Fact checking the liars with “fact checkers” masks….
Like salon.com for example. [satire:] Oh yeah, count on objective “fact” reporting from salon.com
*10:15 — Taxpayer funding for abortion:* Ryan says Democrats support taxpayer funding for abortion, pointing to Obamacare. That’s completely false . The bill never contained taxpayer funding for abortion, but it was nonetheless held up for months to appease pro-life Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak and the bloc that he lead.
It turns out that funds from that bill are right now funding abortions in some states, and dual-use abortifacients/contraceptives will be paid for by conscientious objectors by force and fine. No matter what your religious or secular conviction is, you will not be able to buy an insurance plan that excludes “contraception”, and that includes the abortifacients with the misleading “contraception” label. The “morning-after” pill is an abortifacient. Since salon.com pretends they do not know this, how can one trust them?
Stephanapolous had to know something, the contraception question at his moderated debate came out of nowhere, another puff of smoke from the government-media complex, and what Disraeli said about how there are no accidents in politics.
Stupak was right before he caved, and wrong when he caved. What did Obama really say in that private meeting? Obama and Pelosi were already saying (lying) it wouldn’t cover abortions, they still plan to cover them, same as they plan to bring everything under the command-insurance G-control model (as they also said).
After all, as a guy who opposed effective penalties for letting a baby die after it is born, is Obama going to tell the truth?
And babies are still dying by the thousands daily, under the unconstitutional legal kill order known as Roe v Wade.
Biden played the dove on Syria last night, but BOTH of them kept war open as an option. Yes they did, two mealy-mouths. They all look like warmongers to me, and Obama has a track record that added not one, not two, but three new fronts to his list of wars to add to Bush’s two.
*10:10 — Troops in Libya:* Ryan said “nobody is considering sending troops to Syria.” In August, Gov. Romney told CBS News that he would send U.S. troops to Syria if necessary to prevent the spread of chemical weapons. In his interview with CBS, Romney said, “I think we have to also be ready to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that we do not have any kind of weapon of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists and whether that requires troops, or whether that requires other actions by our friends and allies.”
And both insinuate they might go to war against Iran. (If they decide it’s “necessary”). They all agree that Iran is a dire threat to the national security of the United States. Even worse, they say, it is a threat to Israel. I kid you not. In the tradition of Dave Berry, I am not making this up.
*10:00 — Small Navy? *Paul Ryan says Obama would reduce the Navy to its smallest size since World War I. Politifact gave that claim a Pants on Fire and called it ridiculous.
— Moot because they’re both warmongers covering up by expected talking points. Ryan wants to increase the military and their presence everywhere, and Obama-Biden showed their true warrior colors with the war against the Libyans and threatening Syria and Iran.
*9:55 — Sequester two-step:* Ryan attacks Biden for automatic defense cuts that will go through if Congress does not act. Those cuts come from the “sequester,” the automatic trigger mechanism created by the congressional deal to raise the debt ceiling. You know who voted for that plan? Paul Ryan <http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/09/09/816861/ryan-i-didnt-vote-for-the-defense-cuts-i-voted-for/>.
– So advocated Biden, to push the debt ceiling can down the road some more, and this exposes what liars the “fact checkers” are. Everybody knows that was a “compromise” anyway and everybody wanted their own toys but they had to do “something” instead of doing the only sane thing (the Ron Paul plan) so it became automatic. What do you expect from a “thinkprogress” that wants us to throw us back to feudalism and calls it “progress”?
They had to give the Tea Party guys in the House some cover. After all, the American people put them there to stop the mad spending addiction.
Welfare-warfare is a false choice, a pox on both their houses. Neither of them have any right to complain about the others’ “lies”, they all drummed the only honest candidate out of this false choice. Which one? Seabiscuit or Secretariat? Cardinals or Giants? Difference is, these guys are asses pretending to be horses.
*9:45 — Social Security and Medicare are /not/ going broke:* “Social Security and Medicare are going bankrupt. These are indisputable facts,” Ryan says. Actually both are disputable and neither are facts. People have been saying Social Security is going to go bankrupt for decades, it hasn’t yet, and it’s not going to. It’s currently projected to be fine for at least 40 years
—-
Those freebies are designed to go broke, by which I mean the design is built to break. Even the marketing is Ponzi scheme, besides which, unfunded liabilities are up to over $70 trillion by most estimates of all such programs and the national debt keeps climbing and they’ll get squeezed out by the fall of the dollar if nothing else. It’s built on paper and ink and now electronic blips.
Anyway, not one Congress has any true moral authority to lay debt on people that had nothing to do with it. Why should a future Congress be obligated to pay for today’s Congress. Today’s Congress is paying for the sins of their colleagues in the past, but they’re paying for it by committing the same theft against future Congressmen. Except that we are paying now, because every time government spends money, they have to rob us to do it.
When they pay for it with taxes, they are directly robbing the people they confiscate from. When they pay for it with borrowing, they are robbing the poor and middle class with the inflation they’re causing, robbing value from our money. After they ditched the gold base, it’s easier to print the money.
