Michael Ryan Caught Writing Many Lies...Again

Re: "Healthy Debate," from the November 24th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.

In this editorial Mr. Ryan does more than just mislead the reader when he ties the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force report to the Senate Health Care bill. He writes "Democratic health care "reforms" include giving the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations essentially the weight of law. Remember, that's the task force that last week decided--apparently as a cost-saving measure--that women don't need to get routine mammograms until age 50, rather than 40."

False! The task force's recommendations about mammograms are not even mentioned in the bill. Mr. Ryan should be ashamed of himself for making this entirely false claim. He should also be ashamed for plagiarizing this falsehood from other conservative pundits.

Mr. Ryan also complained about a 60 minutes episode segment about wasteful spending on the elderly. He fears that this will lead to government rationing of health care. But insurance companies already ration health care. I trust the government more than businessmen motivated by profit, and so should Mr. Ryan.

One more lie from this editorial: Mr. Ryan falsely claims the bill will lead to a massive shift in resources from senior citizens to young people. This is a completely baseless charge and he supports it with no facts whatsoever.

Mr. Ryan lives in a fantasy world where he just makes stuff up, or copies stuff the Glenn Becks of the world just make up.

********************************************************************************

Re: "Dogpiling on Palin," from the November 23rd edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.

Mr. Ryan is full of dogshit. Here, he whines about the Newsweek cover that shows Palin dressed for running. I don't understand what the big deal is about this. Palin complained that the photo was undignified. She is an uptight, constipated, celebrity. That's how I dress everyday.

Mr. Ryan repeats (for about the millionth time) how he thinks the media treats Obama with kid gloves, yet was brutal to Palin.

This is so untrue. The media unfairly hyped Obama's connection to Ayers and the hot-headed reverend. As if he can help what other people say or do. But Palin endorsed a radical Alaskan group that wanted to secede from the nation, and the mainstream media virtually ignored it.

It's not the mainstream media's fault that Palin comes across as a babbling buffoon.

Mr. Ryan complains that the media focused on Palin's family because her teenaged daughter became pregnant. Of course they did because she actually did something scandalous. Getting pregnant out of wedlock, and getting drunk on the town (as Bush's daughters did) is worthy of tabloid scrutiny. Obama's daughters stay in school and get good grades. If one of them ever steps out of line, the media will jump all over it. Until that happens, Mr. Ryan has no case to make on this point.

**********************************************************************************

Re: "We're building off the foundation," from the November 22nd edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.

Mr. Ryan brings up the tired old argument about how the federal government is abusing the 10th amendment.

This is an argument that can be settled politically rather than judicially. If these right wing nuts, think states should have more power than the federal government, they can try to elect crazy conservatives who want to outlaw federal programs like social security, medicare, the national park system, food stamps, welfare, corporate welfare, etc.

Good Luck!

********************************************************************************

Re: "Close your eyes, pray and hold on," from the November 21st edition of the Augusta Chronicle.

In this editorial Mr. Ryan notes that some business leaders think health care reform will be bad for the economy. Who cares? All businessmen care about is profit, not what's best for the country.

Mr. Ryan also tells a couple of lies in this column too. He writes, "In an effort to provide health insurance to less than 5 percent of the population..."

He doesn't cite a source for this number. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that he either just pulled that number out of his ass or he's being purposefully murky. The health care reform bill will make sure that 95% of people will have insurance, according to news sources I've read.

Another lie is this: Mr. Ryan says the left got its way. If the left had its way, we would have gotten a single payer, socialized system. This was not even on the table for discussion.

Mr. Liean, I mean Ryan also uses statistics to lie. Without citing a source, he states that Americans feel strongly about this issue oppose the plans by a nearly 40%-25% margin.

I googled this number and can't find it anywhere. Most of the polls I've seen show the public is evenly split on this issue. And who is to say how strongly a person feels about it. That would be totally subjective.

Are Michael Ryan and Conservatives Capable of Rational Thought?

Re: "Obama's Dangerous Show Trial," from the November 17th edition of the Augusta Chronicle.

