It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FOX News and Others Take Ryan to the Woodshed for "Blatant Lies." ...Seriously, FOX News.

page: 9
65
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pajoly
 
While I have Zero Doubt that at their core Obama and Romney serve the same Globalist Masters, I don't want to hear any defense or Obamanoid Crap from anyone; Obama should not have been allowed to run for President and at minimum he should have been Impeached some time ago.

Now the only thing I care about is getting Obama out of office and reversing what he and his "Knights Of Malta" Buddy have saddled me and my country with.

I suppose we should be grateful Obama was elected as he was not as sneaky and hardcore evil as Bush and has made most of his mistakes out in the open and a lot of people have and are waking up.


edit on 31-8-2012 by MajorKarma because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


I was pumping gas when it was 39 to 59 cents a gallon. I remember when they deregulated gas and oil prices saying they will self regulate. Seems to me it never worked as planned, excuses/lies were always created to bring prices up. Have you ever researched what is paid for these barrels of oil. Alaska sells theirs at about sixty bucks a barrel to Japan even when oil is at 140 per barrel because it does not go through speculation. Nobody is driving up the price. Nobody loses in speculating, the oil price is set for future delivery. Read what happens to oil, the oil companies sell the oil to the speculators and the speculators sell it back to the oil companies refineries. They never take possession of the oil. This system jacks up the price. When it goes down the oil companies lose money though, causing stocks to go down. I've researched how that works, unlike you



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by beanandginger
reply to post by pajoly
 


It is you who are ill informed.

Regardless of how you spin it the Republicans COULD NOT STOP any Obama agenda item from the time he took office until the Congressional elections in 2010 - period - end of story.

Good intentions get you nothing. Obama had control of the executive branch and the legislative branch for two years AND had control of the executive branch and half the legislative branch for the other two years.

I understand that you are disappointed in your guy and your party. But blaming the Republicans is mis-guided. Obama's failures are his and his alone.

Get off the ship before you go down with it.


I get the feeling that pajoly is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.


Obama has failed. His failures are his and his alone.

-- Winners lead. Losers blame others. --

He has been reduced to running a campaign of - fear & division-.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


I was pumping gas when it was 39 to 59 cents a gallon. I remember when they deregulated gas and oil prices saying they will self regulate. Seems to me it never worked as planned, excuses/lies were always created to bring prices up. Have you ever researched what is paid for these barrels of oil. Alaska sells theirs at about sixty bucks a barrel to Japan even when oil is at 140 per barrel because it does not go through speculation. Nobody is driving up the price. Nobody loses in speculating, the oil price is set for future delivery. Read what happens to oil, the oil companies sell the oil to the speculators and the speculators sell it back to the oil companies refineries. They never take possession of the oil. This system jacks up the price. When it goes down the oil companies lose money though, causing stocks to go down. I've researched how that works, unlike you


I think you have drifted off into neverneverland with Peter Pan.

Try to focus. I know you can do it.

Back in July 2008 the price of gas was $4.11 a gallon. ( Really, it was.)

President George W. Bush lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling. (Really, he did.)

The price of gas fell to $1.61 gallon in a few months. The speculators forced it down.

Try admitting the truth just for once in your life.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by pajoly
 

The republicans understand that 87% of republican voters have an IQ level of .02 ,and can easily be lied to because they are so dumb, and will believe every body they see on t.v as fit to follow and worshipp.They understand that they are the most easily trained race of people campared to other races.,so basically they can say what they want to say, because they understand that sheeple people have no leader ship skills and will follow people like sherrif joe,sarah palin and...flip flopping habitual liars like ryan and the mitt guy.

Good job OP for bringing this to the attention of the mass sheeple people,hopefully this will deprogrammmmm them from making a big mistake come november.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly

There are many articles on it by now. It was revealed in Draper's book and admitted to by Gingrich and several retiring Republicans.
ireport.cnn.com...


Thanks for the link. I tracked down the book on Amazon and read the top reviews.

Good to know. Unfortunately, it looks bad for people at the top of both parties.

