37 replies to this topic

[STL Frog]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 11 August 2012 - 03:04 AM, said:

You're rather free with the "liar" label again. Be specific: What is the lie? Your attempt to change of ground, perhaps, and the fact I refuse to play into your game?  Nah.

I--like RSF whom you are also calling a "blatant liar" apparently [RSF: Don't say I didn't warn you...I in fact did!]--said that there is no evidence that anywhere near 57% support the majority of the specific proposals of the Ryan budget--as one example, get 57% to support the graphic on page 22, I "challenge" you--rather than a glowing summary without specifics. Show that that is a lie. I said both sides are distorting--yes Virginia, throwing grandma off a cliff is very much the same as death panels, etc. Show that that is a lie.

As well, your Alice-in-Wonderland language--if not an outright "lie"--continues. Look up the definition of the word "circumlocution". I think any educated person would find quoting specifics on the point of the subject from an official document fails to fit that definition. Well except in your rather Bizzaro--or lying--world.

Or you can keep playing your usual jerk self. One or the other. I suspect I know which will happen.

It's gotten so bad that a left-wing advisory group has become NFF's version of the Paul Ryan "fact check."

Seriously, professor moderate is attempting to boost his argument with a document written by liberal strategic operatives with close ties to the Democratic Party.  

It's as if he doesn't even want to acknowledge this simple truth.  

"Look at page 22!  Look at page 22!!"  Huh?  Uh, how about you start with MO of the organization that produced this "report" then get back with me.  

And no, of course RSF isn't a liar.  I'm glad he dug up the source - he likes details.  Further he acknowledged that the group was founded by James Carville.  The "individual planks" as described by DemCorps are woefully misleading, as I demonstrate above with factcheck.org in support.  But I doubt RSF cared that much to dig any deeper.

[STL Frog]

So I just read through the CBO report excerpt that NFF decided to grace us with.  Anyone want to guess which of Paul Ryan's budgets he's directing all his (misdirected) angst towards?

HInt:  It ain't the current one.

Oops.  

I know, minor detail.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

STL Frog, on 11 August 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

It's gotten so bad that a left-wing advisory group has become NFF's version of the Paul Ryan "fact check."

Seriously, professor moderate is attempting to boost his argument with a document written by liberal strategic operatives with close ties to the Democratic Party.  

It's as if he doesn't even want to acknowledge this simple truth.  

"Look at page 22!  Look at page 22!!"  Huh?  Uh, how about you start with MO of the organization that produced this "report" then get back with me.  

And no, of course RSF isn't a liar.  I'm glad he dug up the source - he likes details.  Further he acknowledged that the group was founded by James Carville.  The "individual planks" as described by DemCorps are woefully misleading, as I demonstrate above with factcheck.org in support.  But I doubt RSF cared that much to dig any deeper.

Uh, the only source I quoted was the CBO report. To the best of my knowledge, the are not reputed to have that partisan of an MO. Consider yourself "being got back to".

Unless you consider more fully expanding on TC's rather one-sided presentation of a single graph without explanation of how that graph was constructed by quoting from the methods section only from TCs source to be the "blatant lie". I just never knew that quoting rather dry methods constituted "blatant lies".

The individual planks were brought up by RSF as you note. He, I fear, is your "blatant liar".

So where is the "blatant lie"? You say it, but you fail to present the slightest shred of evidence of one. Fairly typical of your "reasoning".

[NewfoundlandFrog]

STL Frog, on 11 August 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:

So I just read through the CBO report excerpt that NFF decided to grace us with.  Anyone want to guess which of Paul Ryan's budgets he's directing all his (misdirected) angst towards?

HInt:  It ain't the current one.

Oops.  

I know, minor detail.

What part of "CBO initial description of Ryan budget" do you fail to understand? The essentials, especially turning Medicare into a voucher program (see page 22 )  are the same. I have not seen later CBO reports.

Where's the "blatant lie"? Be specific. Or, be a jerk.

[STL Frog]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 12 August 2012 - 03:45 AM, said:

Uh, the only source I quoted was the CBO report. To the best of my knowledge, the are not reputed to have that partisan of an MO. Consider yourself "being got back to".

Unless you consider more fully expanding on TC's rather one-sided presentation of a single graph without explanation of how that graph was constructed by quoting from the methods section only from TCs source to be the "blatant lie". I just never knew that quoting rather dry methods constituted "blatant lies".

