posted August 13, 2012 03:08 PM            

quote:

---

Are the conservative blogs not running the story of Romney's VP pick? - AG

---

See? It's a question. Not a statement. I've already gone over this with you in my last post. Are you having comprehension issues again?

quote:

---

That's enough to disprove your silly rant acoustic.

---

It wasn't a rant. A single question is not a rant. Definitions-challenged?

quote:

---

You're forever shooting your mouth off

---

posted August 13, 2012 06:02 PM            

Because acoustic...YOU ARE WRONG...AGAIN.

The news of Paul Ryan being picked for Romney's VP was all over republican/conservative websites on the day Romney made the announcement...Saturday..as I proved. Contray to what you said!

What is it with you acoustic. You think you can say anything here and no one will check out what you say?

posted August 13, 2012 06:23 PM            

quote:

---

Contray to what you said!

---

posted August 13, 2012 06:35 PM            

OK masochist boy, this is what you said and what you said was wrong and I proved you were wrong by posting stories from conservative websites which carried the Romney VP pick story on Saturday.

posted August 13, 2012 06:47 PM            

and a question is neither right nor wrong.

what i would like to know is HOW does ryan get a rep for being pro-SMALL government? he was in there pushing for the bailouts with the best of them, saying "heaven help us" if we don't go through with them...

he wants government to take away a woman's INALIENABLE RIGHT to decide whether to use birth control or not (anything from fertilization on being considered murder, which includes most forms of birth control for those who don't know)

AND he is a career politician, exactly what romney says we don't need.

so...WHO MADE ROMNEY PICK RYAN? ryan's former mentor/tutors in the conservative think tanks? the koch bros? the sponsor who has been accused of money-laundering?

posted August 13, 2012 07:20 PM            

Are the conservative blogs not running the story of Romney's VP pick?"...acoustic

Are they? That was the QUESTION.

You didn't disprove some assertion of mine. No, you came here that morning, but didn't say anything about the Ryan pick; hence my asking why no one was saying anything about it. "I'm surprised by the crickets this morning." -AG The time stamp says I started the thread at 12:45PM your time. When was the announcement? A good three hours earlier.

This thread indicates you were there that morning after the announcement: http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum26/HTML/001307-2.html

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 5555
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
posted August 11, 2012 10:50 AM

posted August 13, 2012 07:35 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted August 14, 2012 10:03 AM            

You acoustic, the poster here who can't come up with the definition of the common word... MOST.

People often couch statements in the form of questions..just as you did. They can sometimes get away with that..if the answer to the supposed question is unknown.

But, they can't get away with that when the answer to the supposed question IS KNOWN and it's clear conservative news sources..blogs were reporting the Ryan for VP story BEFORE you posted.

But, there's more wrong with your "tag question" acoustic...actually 2 "tag questions".

You turned your sarcastic negative declarative statement.."So we're not going to talk about Ryan?..into a positive declarative statement by adding that question mark and that wasn't your intent. Your intent was to make a sarcastic negative declarative statement.

The same is true with your other "tag question"..."Are the conservative blogs not running the story of Romney's VP pick?

Another attempt at a sarcastic negative statement which you stepped on by adding a question mark.

This is what you wanted to convey...Conservative blogs are not running the story of Romney's VP pick. But that was false because they were.

Now, I've shown you conservative blogs were running the Ryan for VP story, before you posted your nonsense.

The story was posted on Human Events at 8:32am.

The story was posted on DailyCaller at 11:13am.

But, you didn't post your nonsense until 12:45pm.

Now, you suggest you were really directing your sarcastic negative declarative statements at me.

"I found it to be curious that you'd come here, and say nothing about the announcement."..acoustic

There's several things wrong with your comment acoustic.

First, you didn't actually address your nonsense to me and if that was your intent, you failed.

Second, I'm under no obligation to respond to anything you..or anyone else posts here. Nor, am I obligated to enlighten the ineducable.

Once again, you shot your mouth off without bothering to check if what you were saying was even true.

"Are the conservative blogs not running the story of Romney's VP pick?"...acoustic

And now, your admission that you never bothered to check.

"You think I went around to the Conservative blogs to check? No.........acoustic

posted August 14, 2012 12:18 PM            

I can't do a line by line retort, because you got it, but you didn't put it together right [like so much of what you do around here].

quote:

---

First, you didn't actually address your nonsense to me and if that was your intent, you failed.