From what I can tell from the reviews, Pelosi and Reid are just as bad and doing the same thing as Gingrich and whoever else might have been in that meeting that day.

I'm glad Newt is out this election! I wish I knew who the others were for sure.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
..Now I'm going to say something about Reagan. I came of age under Reagan and was inspired by him, his infectious optimism after the dreary years under Carter. In 1981, upon my 17th birthday, my first act was to get to the post office before it opened to register for Selective Service. I was proud to be an American. In 1983 I left college to enlist in Reagan's army, which was finally shedding its demoralized and neglected image from the long shadow of Vietnam. I served at a Pershing II military base overseas at the height of the Cold War.

I have a framed letter to me, probably typed by a staffer, but seemingly hand-signed by Reagan in response to an op-ed piece I had published in support of him. (My mom had sent it to him, unbeknownst to me.) I followed his political career closely. If you hadn't noticed by now, I'm a current events junkie, with an emphasis on politics and foreign affairs. I was the only soldier I knew who had a subscription to the great intellectual periodicals "Foreign Affairs" and "Foreign Policy." My guess is only a handful of people here even know of the existence of these book-like magazines, but you find them on the desks of any politician involved in foreign affairs and copies no doubt litter the Department of State workplace. About 30 years later I'm still deep into this stuff. Some people are die hard sports fans, some people love to tinker with cars, some people collect coins. This is my hobby I supposed.

With Reagan as our greatest Cold Warrior and because of all the above, I paid very close attention to Reagan. I did not always share his economic policies, but was mostly too young to have an educated perspective anyway. But, as a soldier with a top secret and "nuclear surety" clearance, you'll not be surprised where my focus was.

It is my learned opinion that Reagan would have adamantly rejected the Right today. He really, really disliked cynics. He believed in decency and goodness. He had an Irishman's righteous bent for fairness. (Sharing the same ancestry, I always surmised this cultural Irish artifact was a result of generations being treated a 2nd class or worse by the English.) He was firm in principles, but was also pragmatic and understood compromise was essential for functional government. He and Tipper O'Neill, another Irishman, were good friends. He had a deep respect for the Moynihan, though not the affection he had for Tipper. These were leaders across the aisle.

Even as a great Cold Warrior, he was able to forge a friendship with Gorbachev; something only possible because of his unrelenting optimism and willingness to trust...but verify.

Reagan raised taxes on the rich because he knew it had to be done. There is ZERO chance in hell he'd had signed away his autonomy to someone like Norquist. He'd have told him to pound sand. Reagan deeply loved America and embraced ALL America and it showed. He was pro-life, but kept social issues and religious issues where they belonged, in the heart and amongst family to decide.

I think he'd have like Obama very much because of his ability to constantly take in on the chin, yet still remain positive and embracing of the whole of America. He would have detested the modern Right, considering them obstructionists, cynics and schemers who said one thing then did another. He was a not a Gingrich fan -- the father of the modern political Right wing tactics -- as indicate by his diaries which only mention him in passing. Reagan was a "if you don't have anything nice to say about someone, don't say anything." He said pretty much nothing about Gingrich -- a man of his own party -- but loads to saw about guys like Tipper, his political opposition. He would have been disturbed by these people who loudly and publicly pretend piety, then preach hate.

All the vile folks who now try to claim his mantle trample on his memory, spit on his legacy. America's great historians of the day know this, but our ill-informed electorate does not and that is a shame.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Congress started to introduce a bill to regulate the gas and oil industry about that time, just as they have done once since then. Bush did what he did with the backing of congress, not alone. Boy you didn't pay much attention to what was going on around that time. Texaco, I think, had a corporation that was bidding up the price of oil and profiting off of it. The government did not have a law to say it was illegal so they told Texaco they couldn't do that anymore. I am not sure it was Texaco, but it was one of our big oil companies. Don't you remember that?

I know what the price was, it was 4.35 here and I had filled my oil tanks in may and it was 3.85 per gallon plus tax. At the time I filled my oil tanks, fuel oil was higher than gas.. I didn't see gas at 1.61 here, it went down to a buck ninety something



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pajoly
 


I applaud you fortitude in declaring your beliefs as based on a lifetime's worth of experience and involvement in things you thought were important. I disagree, at the same time, with your assessment of Reagan.




