on Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan's claim in a radio interview of a sub-3:00 marathon.
A spokesman for the Romney-Ryan campaign e-mailed Runner's World today to say Ryan ran Grandma's Marathon in Duluth, Minnesota, while a college student in 1991.
When asked about Ryan’s finishing time, the spokesman said, "His comments on the [radio] show were the best of his recollection."
Ryan's name does not show up in the 1991 race results provided by Grandma's. 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.
Ryan's middle name is Davis, and he was 20 in 1990. The finishing time listed was 4 hours, 1 minute and 25 seconds.
We are awaiting confirmation from the Ryan camp that the vice presidential nominee is the Paul D. Ryan listed in the race results – and, if he is, whether he ran any other marathons faster than 4:01:25. ...
In the interview, after Ryan told Hewitt that he ran in high school, Hewitt asked if Ryan still runs. Ryan replied, "Yeah, I hurt a disc in my back, so I don't run marathons anymore. I just run ten miles or less." When Hewitt asked Ryan what his personal best is, Ryan replied, "Under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something."
Runner's World has been unable to find any marathon results by Ryan. Requests for more information from Ryan's Washington and Wisconsin offices, and from the Romney-Ryan campaign, have so far gone unanswered. ...
In the interview, after Ryan told Hewitt that he ran in high school, Hewitt asked if Ryan still runs. Ryan replied, "Yeah, I hurt a disc in my back, so I don't run marathons anymore. I just run ten miles or less." When Hewitt asked Ryan what his personal best is, Ryan replied, "Under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something." ...
Nicholas Thompson at the New Yorker follows up:
... I contacted the campaign this evening about the discrepancy. Ryan, through a spokesman, responded that he'd just mixed things up. “The race was more than 20 years ago, but my brother Tobin—who ran Boston last year—reminds me that he is the owner of the fastest marathon in the family and has never himself ran a sub-three. If I were to do any rounding, it would certainly be to four hours, not three. He gave me a good ribbing over this at dinner tonight." ...
Paul Krugman earlier today:
... I remember the 2000 campaign, when Al Gore was constantly hounded by claims of fibbing on trivial issues — claims that, by the way, were all, as far as I could tell, fabricated. These alleged fibs supposedly showed some deep defect in his character. So if Ryan is making false claims about his physical prowess, this is absolutely fair game. ...
Ryan's budget claims, and many of his claims about Obama are just as outlandish, so it does seem to fit with his character.
... "
_______________________
Now little LJ? The lie is that he SAID he ran a sub-3 hour marathon where the evidence is that he ran a 4 hours plus marathon. See how that works? It is implausible except for someone who lies habitually to himself to mis-remember a time by more than one hour.
But habitual lying is a Republican trait.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
Oh I see, so you're going with the "he is just stupid, and very bad with numbers" theory...I'll help you. To prove the Krugman has lied you have to quote something from a publicly avail. written source and then show evidence that it is untrue and that it is implausible that Krugman did not know it or that he showed a lack of due care in fact checking.
(Understandable I suppose, since that's your excuse.)
Either that or you simply did not understand the article....(certainly wouldn't be the first time for that)
'Fraid I can't help you there; I simply do not have patience to aid someone with reading comprehension issues as severe as yours....I've tried a number of times, and I don't have any interest in pulling out any more of my hair....
Try that link I provided; or see if you can find someone who cares enough to read and explain it to you.
Or if there is no one who falls into that category, hire a high school sophomore to help you out.
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
If the link provides evidence of a lie you must write out what the lie is or highlight it in the text and then show, as I said, that the statement was false, either a deliberate attempt to deceive or a careless disregard for the truth. The lie must be in his public writings se we can see if he really said that. So far you are a zero. I've shown Ryan's lies in this way. And below I will show examples of (a very small percentage of) Coulter's nearly continual lying.
Posting a link and saying "its somewhere in there" gets you a zero.
yrs,
rubato
Posting a link and saying "its somewhere in there" gets you a zero.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
See how this works? Coulters writing is referenced specifically and they even give page numbers so someone can check and prove that she actually did write that. Then the real facts are researched and cited (although some are general and not specific citations).
_________________________
* Liberals' purported "praise[]" for hoaxers for staging hate crimes. Coulter claims that two black students who engaged in a hoax by hanging a black doll from a noose were "immediately praised" by "liberals," but the sources she cites do not support this claim.