The decision to try criminal terrorists in New York has caused the latest conservative outrage and, of course, Michael Ryan jumped on the bandwagon this week. Their arguments prove they are incapable of rational thought.

It's a lie for conservatives to say that trying the case will give terrorists "as of yet undetermined access to valuable and sensitive national security intelligence." First of all, if the information is yet to be determined, how do conservatives know that terrorists will get access to it? Second of all, the U.S. government's not going to give terrorists information they can use to hurt us. That's just a ridiculous naive assumption.

It's a lie for conservatives to say the trial will give "terrorists a pedestal to spew anti-American propaganda." Nonsense. No judge is going to let that happen in a trial they precide upon.

And there's no way, these guys are going to be acquitted, as Mr. Ryan fears. The federal government has lots of evidence against these criminals. The feds are not like local prosecutors, such as in the OJ case Mr. Ryan uses as an example. When the feds get an indictment, they get a conviction 90% of the time, and in this case I'm confident they will nail these guys. They wouldn't put them on trial unless they had lots of convincing evidence.

The case will not become a circus. The U.S. government already convicted a 9-11 terrorist in a trial in New York and it never became a circus. Why should this one?

Mr. Ryan claims that the decision to put these terrorists on trial is "an abomination...and a most dangerous and regrettable precedent." It's not a precendent--the Bush administration put a 9-11 terrorist on trial already. And to say that it's dangerous is completely unfounded.

Here's the real reason conservatives don't want these trials: It will look good for the Obama administration when these terrorists are finally brought to justice, and it's likely the convictions will come just in time for the 2012 elections.

************************************************************************************

The Augusta Chronicle runs Star Parker's column . This is the woman who supports the legal loan shark industry. She's absolutely opposed to abortion and government welfare, yet she's had 4 abortions and survived poverty, thanks to the grace of welfare and foodstamps. Can anyone say, hypocrite?

************************************************************************************

RE: "The White House numbers racket," from the November 19th edition of the Augusta Chronicle.

Here, Mr. Ryan is making far too much of a real Obama administration gaffe. In fact, his column is a hysterical overreaction to it.

Mr. Ryan accuses the Obama administration of being guilty of deliberate fraud or outright stupidity when reporting the number of jobs created by the stimulus package.

I'm sure the Obama administration didn't deliberately inflate numbers because they're aware the media can easily keep track and debunk them. The whole problem is due to a data collecting glitch. The Obama administration made a big mistake because they decided to rely on outside reporting sources.

However, there is no doubt the stimulus package did save jobs--just not as many jobs as the Obama administration is claiming.

Mr. Ryan is just outright lying when he claims the stimulus package is a massive failure. It has helped a little, but was never meant to completely turn the economy around. The natural business cycle will right the economy no matter what the government does. The stimulus package was more of a band-aid and was about all the government could do in the short term.

Here's the real reason Mr. Ryan want to label the stimulus package a massive failure: He wants Obama to fail.

What Kind of Fantasy World does Michael Ryan Live in?

Re; "Is government-centric approach hurting economy?" from the November 15th editorial page of the Augusta Chronicle.

In this editorial Michael Ryan proposes a "moratorium on the collection of income taxes," as a way to stimulate the economy. It's hard to believe he's serious, and it's kind of scary that such a stupid idea would actually be published in a newspaper of any circulation.

Mr. Ryan has been preaching constantly for the past few months about the conservative movement's fear of the increasing national debt. So what does he think will happen to that debt, if the government stops collecting revenue? The debt will increase astronomically. Moreover, the government will be forced to shut down because it needs money to run it. That's why we have taxes: to run the government. But, of course, Mr. Ryan has stated that he doesn't believe in government, so naturally, stopping collection of income taxes would be the easiest way to end government as we know it.

Where does he think the government gets the money to fight the war on those "Islamic Terrorists" he's so frightened of?

It's been proven many times over that lowering taxes doesn't stimulate the economy. It's a tired, ineffective gimmick. But to suggest a moratorium on collecting taxes is extreme and absurd and shows a complete lack of a sense of reality.