Wiki

Under Reagan, U.S. support for the mujahideen evolved into an official U.S. foreign policy, known as the Reagan Doctrine, which included support for anti-Soviet movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, and elsewhere.[54] Ronald Reagan praised the mujahideen as "freedom fighters". The U.S. policy of support for the mujahideen also drew support from The Heritage Foundation, which provided influential counsel to the Reagan administration on national security and foreign affairs matters. The Heritage Foundation's Michael Johns argued that U.S. support for the mujahideen would not only place the Soviets on the defensive in Afghanistan but would also dispel the global perception that other Soviet military conquests around the world were irreversible.[55]

The early foundations of al-Qaida were allegedly built in part on relationships and weaponry that came from the billions of dollars in U.S. support for the Afghan mujahadin during the war to expel Soviet forces from that country


Same mujahideen as our brothers are dying fighting.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
NYT


Lying is certainly nothing new in politics. One could even argue that it’s fundamental to politics. Saying incredible things in a credible way is the art; using math of vapors to sell dreams of smoke is the craft.

But Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech on Wednesday took things up a notch.

Sally Kohn, a contributor to Fox News, said:

“Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.”

Business Insider called it “factually shaky.” A Washington Post blog called it a “breathtakingly dishonest speech.” Salon’s Joan Walsh said the speech was “stunning for its dishonesty” and contained “brazen lies.” Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic used the headline: “The Most Dishonest Convention Speech ... Ever?” You get the picture.

So much was written about this and other Republican attempts to distort and deny the truth this week. But I’m beginning to worry that many Americans are growing weary of isolating the lies, coming as they did in torrents.

The Romney campaign seems to be banking on this fatigue and counting on The Fourth Estate being reduced to little more than a fifth wheel in the political zeitgeist. One of its pollsters said this week that the campaign would not be dictated by fact-checkers.

Romney’s speech at the convention on Thursday avoided the flat-out falseness of Ryan’s, containing what FactCheck.org called only a “few bits of exaggeration and puffery.” The greatest transgression Thursday night was the bizarre scene of Uncle Clint babbling back and forth with an empty chair that contained an invisible Obama.

But Romney’s restraint does not erase the damage already done.

Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher looked at the fact-checking site PolitiFact’s tallies on Aug. 10 and found that:

“Mitt Romney’s statements have been judged Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire 46 percent of the time, versus only 29 percent for President Obama. In the Pants on Fire category alone, Romney is more than four times as likely to suffer trouser immolation than the president. Nearly 1 in 10 statements by Romney earned flaming slacks, versus 1 out of every 50 for Obama.”

On Friday, PolitiFact still had Romney’s statements as Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire 42 percent of the time, compared with 27 percent of the time for Obama.

Propaganda is one thing; prevarication is another.


Quite!



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Wow, Fox covering up reality...not like its anything new.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


It's not like they could possibly expect to insult their audience's intelligence, given who their audience is.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastProphet527
reply to post by pajoly
 

The republicans understand that 87% of republican voters have an IQ level of .02 ,and can easily be lied to because they are so dumb, and will believe every body they see on t.v as fit to follow and worshipp.They understand that they are the most easily trained race of people campared to other races.,so basically they can say what they want to say, because they understand that sheeple people have no leader ship skills and will follow people like sherrif joe,sarah palin and...flip flopping habitual liars like ryan and the mitt guy.

Good job OP for bringing this to the attention of the mass sheeple people,hopefully this will deprogrammmmm them from making a big mistake come november.



ExxonMobile puppets white southern trailer trash through the puppet strings made of fox hairs.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
Paul Ryan "My playlist starts with AC/DC and ends with Zepellin".

He even outsources his music. If I were running for Vice President, I'd probably mention AMERICAN rock bands, not Australian and English ones.