* On Page 15, Coulter writes, "Fox News has never been caught promoting a fraud -- unlike CBS (Bush National Guard story), ABC (tobacco industry report), NBC (exploding GM trucks), CNN (Tailwind), and MSNBC (Keith Olbermann)." In fact, as Media Matters has documented, on several occasions since 2004, Fox News has issued a retraction and apology for airing a news report that repeated false information, one of which led Fox News' Vice President for News John Moody to reportedly warn staff in January 2007 that "seeing an item on a website does not mean it is right. Nor does it mean it is ready for air on FNC."
* Coulter advances several falsehoods about Kerry in defending the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an organization which spread numerous falsehoods and smears regarding Kerry's military record in the six months leading up to the 2004 presidential election.
* Coulter falsely claims that "the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth weren't forced to retract any part of their story. [Page 100]" In fact, the organization altered its website's account of the December 2, 1968, mission for which the U.S. Navy awarded Kerry his first Purple Heart three days after Media Matters noted that the account was inconsistent with that of the group's star witness -- retired Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr., who claims he was the commander on that mission.
* Coulter also suggests that the media ignored the allegations of the Swift Boat Veterans, writing, "The only way they could have gotten less attention would have been to be interviewed on Air America Radio." By the time the Swift Boat story had played out, CNN, chasing after ratings leader Fox News, found time to mention the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth --hereafter, Swifties -- in nearly 300 separate news segments, while more than 100 New York Times articles and columns made mention of the Swifties. And during one overheated 12-day span in late August, the Washington Post mentioned the Swifties in page 1 stories on Aug. 19, 20, 21 (two separate articles), 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31.
* Coulter also falsely suggests that no witnesses supported Kerry's account that his convoy came under enemy fire during the March 13, 1969, actions for which he was awarded the Bronze Star.
* Coulter writes that Kerry "carrie[d] a home-movie camera to war in order to reenact combat scenes and tape fake interviews with himself" during his tour in Vietnam [Page 100]. Coulter was repeating a discredited charge previously made by Internet gossip Matt Drudge and subsequently echoed by The New York Times and numerous cable and radio outlets during the 2004 presidential election.
* Coulter devotes four pages of Guilty [173-176] to discussing her false assertion that "Obama himself compared Palin to a pig and then denied doing so." In fact, Obama's September 9, 2008, statement, "you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig," did not refer to Palin, but rather to how a "list" of Sen. John McCain's policies were, according to Obama, no different from President Bush's. Obama did not mention Palin in at least the 65 words preceding his "lipstick on a pig" comment, as Media Matters noted. Moreover, the expression "lipstick on a pig" is common political rhetoric -- Obama had reportedly used the expression in the past, and McCain used it in 2007 in reference to Sen. Hillary Clinton's health-care proposal.
... "
___________________________
See? Coulter is a liar. She lies all the time about everything. No one ought to listen to anything she ever says.
Krugman is a respected economist who writes intelligently and has been a better predictor of the outcomes of economic policies than any one or group in the Republican party.
yrs,
rubato
_________________________
* Liberals' purported "praise[]" for hoaxers for staging hate crimes. Coulter claims that two black students who engaged in a hoax by hanging a black doll from a noose were "immediately praised" by "liberals," but the sources she cites do not support this claim.
* On Page 15, Coulter writes, "Fox News has never been caught promoting a fraud -- unlike CBS (Bush National Guard story), ABC (tobacco industry report), NBC (exploding GM trucks), CNN (Tailwind), and MSNBC (Keith Olbermann)." In fact, as Media Matters has documented, on several occasions since 2004, Fox News has issued a retraction and apology for airing a news report that repeated false information, one of which led Fox News' Vice President for News John Moody to reportedly warn staff in January 2007 that "seeing an item on a website does not mean it is right. Nor does it mean it is ready for air on FNC."
* Coulter advances several falsehoods about Kerry in defending the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an organization which spread numerous falsehoods and smears regarding Kerry's military record in the six months leading up to the 2004 presidential election.
* Coulter falsely claims that "the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth weren't forced to retract any part of their story. [Page 100]" In fact, the organization altered its website's account of the December 2, 1968, mission for which the U.S. Navy awarded Kerry his first Purple Heart three days after Media Matters noted that the account was inconsistent with that of the group's star witness -- retired Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr., who claims he was the commander on that mission.