Earlier in this editorial, Mr. Ryan denied hating the president, and referred to charges that he hates the president as "cockamamie." If he doesn't hate the president, why did he call him a cold fish last week? Why does he still accuse him of being unpatriotic (see the flag pin label post on this blog)? Why does he cherry pick polls to show that his policies are unpopular? Why does he consistently bear false witness against President Obama as I've noted on many blog entries here?

Last year, Mr. Ryan blamed Obama for the falling stock market. Now that the stock market's up, he gives Obama no credit for its rise. Instead, in this editorial, he's blaming Obama for next year's unemployment rate which according to one study will be 13%. I predict the unemployment rate will decline next year, and Mr. Ryan won't give Obama credit for that good news.

Mr. Ryan points out that the current unemployment rate is higher than the Obama administration predicted. Supposedly, this means the government stimulus package didn't work, but this is not true at all. Without the stimulus package the unemployment rate would've been even higher. According to the November 15th edition of the Augusta Chronicle on page 1 of the Metro section in an article entitled "Stimulus saves teachers for now," the stimulus saved 400 jobs for two years in Augusta, and 16,000 jobs statewide.

Once again, Mr. Ryan fails to read his own paper.

It's likely we'll need an even more government centric approach to help right the economy.

***********************************************************************************

RE; "Will they try to fine us for this too?" also from this same editorial page.

I agree with Mr. Ryan on this one. The SEC shouldn't have the power to fine coaches for telling the truth when the referees stink up the field and make bad calls. There's no way, no matter what the Urban's Meyer's contract says, that this fine would hold up in a court of law.

More Hysteria from Michael Ryan

Re: "If anyone's ill, it's apologists," from the November 12th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.

The whole premise of Mr. Ryan's opinion piece is false. Nobody is apologizing for Nidal Hasan, the man who allegedly shot 30 people at Fort Hood, killing 13. Mr. Ryan uses the tragic shooting as an excuse to hysterically attack what he thinks is political correctness. Mr. Ryan flatly denies the possiblity that Hasan was mentally ill and tells us with absolute certainty that it was a "pre-meditated, cold, calculated, and carefully executed act of Islamic terrorism on American soil."

There are a couple of points I find disgusting with his statement. First of all, Mr. Ryan knows nothing about mental illness. He's not a doctor and he's not an academic who has studied mental illness. Some of Hasan's colleagues did express their concerns that Hasan may have been mentally ill. Second of all, there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism. To stick the adjective of Islamic on the noun, terrorism, is simply bigoted rhetoric and has no place in a public newspaper. When a Christian man beats his wife to death, we don't call it an act of Christian terrorism. Why should a person's religion be attached to his behavior? There have been other mass shootings in the military committed by Christians. Nobody referred to these acts as "Christian terrorism."

Mr. Ryan also shows once again that he needs to read his own newspaper because he wrote that "Reports say Hasan had 10 to 20 contacts with a top al-Qaida recruiter..." No, he didn't. AP reports published by the Augusta Chronicle say there's no evidence the radical cleric Hasan sent emails to was a member of al-Qaida. To make that claim is slanderous. According to the FBI, the emails did not give any indication that Hasan was going to go on a shooting spree.

There's no way anyone could've predicted that an army psychiatrist would go psycho. For conservatives to claim that failure to prevent this was due to political correctness is a ridiculous stretch.

Mr. Ryan wrote that Hasan gave a lecture in which he said, "if you don't believe (in Islam) you're condemned to hell..."

I'm agnostic but take my wife to a Christian church because she's disabled and can't attend without my help. More than one person who goes to that church has told me I'm going to hell because I don't believe in Christianity. Does that make them a terrorist threat?

************************************************************************************

Today, Mr. Ryan ran a column by Charles Krauthammer, a regular Fox News contributor whose ideas Mr. Ryan frequently rips off. Recently, conservatives have been claiming a big victory in the off year elections because they won two governorships. But they fell further behind in the House of Representatives. I wouldn't call falling further behind in the House a victory.