The individual planks were brought up by RSF as you note. He, I fear, is your "blatant liar".

So where is the "blatant lie"? You say it, but you fail to present the slightest shred of evidence of one. Fairly typical of your "reasoning".

Again, NFF, without even taking a breath us sticking with a "report" issued by Democratic strategic advisors as the Paul Ryan fact check,  

This is so bad it's good.

[STL Frog]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 12 August 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

What part of "CBO initial description of Ryan budget" do you fail to understand? The essentials, especially turning Medicare into a voucher program (see page 22 )  are the same. I have not seen later CBO reports.

Where's the "blatant lie"? Be specific. Or, be a jerk.

Apparently the professor hasn't even figured out what's going on yet.  That the CBO report excerpt is from Ryan's 2011 budget.  Since I have to spell it out for him (the link to the Factcheck report was too challenging it appears):

"Democrats are still hammering an old, and since replaced, GOP proposal, claiming it  would “end Medicare,” and cost seniors $6,000 more a year for their health care. The newest Republican budget, proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, keeps traditional Medicare — unlike his plan from 2011 — and the increased cost claim is no longer applicable to it...

...His plan didn’t pertain to the seniors pictured in the attack ads — they would remain on traditional Medicare, with only new beneficiaries in 2022 and beyond joining the private system.

The claim made our list of the Whoppers of 2011."

Again,oops.  It's not only the wrong budget, but as Factcheck puts it, it was one of the most blatantly dishonest claims of 2011.

Odd that Professor moderate is parroting Democratic talking points found to be undeniably false.  That never happens.

Prof, here's an idea: Go start a thread about the Paul Ryan 2011 budget and hammer away at it.  We'll all come over and join you.  Promise.

Meanwhile, let's recap:

"STL is a big jerk for pointing out that my asanine claims are both false and misdrected.  And he's using FactCheck to embarrass me!  I repeat: What a jerk!!"

[NewfoundlandFrog]

STL Frog, on 12 August 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

Again, NFF, without even taking a breath us sticking with a "report" issued by Democratic strategic advisors as the Paul Ryan fact check,  

This is so bad it's good.

Uh, the report I referenced is a CBO report...as in cbo."gov". To say otherwise is a "blatant lie". Really.

The only part of the report TC/RSF cited I "stuck with" is the method by which that data were collected. Which I criticized rather than "stuck with".

You're very confused.

[STL Frog]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 12 August 2012 - 06:31 AM, said:

Uh, the report I referenced is a CBO report...as in cbo."gov". To say otherwise is a "blatant lie". Really.

The only part of the report TC/RSF cited I "stuck with" is the method by which that data were collected. Which I criticized rather than "stuck with".

You're very confused.

NFF can't understand the difference between a 2011 budget and a 2012 budget.  Nor can he read a Factcheck report.  

Here's a summary of NFF's comments on the Ryan budgets:

• 2012: No comment.  He apparently doesn't even know it exists.
  
• 2011: Factcheck characterizes the claim as "one of the biggest whoppers of 2011."

Here's what professor moderate, obliviously, is doing via Factcheck:

The ads ignore the updated Ryan plan, choosing instead to highlight an old, and misleading, claim.

Look, NFF!  They're talking about you!

Prof: Go take your hackery to another thread.  Title it: "Paul Ryan's budget:  I lie about the old one.  Clueless about the new one."

Seriously, we'll come join. Really.

[RSF]

It's really sweet that y'all are fighting over me, but neither one of you is my type.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

STL Frog, on 12 August 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

NFF can't understand the difference between a 2011 budget and a 2012 budget.  Nor can he read a Factcheck report.  

Here's a summary of NFF's comments on the Ryan budgets:

2012: No comment.  He apparently doesn't even know it exists.

I did not find a nonpartisan description. Perhaps you have one. Be specific about the essentials--e.g., medicare vouchers--of political importance that change significantly

Quote

2011: Factcheck characterizes the claims as "one of the biggest whoppers of 2011."  

Here's what professor moderate, obliviously, is doing via Factcheck:

The ads ignore the updated Ryan plan, choosing instead to highlight an old, and misleading, claim.

Look, NFF!  They're talking about you!