* Coulter also suggests that the media ignored the allegations of the Swift Boat Veterans, writing, "The only way they could have gotten less attention would have been to be interviewed on Air America Radio." By the time the Swift Boat story had played out, CNN, chasing after ratings leader Fox News, found time to mention the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth --hereafter, Swifties -- in nearly 300 separate news segments, while more than 100 New York Times articles and columns made mention of the Swifties. And during one overheated 12-day span in late August, the Washington Post mentioned the Swifties in page 1 stories on Aug. 19, 20, 21 (two separate articles), 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31.
* Coulter also falsely suggests that no witnesses supported Kerry's account that his convoy came under enemy fire during the March 13, 1969, actions for which he was awarded the Bronze Star.
* Coulter writes that Kerry "carrie[d] a home-movie camera to war in order to reenact combat scenes and tape fake interviews with himself" during his tour in Vietnam [Page 100]. Coulter was repeating a discredited charge previously made by Internet gossip Matt Drudge and subsequently echoed by The New York Times and numerous cable and radio outlets during the 2004 presidential election.
* Coulter devotes four pages of Guilty [173-176] to discussing her false assertion that "Obama himself compared Palin to a pig and then denied doing so." In fact, Obama's September 9, 2008, statement, "you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig," did not refer to Palin, but rather to how a "list" of Sen. John McCain's policies were, according to Obama, no different from President Bush's. Obama did not mention Palin in at least the 65 words preceding his "lipstick on a pig" comment, as Media Matters noted. Moreover, the expression "lipstick on a pig" is common political rhetoric -- Obama had reportedly used the expression in the past, and McCain used it in 2007 in reference to Sen. Hillary Clinton's health-care proposal.
... "
___________________________
See? Coulter is a liar. She lies all the time about everything. No one ought to listen to anything she ever says.
Krugman is a respected economist who writes intelligently and has been a better predictor of the outcomes of economic policies than any one or group in the Republican party.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
LMAO 
Just as I thought, you can't read or understand the article....
Everything you're asking me to provide, is in the article if you could read and understand it....
Just as I thought, you can't read or understand the article....
Why? It's already written out....you must write out
Why? You're not capable of reading something unless it's highlighted? Do you need pictures too?or highlight it
Everything you're asking me to provide, is in the article if you could read and understand it....
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
Still a zero? Too bad. You know that no one really expects anything of value from you, right?
But on to Rush Limbaugh!
He doesn't even try to tell plausible lies anymore. He's got idiots like LJ (who can't prove that Krugman has lied even once, so far). Of course Limbaugh has the technique of alleging something and then saying "i'm not really suggesting that" down cold:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 ... _ref=media
"...
Rush Limbaugh had a typically unique take on the threat of Tropical Storm Isaac during his Monday show, appearing to suggest that the Obama administration had tampered with the forecasts of the storm to hurt the Republicans.
The tropical storm is threatening to turn into a hurricane just as it hits New Orleans, bringing up grim memories of Hurricane Katrina and making the GOP worry about how its convention in Tampa will be affected. Monday's proceedings already had to be canceled.
To hear Limbaugh tell it, though, that was the point. "With none of this am I alleging conspiracy," he said on Monday. It sure sounded like he was alleging one, though.
He went on to note that the Hurricane Center that monitors such things is "the regime," as he put it. "It's the government. It's Obama."
Limbaugh said that he grew suspicious because he noticed that the forecast for Isaac had shifted dramatically away from Florida soon after the Republicans canceled the first day of the convention.
"What could be better for the Democrats than the Republicans to cancel a day of this?" he said. "...I'm alleging no conspiracy. I'm just telling you, folks, when you put this all together in this timeline, I'm telling you, it's unbelievable!"
... "
_____________________________
yrs,
rubato
But on to Rush Limbaugh!
He doesn't even try to tell plausible lies anymore. He's got idiots like LJ (who can't prove that Krugman has lied even once, so far). Of course Limbaugh has the technique of alleging something and then saying "i'm not really suggesting that" down cold:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 ... _ref=media
"...
Rush Limbaugh had a typically unique take on the threat of Tropical Storm Isaac during his Monday show, appearing to suggest that the Obama administration had tampered with the forecasts of the storm to hurt the Republicans.
