Skip to main content

Pinocchio Ryan is at it again - this time with military spending cuts

Mitt Romney's running mate should seriously change his name from Paul Ryan to Pinocchio Ryan. With all the lies he's told in the past 2-3 weeks, I'm beginning to even doubt that his name is in fact Paul Ryan.

Pinocchio was at it again on Sunday, where he told MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell on Face the Nation that he never voted for the military spending cuts O'Donnell asked him about.

The 2011 law he voted for - the Budget Control Act - cut federal government spending by $1.2 trillion, including $492 billion in military spending.

He's recently criticized the Obama Administration for the military spending cuts that were included in the bill (which he voted for), but at about this point last year, he was praising that which he's now criticizing. Confused? Let Mr. Ryan try explaining it to you himself. Here's what big nose said on Fox News' The Sean Hannity Show back in August of last year:

"Right, right, that's a good question. So, $21 billion right away for the first fiscal year. Then it's about $46, I think, that's off the top of my head, for the second fiscal year. How much out of defense in the first fiscal year will be $9 billion from what we call the security accounts. That's not just defense. That's all security. The Homeland Security, National Security. And then $2 billion to $4 billion the next year. So, the cuts on defense are -- were minimized quite a bit by the most recent agreement John Boehner reached."

I'm starting to believe that once Ryan's lips starting moving, you know he's lying.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/09/10/821131/ryan-touts-savings-of-military-spending-cuts-yet-denies-their-existence/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i...