Uh, no. I am talking about the CBO. Never talked about anything else except in your own mind. Certainly never said anyone would "end medicare" Did cite a CBO graph showing the proposed changes (which are not different in a single substantive way in the present budget).

Quote

Prof: Go take your hackery to another thread.  Title it: "Paul Ryan's budget:  I lie about the old one.  Clueless about the new one."

Seriously, we'll come join. Really.

What "lie" again? Be specific. So far you have not come up with a single one.

You have ranted well, however. In the true dictionary definition of the term. And you're still confused. You are ranting against a person in your head, however, not a person int he real world.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

RSF, on 12 August 2012 - 06:49 AM, said:

It's really sweet that y'all are fighting over me, but neither one of you is my type.

Who said I wanted you!?

But I must say you are the cause of all this as you did in fact post what STL is so upset about.

[STL Frog]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 12 August 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

I did not find a nonpartisan description. Perhaps you have one. Be specific about the essentials--e.g., medicare vouchers--of political importance that change significantly

Uh, no. I am talking about the CBO. Never talked about anything else except in your own mind. Certainly never said anyone would "end medicare" Did cite a CBO graph showing the proposed changes (which are not different in a single substantive way in the present budget).


What "lie" again? Be specific. So far you have not come up with a single one.

You have ranted well, however. In the true dictionary definition of the term. And you're still confused. You are ranting against a person in your head, however, not a person int he real world.

NFF's new argument:  "Well okay, so there is a new budget.  And the CBO report I cited scores the old one - just like you told me three times.  B-b-but, see, the old one...it's, like, er, the same as the new one!!" Or something.



A white flag will suffice.  Thanks.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

STL Frog, on 12 August 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

NFF's new argument:  "Well okay, so there is a new budget.  And the CBO report I cited scores the old one - just like you told me three times.  B-b-but, see, the old one...it's, like, er, the same as the new one!!" Or something.



A white flag will suffice.  Thanks.

So there is no claim I made you disagree with, then?

What do you find remarkably different in the two budgets (actually 2012 and 2013 if you're going to be as nitpicky as you appear to want to be)? What major program ideas changed in your mind?

[STL Frog]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 12 August 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

So there is no claim I made you disagree with, then?

What do you find remarkably different in the two budgets (actually 2012 and 2013 if you're going to be as nitpicky as you appear to want to be)? What major program ideas changed in your mind?

"Hey STL is getting all nitpicky again!  When I want to mislead about an old Paul Ryan budget, I shouldn't be told that there's a new one!  And that the Medicare claims I'm making on the old one are blatantly false!  Jerk! Jerk!"

[NewfoundlandFrog]

STL Frog, on 12 August 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

"Hey STL is getting all nitpicky again!  When I want to mislead about an old Paul Ryan budget, I shouldn't be told that there's a new one!  And that the Medicare claims I'm making on the old one are blatantly false!  Jerk! Jerk!"

Certainly not a single specific, only rant after rant. Do you have anything real to contribute?

And yes, you most definitely are being a jerk.

[STL Frog]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 12 August 2012 - 07:09 AM, said:

Certainly not a single specific, only rant after rant. Do you have anything real to contribute?

And yes, you most definitely are being a jerk.

I understand it's exhausting getting taken to task in every thread, on every deceitful claim, on every dodge-and-deflect routine.  

I'd be tired too.  But to call someone a jerk for embarrassing you in yet another thread, now that's just not right.

Now go start that 2011 Ryan budget thread....run along...

[NewfoundlandFrog]

STL Frog, on 12 August 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

I understand it's exhausting getting taken to task in every thread, on every deceitful claim, on every dodge-and-deflect routine.  

I'd be tired too.  But to call someone a jerk for embarrassing you in yet another thread, now that's just not right.

Now go start that 2011 Ryan budget thread....run along...

If you're tired of being a ranting jerk, that's fine by me. As for me, I remain supremely unembarrassed.

[STL Frog]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 12 August 2012 - 07:31 AM, said:

If you're tired of being a ranting jerk, that's fine by me. As for me, I remain supremely unembarrassed.

Great point.  Not realizing the difference between an old budget and new budget, then not even acknowledging the difference after it had to be pointed out to you, and finally pretending the CBO score of the old budget is still relevant - all while attempting to mask your obliviousness through it all - shouldn't be embarrassing.  It's beyond embarrassing.