Except the evil faction of the banksters took over the printing. Treasury doesn’t print it, they borrow it from the bankers at the Fed. The bankers just print the IOU’s (we owe them) that they lend to us and it costs them virtually nothing.
*9:40 — Ryan’s healthcare plan is bipartisan? *Ryan claimed that his Medicare proposal was co-sponsored by a Democrat. He was referring to Sen. Rod Wyden of Oregon, who did create a plan to change Medicare, but once Republicans adapted it, he distanced himself from the bill this summer <http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/243387-wyden-downplays-medicare-plan-he-crafted-with-ryan>. In response to Romney’s continued claims on the campaign trail that the bill was bipartisan, Wyden told the Oregonian <http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2012/08/sen_wyden_says_romney_is.html> in August, “Bipartisanship requires that you not make up the facts. I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.’”
So it WAS bipartisan, a plan created by a Democrat, who only backed off when the Republicans took ahold of it? So who was the bipartisan and who was not?
*9:35 — What about in your own district?* Ryan attacked Biden because the unemployment rate has gone up in his hometown of Scranton, Pa., under Obama and Biden. But the unemployment rate has gone up in Paul Ryan’s home district as well during his tenure in Congress. It was 3.8 percent when Ryan first took office in 1999 and was <http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/take-look-what-paul-ryan-did-his-own-congressional-district-and-be-very-scared-your> at 9.2 percent this August.
–
- But Biden is VP and this is Obama’s economy.
*9: 30 — Paul Ryan requested stimulus money:…It’s also worth noting that Ryan supported the 2002 stimulus package
They all did, a pox on all their houses. Americans roared back with all the Tea Party demonstrations. Problem is this horse race and all the betting on it is distracting them.
*9:25 — Cars:* “Mitt Romney is a car guy,” Ryan says earnestly. Mitt Romney also wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times titled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html>.”
—
Meaning, they should have let them go through the normal bankruptcy process instead of making it their political football and using it to brag about government robbing Peter to save Paul.
They SHOULD have left Detroit alone. Now it’s worse. Now we even have the “leftist” regime bragging about all the corporate welfare they give out to save the big corporations.
What a con job! It’s as good as the revisionist history that has the party of slavery and Jim Crow pretending to love all the poor colored folk!
*9:10 — Marines: *Paul Ryan, noting that there’s a Marine detachment at the U.S. Embassy in Paris asks, “Shouldn’t we have a Marine detachment?” in Libya. The infatuation with the Marines belies a deep misunderstanding of the role the service members play in foreign embassies. The Corps actually protects information <http://www.salon.com/2012/10/10/romney_to_shut_up_about_benghazi_victim/>, not personnel. And with only a little over 1,000 Marines serving as guards around the world, there are very few in any diplomatic post.
— The infuation with the Marines and having them everywhere is the usual imperialist mentality. It’s as bad as the newfound supposed Obama infatuation with special forces to do all these jobs. The special forces did so good in Libya. And it’s baloney they “only protect information”, as if they will let a guy visiting a consulate start shooting at consulate personnel, no matter what a written code says.
*9:05 — Diplomatic security: *The debate opened up with a discussion of the attacks on U.S. diplomatic posts in Libya, with Paul Ryan attacking Biden for the Obama administration supposedly not doing enough to protect diplomats.
— So this non-factual “fact checker” wants to check the facts so they can throw them in the trash and look for something else to talk about. They also didn’t “check the fact” that there was obviously information left inadequately protected (in their own terms), since CNN reporters just wandering around found writings by diplomats themselves…
This is about LIBYA and Bengazi-gate. Obama’s State Department is now caught red-handed intentionally exposing the consulate in Benghazi to attack. The Brits had pulled out.
After having considered Libya important enough to go to war against it, how can they justify either (1) REDUCING security after requests for MORE security, or (2) if they had inadequate funding, why did they not pull out. LIKE THE BRITS DID after an attack against their ambassador?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/12/chris-stevens-us-ambassador-libya-killed
The ambassador’s killing follows an attack in June on the UK ambassador to Libya, Dominic Asquith. Two British bodyguards were injured after a rocket was fired at Asquith’s convoy in Benghazi, hitting his security escort. There have been similar attacks in Benghazi on the Red Cross and the UN. It is not clear why the US ambassador had returned to Benghazi at a time of security concerns.
On Wednesday the British embassy in Tripoli said that after the attack in June UK diplomats were pulled out of Benghazi. “Nobody is based there permanently. We have a villa there and an office, with staff traveling there from time to time,” it said. No British staff were injured during Tuesday’s attack on the US mission, it added.
And another thing.
I just saw that the ambassador was taken out by rockets in an ambush. So of course how could it not be a spontaneous mob reaction to a movie not even the Arabs heard about until the Obama gang blamed it for this?
The same link as above, from September 12, 2012:
The US ambassador in Libya and three other embassy staff were killed in a rocket attack after the diplomat’s car was targeted in the eastern city of Benghazi, it was confirmed on Wednesday.
Related articles
Snark, interruptions, ‘derisive sneering’ (wnd.com)
Biden, Ryan Clash as Both Pledge Unemployment Below 6% (bloomberg.com)
Trutherator's Weblog 