In "They myth of 2008--demolished," Mr. Krauthammer claims the election was an aberration, not a big FDR re-alignment. It's too early to know for sure, but I wouldn't rush to judgement over one off year election when nobody votes. If we had high voter turn out, republicans would lose big time in every election everywhere. The only reason they won two governorships this time, was because nobody shows up for off year elections.

He also repeats the oft-cited poll that shows conservatives outnumber liberals by 2-1. This poll is B.S. When push comes to shove, the U.S. is a liberal socialist country. Even when republicans had control of all three branches of government, they didn't dare take away Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and food stamps--all liberal socialist programs.

Michael Ryan Repeats Debunked Flag Pin Lie

Re: "Giving Freedom a Miss" from the November 10th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.

Michael Ryan repeated the debunked lie that Obama resisted wearing a pin of the American flag on his suit. This is a lie originating with Fox News, and during the presidential campaign conservatives made a big deal about whether or not Obama was wearing a flag pin, even though most of them never wear a flag pin. I bet Mr. Ryan's never worn one. Gee, how un-American. Maybe Billy Morris should fire him for being so unpatriotic.

Nevertheless, the above picture proves that Obama doesn't resist wearing a flag pin.

Obama has also never made a speech in a foreign land, or in America, bashing America as Mr. Ryan falsely claims.

It's quite obvious that Mr. Ryan is an unabashed liar.

Mr. Ryan criticizes President Obama for not traveling to Europe and making a speech at the ceremonies commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall. He did send a videotaped message which, I think is good enough.

Yesterday, on NPR, a historian was reading from President H.W. Bush's diary. The diary entry from 1989 shows that Bush was trying to find a way to slow down events leading to the end of the Cold War. Republicans were against ending the Cold War because they knew it would decrease defense profits. Mostly, Bush didn't like the fall of the Berlin Wall because Gorbachev was making him look bad. Gorbachev did more to end the Cold War than any American.

As usual, Mr. Ryan is simply full of shit.

It's not personal? Bologna!

Re: "Surprise Attack," from the November 7th editorial page of the Augusta Chronicle.

Michael Ryan consistently makes the claim that he criticizes the president based on disagreements with policy, not personal attacks. This editorial is evidence that his claim is false.

Mr. Ryan calls President Obama a "cold fish," because in Mr. Ryan's opinion, the president's words about the mass shooting at Fort Hood were not "heartfelt, respectful, and reassuring."

I don't get it. What was the president supposed to do? Have a nervous breakdown and cry? Would that have satisifed Mr. Ryan?

He claims it's not personal. Bologna!

*********************************************************************************

Re: "Get Serious? Seriously?" from the November 9th editorial page of the Augusta Chronicle.

Mr. Ryan writes a bunch of falsehoods based on conservative, economic, philosophical fantasies in this commentary.

First off, he writes the oft-repeated conservative nonsense that government doesn't produce wealth. This is not true at all. Governments are founded by funding wars that take natural resources from other countries or governments. Governments then create a monetary system, regulate it, and print money. Without the government there would be no money, and therefore no wealth. The fastest rates of economic growth in U.S. history occurred at times when the U.S. government has had the most control over the economy. See World War II, the greatest public works project of all time.

Mr. Ryan criticizes the Obama administration for a massive budget deficit that began to occur under George W. Bush and the republicans when they funded two unnecessary wars of occupation. Mr. Ryan never wrote one column criticizing this wasteful spedning.

A second conservative fantasy Mr. Ryan regurgitates in this editorial is that "reducing taxes and cutting government spending" stimulates the economy. There is no evidence whatsoever that this works. It failed under Reagan and George W. Bush. Both presidents cut taxes, and under both presidents we went into immediate recessions, followed by cyclical recessions ten years later. George W. Bush cut taxes like crazy, yet the economy still plunged into a recession. This is proof beyond a doubt that supply side economics is just a fantasy.