The tropical storm is threatening to turn into a hurricane just as it hits New Orleans, bringing up grim memories of Hurricane Katrina and making the GOP worry about how its convention in Tampa will be affected. Monday's proceedings already had to be canceled.
To hear Limbaugh tell it, though, that was the point. "With none of this am I alleging conspiracy," he said on Monday. It sure sounded like he was alleging one, though.
He went on to note that the Hurricane Center that monitors such things is "the regime," as he put it. "It's the government. It's Obama."
Limbaugh said that he grew suspicious because he noticed that the forecast for Isaac had shifted dramatically away from Florida soon after the Republicans canceled the first day of the convention.
"What could be better for the Democrats than the Republicans to cancel a day of this?" he said. "...I'm alleging no conspiracy. I'm just telling you, folks, when you put this all together in this timeline, I'm telling you, it's unbelievable!"
... "
_____________________________
yrs,
rubato
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
I've seen proof a number of times that Noam Chomsky is either dishonest or recklessly careless with the truth.
But no evidence that Krugman lies or that he is in any way comparable to Coulter and Limbaugh.
And back to Romney Lies!
http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/how-romn ... 19825.html
___________________
How Romney Keeps Lying Through His Big White Teeth
Politics | Robert Reich | September 1, 2012 2:00 pm
by Robert Reich
“We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” says Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster.
A half dozen fact-checking organizations and websites have refuted Romney’s claims that Obama removed the work requirement from the welfare law and will cut Medicare benefits by $716 billion.
Last Sunday’s New York Times even reported on its front page that Romney has been “falsely charging” President Obama with removing the work requirement. Those are strong words from the venerable Times. Yet Romney is still making the false charge. Ads containing it continue to be aired.
Presumably the Romney campaign continues its false claims because they’re effective. But this raises a more basic question: How can they remain effective when they’ve been so overwhelmingly discredited by the media?
The answer is the Republican Party has developed three means of bypassing the mainstream media and its fact-checkers.
The first is by repeating big lies so often in TV spots – financed by a mountain of campaign money – that the public can no longer recall (if it ever knew) that the mainstream media and its fact-checkers have found them to be lies.
A series of court decisions and regulatory changes, beginning with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizen’s United vs. Federal Election Commission, opened the floodgates to big money. Fully a quarter of the $350 million amassed by Super PACs through the end of July came from just ten donors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that tracks such spending.
...... "
__________________________
So far we have big fat "pants on fire" lies from Romney, Ryan, Coulter and Limbaugh (although the latter hides behind the fact that he lies up front and loud at the beginning of a tirade and then later on tries to deny it).
rubato
4 Liars Exposed with many examples given.
LJ
0 (that's the number -zero- from Arabic صفر, ṣafira = "it was empty", ṣifr = "zero", "nothing". ) And whining pathetically that its not HIS fault. He said there was a lie over there SOMEwhere he just can't point it out. Maybe you need glasses? A moral compass?
yrs,
rubato
But no evidence that Krugman lies or that he is in any way comparable to Coulter and Limbaugh.
And back to Romney Lies!
http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/how-romn ... 19825.html
___________________
How Romney Keeps Lying Through His Big White Teeth
Politics | Robert Reich | September 1, 2012 2:00 pm
by Robert Reich
“We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” says Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster.
A half dozen fact-checking organizations and websites have refuted Romney’s claims that Obama removed the work requirement from the welfare law and will cut Medicare benefits by $716 billion.
Last Sunday’s New York Times even reported on its front page that Romney has been “falsely charging” President Obama with removing the work requirement. Those are strong words from the venerable Times. Yet Romney is still making the false charge. Ads containing it continue to be aired.
Presumably the Romney campaign continues its false claims because they’re effective. But this raises a more basic question: How can they remain effective when they’ve been so overwhelmingly discredited by the media?
The answer is the Republican Party has developed three means of bypassing the mainstream media and its fact-checkers.
The first is by repeating big lies so often in TV spots – financed by a mountain of campaign money – that the public can no longer recall (if it ever knew) that the mainstream media and its fact-checkers have found them to be lies.
