Video: Paul Ryan on Rape as One "Method" to Get Pregnant, and Other Idiocies

by: lowkell

Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 10:20:14 AM EDT

1. First off, Ryan says in response to the question, "should it be legal for a woman to be able to get an abortion if she's been raped," that "the method of conception doesn't change the definition of life." That's right, according to Paul Ryan, rape is apparently just another "method" of getting pregnant, among others. Either he's a complete imbecile, or he's a seriously confused dude, no better than Todd Akin (with whom Ryan cosponsored legislation outlawing abortion in all cases, including rape and incest).

2. Ryan lies outright that Romney believes in exceptions for rape and incest, which is absolutely false, given that Romney has said he supports the "personhood" amendment which would define life as beginning at conception, thus making any abortion equivalent to murder.

3. Ryan lies outright again, this time in claiming that President Obama has "declared a war on coal." In reality, the U.S. coal industry's doing just fine, with production actually UP in both 2010 and 2011, and with net coal exports skyrocketing. Some war! LOL. Also note, to the extent that coal-fired power plants are switching to natural gas, that's because...wait for it...natural gas production's booming and prices are very low. Finally, I'd point out that Romney has said (correctly, by the way) that coal "kills people."  

5. More substantively, Ryan argue that he's for an "all of the above energy strategy," and that Obama's making it "much more harder" to use our country's energy resources. In reality, Obama's for an "all of the above energy strategy" as well, with natural gas, oil, and renewables production soaring under his presidency. In sum, Ryan's just pulling stuff out of his...er, hindquarters.

On and on with the idiocies, including the total red herring of "ridiculous regulations" somehow making it hard to extract energy in this country (FALSE!), and his blatant lies about who's been blocking a budget deal and racking up deficits (answer: look in the mirror!), plus his pseudo-economics (he'd get an "F" in that class too) on the relationship between the debt and jobs. Just a #FAIL all around with this guy. Is he simply not too bright? A right-wing, Randian fanatic? A pandering politician willing to say anything to get elected? I'd argue "all of the above." How about you?