Finally, Mr. Ryan makes the false claim that cap and trade limits on greenhouse gases will weaken the recovery. There is no evidence for this so once again he's making an unsupported claim. The long term effects of doing nothing about greenhouse gases will likely be even worse for the economy.

Michael Ryan is a hysterical ignoramus

Re: "The Worst Bill Ever," from the November 6th editorial page of the Augusta Chronicle.

Michael Ryan calls the new health care reform plan the worst bill ever. I can guarantee he's never read one word of it. So how would he know? Rejecting something without studying means he's rejecting it out of ignorance, making him an ignoramus.

Of course, he bases his opinion on what other conservative pundits are saying. For example he cites the Wall Street Journal which called it the "worst bill ever." It's a good bet nobody on the Wall Street Journal editorial board has read one bit of it either. That paper is a right wing, pro-business publication, and their opposition to any democratic bill is knee-jerk and not to be unexpected.

Basing an opinion on what Michele Bachman, a nutty ditz from Minnesota, says doesn't strengthen Mr. Ryan's case either. Ms. Bachman led a demonstration in front of capitol hill yesterday, opposing the bill. Mr. Ryan writes "thousands of tea party activists converged upon the hill." This is a little misleading--it was only 4,000 people (the ugliest group of fat white people a person will ever see)--less than the average attendance of a Richmond County high school football game. They carried ridiculous, racist signs targetting President Obama. The lead, most prominent sign, equated the health care plan with the holocaust. The sign had the words National Socialist Health Care Plan over a picture of dead bodies piled up at Dachau concentration camp. Anybody who thinks improving health care reform is in any way comparable to mass murder is a stupid ass.

Ms. Bachman falsely referred to the health care reform bill as socialized medicine. It's not socialized medicine, not even close, because private insurance companies will still exist and remain the predominate source of funding for health care.

Mr. Ryan writes that eventually "all medicine will be rationed by politics." Logically, most people would rather have government rationing health care than profit-minded, greedy business executives.

I have one other criticism of this editorial. Mr. Ryan noted that "One economist has estimated the federal government is now in control of 30 percent of the U.S. economy. Adding health care would increase its control to about 48 percent." He doesn't cite his source. What economist says this? An anonymous economist can just make up numbers. I would like to know what economist based on what study came up with these numbers.

Michael Ryan's misleading commentary about Obama mopping up Bush's mess

Re: "Now it's his responsibility," from the November 2nd editorial page of the Augusta Chronicle.

Today, Michael Ryan was misleading readers again. After rehashing Dick Cheney's use of the word "dither" (See a previous entry on this blog for my commentary on this ridiculous point), Mr. Ryan wrote, "Obama and his minions continue to laugh off the lingering economic crisis as somebody else's mess--even pretending to mop it up last week."

Nobody in the Obama administration is laughing off the economic mess, and President Obama never said it wasn't his responsibility. Here's the actual quote--the video is on www.youtube.com

"Another way of putting it is when I'm busy and Nancy (Pelosi) is busy with our mop cleaning up somebody else's mess--we don't want somebody saying you're not holding that mop right. Why don't you grab a mop? Why don't you help clean up?"

This is more of an accurate analogy than a joke. President Obama IS taking responsibility, he's grabbing the mop to clean up the mess.

I doubt Mr. Ryan actually saw the video or he might've actually understood what President Obama was saying. Instead, Mr. Ryan most likely heard about it second hand from Charles Krauthammer or read something at www.newsbusters.com

In the middle of this editorial Mr. Ryan continues to repeat the lie that President Obama's continuing to slide in the polls. As I noted in a previous blog entry, he cherry-picked one poll out of eight to show this.

Mr. Ryan then wrote, "...President Bush stood on the rubble of a disaster (9-11) he didn't cause and took ownership fixing it..."

Obviously, by using the analogy of the mop, President Obama is taking ownership also, but Mr. Ryan is too dumb or uninformed to understand this.

Moreover, President Bush is at least partially to blame for 9-11, but that's an item to discuss on another entry.