A series of court decisions and regulatory changes, beginning with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizen’s United vs. Federal Election Commission, opened the floodgates to big money. Fully a quarter of the $350 million amassed by Super PACs through the end of July came from just ten donors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that tracks such spending.
...... "
__________________________
So far we have big fat "pants on fire" lies from Romney, Ryan, Coulter and Limbaugh (although the latter hides behind the fact that he lies up front and loud at the beginning of a tirade and then later on tries to deny it).
rubato
4 Liars Exposed with many examples given.
LJ
0 (that's the number -zero- from Arabic صفر, ṣafira = "it was empty", ṣifr = "zero", "nothing". ) And whining pathetically that its not HIS fault. He said there was a lie over there SOMEwhere he just can't point it out. Maybe you need glasses? A moral compass?
yrs,
rubato
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
Just as you proved last Saturday that you couldn't interpret a simple one column table properly....
It's also obvious that your inability to understand that article is really frustrating you....
You can't bring yourself to admit it of course, but you're really making it obvious....
But I'll take pity on you rube, and throw you one bone, (but this is all the help you're going to get, unless somebody else feels sorry for you)
If you had been able to read even the first sentence, and copy and pasted this into google:
"Paul Krugman's New York Times column for August 23 on extending the Bush tax cuts"
You would have immediately come up with this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opini ... .html?_r=0
That's the link to Krugman's article where he lies about....
Uh, uh , not gonna tell you...
It's right there in the article, not in any way hidden or tricky, as well as all the proof and the source of the proof....
Now you can either figure it out, or you can continue just tossing up smoke screens, and continue to prove to everyone here that the bottom line is that this article is simply too tough for you to be able to understand.....
Personally, I'm hoping you will continue to do the latter....
First, because I find it wildly amusing, (it's entertaining to watch someone as vicious as you make a complete fool out of himself; it couldn't happen to a nicer guy, and on that one I'm more than happy to lend you a helping hand) and second because if there is still anyone here who thinks that your claim to be an actual "scientist" could possibly be anything other than 100% road apples, (though I can't imagine there could be many left after last week's math fiasco) This performance of yours this morning ought to completely disabuse them of that notion.
Please, by all means, carry on....
Oh I could easily point it out rube, (I'm sure anyone else here who read the article could too) but I'm just having too much fun watching you prove to everyone that you can't read....(at least you can't read and synthsize the meaning of something as modestly complex as this article.)He said there was a lie over there SOMEwhere he just can't point it out.
Just as you proved last Saturday that you couldn't interpret a simple one column table properly....
It's also obvious that your inability to understand that article is really frustrating you....
You can't bring yourself to admit it of course, but you're really making it obvious....
But I'll take pity on you rube, and throw you one bone, (but this is all the help you're going to get, unless somebody else feels sorry for you)
If you had been able to read even the first sentence, and copy and pasted this into google:
"Paul Krugman's New York Times column for August 23 on extending the Bush tax cuts"
You would have immediately come up with this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opini ... .html?_r=0
That's the link to Krugman's article where he lies about....
Uh, uh , not gonna tell you...
It's right there in the article, not in any way hidden or tricky, as well as all the proof and the source of the proof....
Now you can either figure it out, or you can continue just tossing up smoke screens, and continue to prove to everyone here that the bottom line is that this article is simply too tough for you to be able to understand.....
Personally, I'm hoping you will continue to do the latter....
First, because I find it wildly amusing, (it's entertaining to watch someone as vicious as you make a complete fool out of himself; it couldn't happen to a nicer guy, and on that one I'm more than happy to lend you a helping hand) and second because if there is still anyone here who thinks that your claim to be an actual "scientist" could possibly be anything other than 100% road apples, (though I can't imagine there could be many left after last week's math fiasco) This performance of yours this morning ought to completely disabuse them of that notion.
Please, by all means, carry on....
Re: Ryan's double-speak..
Still can't do it? Still nothing?
Weak. Retreating into ever more hysterical and loud bullshit might impress stupid people.
I proved Coulter's lies.
I proved Ryan's lies.
I proved Romney's lies.
I proved Limbaugh's lies.
You? zero.
yrs,
rubato
Weak. Retreating into ever more hysterical and loud bullshit might impress stupid people.
I proved Coulter's lies.
I proved Ryan's lies.
I proved Romney's lies.
I proved Limbaugh's lies.
You? zero.
yrs,
rubato