Is it unamerican to like legendary rock bands now? I don't like Ryan at all, but this is petty. I'd put it right there with criticizing people for not wearing flag pins. I don't like it when phony politicians pretending God bless the USA is the greatest song of all time, in some lame attempt to out american the next guy.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mahatche

Originally posted by babybunnies
Paul Ryan "My playlist starts with AC/DC and ends with Zepellin".

He even outsources his music. If I were running for Vice President, I'd probably mention AMERICAN rock bands, not Australian and English ones.


Is it unamerican to like legendary rock bands now? I don't like Ryan at all, but this is petty. I'd put it right there with criticizing people for not wearing flag pins.


You are right. It's petty. I'm just curious if he likes any American bands at all.

Also, both AC/DC and Led Zeppelin is a pretty dated material. How is Ryan supposed to be a new fresh face?



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mahatche

Originally posted by babybunnies
Paul Ryan "My playlist starts with AC/DC and ends with Zepellin".

He even outsources his music. If I were running for Vice President, I'd probably mention AMERICAN rock bands, not Australian and English ones.


Is it unamerican to like legendary rock bands now? I don't like Ryan at all, but this is petty. I'd put it right there with criticizing people for not wearing flag pins.


You are right. It's petty. I'm just curious if he likes any American bands at all.

Also, both AC/DC and Led Zeppelin is a pretty dated material. How is Ryan supposed to be a new fresh face?


I'm sure he likes some american bands, we've been given no reason to speculate otherwise.

I'm only 26, but Zeppelin is my favorite band. I don't think they are dated at all, music that good transcends time. Nothing has happened to diminish the skill in the music they recorded.

If he loves Zeppelin and AC/DC he should say it and let us know who he really is. I prefer that over a strategic facade designed to win votes from target demographics. In my opinion naming Zeppelin makes him look better than naming any of today's major artists.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by beanandginger
reply to post by pajoly
 


It is you who are ill informed.

Regardless of how you spin it the Republicans COULD NOT STOP any Obama agenda item from the time he took office until the Congressional elections in 2010 - period - end of story.

Good intentions get you nothing. Obama had control of the executive branch and the legislative branch for two years AND had control of the executive branch and half the legislative branch for the other two years.

I understand that you are disappointed in your guy and your party. But blaming the Republicans is mis-guided. Obama's failures are his and his alone.

Get off the ship before you go down with it.


I get the feeling that pajoly is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.


Obama has failed. His failures are his and his alone.

-- Winners lead. Losers blame others. --

He has been reduced to running a campaign of - fear & division-.


No disrespect, but you haven't said one substantial thing in this entire thread. All of your posts read like political bumper stickers.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Standard fox behavior. Remember when an unvetted barak obama was given a complete pass by fox et al, and then, just after the (s)election, they trotted out glenn beck, with his tearful founding father anti-cannabis crying jags?

Everyone relax. It doesn't matter. Either way, the regime wins. These guys are in love with the patriot act, ndaa, you name it. Democrat, republican...same side of the same coin. It's to make sure we are in love with the OS.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I understand. I don't pretend that covert work does not happen; it happens under every president. What most impressed me was how conducted his business with the political opposition. He'd reject how the Right behaves Note I did not say how the Right conducts business because they don't conduct any business at all with the opposition no matter the issue, no matter the national pain, no matter if they once endorsed the same position. Their opposition is not based on policy, proven by their rejection of many of their own policies once Obama won the election.
edit on 2-9-2012 by pajoly because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I understand. I don't pretend that covert work does not happen; it happens under every president.


Well yes it does. Still, not every project results in creation of Al-Qaeda or some other bad stupid thing.

And, Reagan had a hand in that.

Look, it's rather specious if you support the most backward, undeveloped and memorably cruel religious fanatics to try and promote progress, peace and general decency. In that regard, Reagan in fact was a top grade cynicist. You may like to think that he was the opposite, but the facts are there.

Juan Cole


Reagan had an ability to project a kindly image, and was well liked personally by virtually everyone who knew him, apparently. But it always struck me that he was a mean man. I remember learning, in the late 1960s, of the impact Michael Harrington’s The Other America had had on Johnson’s War on Poverty. Harrington demonstrated that in the early 1960s there was still hunger in places like Appalachia, deriving from poverty. It was hard for middle class Americans to believe, and Lyndon Johnson, who represented many poor people himself, was galvanized to take action.

I remember seeing a tape of Reagan speaking in California from that era. He said that he had heard that some asserted there was hunger in America. He said it sarcastically. He said, “Sure there is; they’re dieting!” or words to that effect. This handsome Hollywood millionnaire making fun of people so poor they sometimes went to bed hungry seemed to me monstrous. I remember his wealthy audience of suburbanites going wild with laughter and applause. I am still not entirely sure what was going on there. Did they think Harrington’s and similar studies were lies? Did they blame the poor for being poor, and resent demands on them in the form of a few tax dollars, to address their hunger?

Then when he was president, at one point Reagan tried to cut federal funding for school lunches for the poor. He tried to have ketchup reclassified as a vegetable to save money. Senator Heinz gave a speech against this move. He said that ketchup is a condiment, not a vegetable, and that he should know.

The meanness was reflected, as many readers have noted, in Reagan’s “blame the victim” approach to the AIDS crisis. His inability to come to terms with the horrible human tragedy here, or with the emerging science on it, made his health policies ineffective and even destructive.

Reagan’s mania to abolish social security was of a piece with this kind of sentiment. In the early 20th century, the old were the poorest sector of the American population. The horrors of old age–increasing sickness, loss of faculties, marginalization and ultimately death–were in that era accompanied by fear of severe poverty. Social security turned that around. The elderly are no longer generally poverty-stricken. The government can do something significant to improve people’s lives. Reagan, philosophically speaking, hated the idea of state-directed redistribution of societal wealth. (His practical policies often resulted in such redistribution de facto, usually that of tossing money to the already wealthy). So he wanted to abolish social security and throw us all back into poverty in old age.

Reagan hated any social arrangement that empowered the poor and the weak. He was a hired gun for big corporations in the late 1950s, when he went around arguing against unionization. Among his achievements in office was to break the air traffic controllers’ union. It was not important in and of itself, but it was a symbol of his determination that the powerless would not be allowed to organize to get a better deal. He ruined a lot of lives. I doubt he made us safer in the air.

Reagan hated environmentalism. His administration was not so mendacious as to deny the problems of increased ultraviolet radition (from a depleted ozone layer) and global warming. His government suggested people wear sunglasses and hats in response. At one point Reagan suggested that trees cause pollution. He was not completely wrong (natural processes can cause pollution), but his purpose in making the statement seems to have been that we should therefore just accept lung cancer from bad city air, which was caused by automobiles and industry, not by trees.

In foreign policy, Reagan abandoned containment of the Soviet Union as a goal and adopted a policy of active roll-back. Since the Soviet Union was already on its last legs and was not a system that could have survived long, Reagan’s global aggressiveness was simply unnecessary. The argument that Reagan’s increases in military funding bankrupted the Soviets by forcing them to try to keep up is simply wrong. Soviet defense spending was flat in the 1980s.

Reagan’s aggression led him to shape our world in most unfortunate ways. Although it would be an exaggeration to say that Ronald Reagan created al-Qaeda, it would not be a vast exaggeration. The Carter administration began the policy of supporting the radical Muslim holy warriors in Afghanistan who were waging an insurgency against the Soviets after their invasion of that country. But Carter only threw a few tens of millions of dollars at them. By the mid-1980s, Reagan was giving the holy warriors half a billion dollars a year. His officials strong-armed the Saudis into matching the US contribution, so that Saudi Intelligence chief Faisal al-Turki turned to Usamah Bin Laden to funnel the money to the Afghans. This sort of thing was certainly done in coordination with the Reagan administration. Even the Pakistanis thought that Reagan was a wild man, and balked at giving the holy warriors ever more powerful weapons. Reagan sent Orrin Hatch to Beijing to try to talk the Chinese into pressuring the Pakistanis to allow the holy warriors to receive stingers and other sophisticated ordnance. The Pakistanis ultimately relented, even though they knew there was a severe danger that the holy warriors would eventually morph into a security threat in their own right.

edit on 2-9-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join