---

Why this is a fail/succeed issue to you is strange. If it were a succeed/fail proposition, it obviously was successful. You didn't get it, but that doesn't determine the outcome, does it?

I did address my post to you. Who else is getting all their info from conservative blogs? This is what I mean. I don't understand how you could possibly be stupid enough not to understand.

posted August 14, 2012 01:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Node:
AG-

Don't fall for it. He understood the opening line. JW likes to play the geezer. He actually aspires to Wile E. Coyote.

---

Hold on there, Node-y. Don't talk to your better, that way

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted August 14, 2012 05:47 PM            

The silver lining is that you got another sorely needed English lesson.

posted August 14, 2012 06:49 PM            

I can't even give you a proud or sarcastic smiley to that response.

When has your embarrassment ever meant a victory for you?

I can't imagine the mind processes that would result in the stuff you say in your responses. You think that there was a debate here about what I said that you won? How's that? How is it you beat me on the topic of my own words? Hmmm....perplexing. And then you have the audacity of trying to turn your lack of comprehension into my issue. That's not my issue, Bud. That's all you.

posted August 14, 2012 06:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
Face it acoustic, you lost another debate.

The silver lining is that you got another sorely needed English lesson.

Thanks Ami. We both know I'm neither a geezer or coyote. With this crowd, I'd put us both in the category of Road Runners...Beep Beep!

---

My pleasure, Jwhop. I ONLY tell the truth, something these clowns know nothing about

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted August 14, 2012 07:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Ami, the way you show that you know the truth is by correctly identifying both the truth and the lie. You don't have a good record of recognizing either.

---

AG
You would not know truth if it bit you in the back side

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted August 15, 2012 10:22 AM            

Most of the time you don't even realize what you've said...like this time.

Let me know when you've cracked the definition of "Most".

posted August 15, 2012 10:49 AM            

Ami, please donate money to Romney's campaign. Give all that you can. Come November we'll see if it was worth it.

As for this "kool-aid" you refer to, I'm pretty sure it's the same color and flavor as what you're drinking. Main stream media is any popular media source which you get your information (and I use that very loosely) from. Yes, even the gluttonous, big mouth Rush is a part of it. By what you've said, he can't be trusted either, nor any right wing media outlet.

Oh, please tell us what rights you have lost during President Obama's term. We're all still free and able to do what we want within the law that has always been present. So, what has changed?

posted August 15, 2012 11:52 AM            

Mitt Romney’s pick of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate has rekindled a heated debate over Medicare.

Ryan, R-Wis., is the head of the Budget Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives and the architect of a plan to dramatically restructure Medicare.

Today, Medicare operates as a government-run health insurance plan for Americans over age 65.

Ryan’s idea is to eventually move Medicare toward private insurance companies by giving people a set amount to buy their own health insurance plans. The new system would be for people who are under age 55 now, and it would give them voucher-like credits to buy traditional fee-for-service Medicare or competing private insurance plans. (The credits are sometimes called "premium support.")

Though House Republicans voted overwhelmingly for Ryan’s plan, polling shows public opinion is mixed, with older voters the most wary of the plan.

The Republican response to attacks on the Ryan plan has been to attack back, saying President Barack Obama has cut "$700 billion" out of Medicare. And the Democratic response to that: Well, Paul Ryan cuts that amount, too!

For this check, we’re looking specifically at what Obama campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said on Face the Nation when debating Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom.

"You know, I heard Mitt Romney deride the $700 billion cuts in Medicare that the president achieved through health care reform," Cutter said. "You know what those cuts are? It’s taking subsidies away from insurance companies, taking rebates away from prescription drug company. Is that what Mitt Romney wants to protect? And interestingly enough Paul Ryan protected those cuts in his budget."

It’s a lot to digest if you’re not already a Medicare policy wonk, so let us sort it out for you. For now, we are going to put aside the question of whether it is accurate to call them "cuts" -- a claim we're checking in another item -- and focus on the question of whether Cutter is correct that Ryan relies on those same reductions in his budget.

$700 billion in Medicare cuts?

Because we’re wonks ourselves at PolitiFact, our ears pricked up at the claim in recent days that Obama cut $700 billion out of Medicare. Just a few weeks ago, the oft-cited number was $500 billion. How did he manage to cut another $200 billion when no one was looking?

Well, there are cuts and then there are CUTS. Neither Obama nor his health care law literally "cut" a dollar from the Medicare program’s budget.

Rather, the health care law instituted a number of changes to reduce the growth of Medicare costs. At the time the law was passed, those reductions amounted to $500 billion over the next 10 years.

What kind of spending reductions are we talking about? They were mainly aimed at insurance companies and hospitals, not beneficiaries. The law makes significant reductions to Medicare Advantage, a subset of Medicare plans run by private insurers. Medicare Advantage was started under President George W. Bush, and the idea was that competition among the private insurers would reduce costs. But in recent years the plans have actually cost more than traditional Medicare. So the health care law scales back the payments to private insurers.

Hospitals, too, will be paid less if they have too many re-admissions, or if they fail to meet other new benchmarks for patient care.

Still, the overall Medicare budget is projected to go up for the foreseeable future. The health care law tries to limit that growth, making it less than it would have been without the law, but not reducing its overall budget. So claims that Obama would "cut" Medicare need more explanation to be fully accurate. In the past, we’ve rated similar statements Half True or Mostly False, depending on the wording and context.

Because Medicare spending gets bigger every year, the cost-saving mechanisms in the health care law also get bigger. Also, it takes a few years for the health care law’s savings mechanisms to kick in. In fact, the effects of time are the main reason the $500 billion number has turned into $700 billion.

The CBO determined in 2011 that the federal health care law would reduce Medicare outlays by $507 billion between 2012 and 2021. In a more recent estimates released this year, the CBO looked at the years 2013 to 2022 and determined the health care law affected Medicare outlays by $716 billion.

So it’s timing that’s making the "cuts" bigger, not changes to Medicare.

Does the Ryan budget ‘protect those cuts’?

Now onto our second question: Does Ryan’s budget keep the reductions in Medicare spending? The short answer is yes.

Here’s what Ryan said in an interview with George Stephanopolous of ABC News in June, before his selection as Romney’s running mate:

Stephanopoulos: "You know, several independent fact-checkers have taken a look at that claim, the $500 billion in Medicare cuts, and said that it's misleading. And in fact, by that accounting, your budget, your own budget, which Gov. Romney has endorsed, would also have $500 billion in Medicare cuts.

Paul: "Well, our budget keeps that money for Medicare to extend its solvency. What Obamacare does is it takes that money from Medicare to spend on Obamacare. ..." (Read the full exchange.)

So Paul has confirmed his budget includes the Medicare savings.

The Romney campaign got questions on this point the day after Cutter’s remarks, and issued a statement saying that Romney intended to fully repeal the federal law, including the savings for Medicare.

"Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have always been fully committed to repealing Obamacare, ending President Obama’s $716 billion raid on Medicare, and tackling the serious fiscal challenges our country faces," said Lanhee Chen, Romney’s policy director, in a statement reported by NBC News. "A Romney-Ryan administration will restore the funding to Medicare, ensure that no changes are made to the program for those 55 or older, and implement the reforms that they have proposed to strengthen it for future generations."

Cutter, though, was talking about the Ryan budget. We should point out that the Ryan budget is a congressional resolution that doesn’t have the force of law. And its plan for Medicare hasn’t been turned into legislation that could be analyzed in detail by the Congressional Budget Office.

Still, Ryan himself said his plan did include the reductions in future spending that were part of the federal health care law.

That’s because both sides agree on one point: Medicare spending is growing too rapidly, and it needs to reined in.

Our ruling

Cutter said that Romney attacked Obama for cutting $700 billion out of Medicare, but "Paul Ryan protected those cuts in his budget." Again, with this item we are not addressing whether they are cuts, but simply whether she is correctly characterizing Ryan's plan.

Cutter is correct that the Ryan budget plan included cost savings that were part of the future health care law. Just recently, the Romney campaign backed away from that play, saying Romney’s plan would restore the spending that the health law is set to curtail, such as extra funding for private insurers under the Medicare Advantage plan.

Still, Cutter was right about the Ryan plan. We rate her statement True. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/15/stephanie-cutter/ryans-plan-includes-700-billion-medicare-cuts-says/

posted August 15, 2012 12:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
You're easy acoustic.

Most of the time you don't even realize what you've said...like this time.

Let me know when you've cracked the definition of "Most".

---

When you got it, you got it. Eat your heart out AG

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted August 15, 2012 01:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Posting the words of a person known for getting everything wrong isn't going to make you look strong. Furthermore, it kind of reinforces the stereotype of Geminis being superficial, because YOU're not really saying anything.

---

I am SO not superficial, Mister AG. You will have to try harder than that

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal