Paul Ryan introduced as R-Money's running mate

I'm sure glad they went with a way-conservative white dude who wants to screw poor and sick people.

I guess this move energizes the GOP base, and even tea party factions of the right, but does it help to gain anything in the middle? Any undecideds that are going to throw their support to Romneyhood now? Any progressive or social liberals, that are fiscally conservative that might be swayed at this point? I don't see it. We appear to be doubling down on the white ultra-conservative strain.

It's safe, as opposed to the Sarah Palin debacle...heck he's not even Latino, he's whiter than the strangely orange Boehner. And is is young - at 42, he's barely had time to yell at kids about getting off his yacht's lawn.

This election is over. Romney has virtually no chance.

It's more about picking up House and Senate seats at this point. Romney never had a chance. He's just a sacrificial lamb for the GOP as they get ready for 2016.

Here is Ryans voting record. Yep a real conservative lol.

Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli

-Voted YES on TARP (2008)

-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs

-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)

Paul Ryan on Education
Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administration in supporting more federal involvement in education. This is contrary to the traditional Republican position, which included support for abolition of the Department of Education and decreasing federal involvement in education.

-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)

Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties

-Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
-Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)

Paul Ryan on War and Intervention Abroad

-Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
-Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
-Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

Here is Ryans voting record. Yep a real conservative lol.

Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli

-Voted YES on TARP (2008)


-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs

-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)

Paul Ryan on Education
Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administration in supporting more federal involvement in education. This is contrary to the traditional Republican position, which included support for abolition of the Department of Education and decreasing federal involvement in education.

-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)

Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties

-Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
-Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)

Paul Ryan on War and Intervention Abroad

-Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
-Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
-Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

---

Implying people like pete or yomama care about voting records over the guy saying what they want to hear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

Here is Ryans voting record. Yep a real conservative lol.

Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli

-Voted YES on TARP (2008)

-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs

-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)

Paul Ryan on Education
Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administration in supporting more federal involvement in education. This is contrary to the traditional Republican position, which included support for abolition of the Department of Education and decreasing federal involvement in education.

-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)

Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties

-Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
-Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)

Paul Ryan on War and Intervention Abroad

-Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
-Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
-Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

---

You know, this is why I wonder why liberals talked about Bush like he was the anti-christ. I mean, I'm pretty on board with a lot of what you listed (and so is BHO), and I'm all about the liberal use of government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

You know, this is why I wonder why liberals talked about Bush like he was the anti-christ. I mean, I'm pretty on board with a lot of what you listed (and so is BHO), and I'm all about the liberal use of government.

---

Social issues and tax breaks on the rich are why I am anti Bush. Not to mention a couple wars I didn't agree with.


But that's just me.

Agree with OD (omg can't believe I said that)

For me I would throw in diplomacy and dealing well with other nations and the UN as big anti-Bush seeds. Then there's all the outing of spies, Ashcroft and the other idiots put in charge, great job Brownie, and about 100 other items that make Bush a ridiculously terrible/embarrassing time in our nation's recent history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

This election is over. Romney has virtually no chance.

---

I lol at this assumption. Honestly I feel I am at ground zero in all things politics right now. With Ryan being named VP I feel more so. Trust me Wisconsin is not a conseravitve state but people are fired up about this. Ryan like Walker is suddenly a god here. DO NOT underestimate Romney/Ryan. They have money and a rabid base. It will be a tough election. Trust me. If I had $1 for everytime I heard how Walker wouldn't win (twice!!) or Johnson couldn't possibly beat Feingold, I would be rich! This election will be very close, do not think otherwise. Make sure everyone you know votes! The stakes are too high.

Dude is truly for small government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Dude is truly for small government.

---

Good one. Particularly liked the video at the end with Barney Frank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by etothep

Implying people like pete or yomama care about voting records over the guy saying what they want to hear

---

You mean like going gaga over "hope & change." Lolol. The liberals ate it up and ended up with George Bush lite!! Lololol!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

This election is over. Romney has virtually no chance.

---

Just more proof that your totally out of touch with reality! We'll have a nice padded room waiting for you Nov. 7th.


Yomama still luvs ya!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yomamaimontv

Just more proof that your totally out of touch with reality! We'll have a nice padded room waiting for you Nov. 7th.

Yomama still luvs ya!!

---

Anyone that thinks Romney has not just a good chance, but is a huge favorite, is the one that's out of touch with reality.

And, again, just to reiterate, I'm not voting for Obama, but it's pretty clear that Romney is a gigantic underdog. Fivethirtyeight puts the current odds at 70/30 in favor of Obama.

Your in fantasy landif you think he is a gigantic underdog! I am not familiar with that website you linked, but I have seen several that have it very close. Just check the gallup numbers. I believe Romney had a slight lead. In the battleground states of Fla,Ohio & Wis. The polls are very tight. 2010 was very bad for the Dems, but I give Obama a slight edge as the economy is improving. It will be much closer than 08.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yomamaimontv

Your in fantasy landif you think he is a gigantic underdog! I am not familiar with that website you linked, but I have seen several that have it very close. Just check the gallup numbers. I believe Romney had a slight lead. In the battleground states of Fla,Ohio & Wis. The polls are very tight. 2010 was very bad for the Dems, but I give Obama a slight edge as the economy is improving. It will be much closer than 08.

---

538 is a political statistical projection sign ran and created by the creator of the PECOTA baseball projection system, Nate Silver. It has had stunning accuracy in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yomamaimontv

Just more proof that your totally out of touch with reality! We'll have a nice padded room waiting for you Nov. 7th.


Yomama still luvs ya!!

---

I see you ran away like a punk from the discussion we were having in the other thread a few weeks back and are now back to your mindless bombthrowing.

Get bent.

Huh, I just read the wiki on fivethirtyeight. Very interesting. I will have to look at this more. Good stuff!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

I see you ran away like a punk from the discussion we were having in the other thread a few weeks back and are now back to your mindless bombthrowing.

Get bent.

---

Glad to see your e-boner is still rock hard for me! I thought it had gone soft. Then you really would have been useless!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yomamaimontv

Glad to see your e-boner is still rock hard for me! I thought it had gone soft. Then you really would have been useless!

---

Yeah!



GET EM

/yawn

More inane drivel from the miserable tosser who has Rollen Stewart as his forum avatar. I didn't realize they'd let you use the internet in federal prison.

Intelligent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

/yawn

More inane drivel from the miserable tosser who has Rollen Stewart as his forum avatar. I didn't realize they'd let you use the internet in federal prison.

---

Ohhhhhh.


STRIKE BACK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989

Ohhhhhh.


STRIKE BACK

---

Funny story. Rollen Stewart, who is in prison for kidnapping a hotel maid several years back because he thought the rapture was happening, is nuttier than holy hell and spends his time writing (literally) colorful crank letters to various media outlets around the country, talking about the impending apocalypse and whatnot. A few years back, he sent one to our paper. One of our editors still has it. It's freakin' bizarre.

Attachment 38545

Snakes!

IIRC Obama had a 7-8 point lead over Romney across all major polls days before the Ryan announcement, to the point that a lot of commentators thought Romney was making the announcement specifically to head off that momentum.

http://www.classwarfareexists.com/ye...#axzz23auOHDPR

Guess if you're not rich, you should die in the street if you believe in this Ryan fellow as well.

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/14/paul...nt_build_that/

Quote:

---

Or does he? What’s funny is that Mr. Anti-Spending secured millions in earmarks for his home state of Wisconsin, including, among other things, $3.3 million for highway projects. And Ryan voted to preserve $40 billion in special subsidies for big oil, an industry in which, it so happens, Ryan and his wife hold ownership stakes. Yet Ryan wants to gut financial aid for college students, food stamps for hungry families, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security — the very things that have, historically, helped poor families climb the ladder of opportunity in America.

And this is precisely the problem with the Romney-Ryan vision for America: It takes the ladder of opportunity and public infrastructure that helped the previous generation and yanks it up for the next generation. Your grandfather went to college on the GI Bill? We’re not even going to give you measly Pell Grants! Your grandmother lived independently thanks to Social Security? We’re giving yours to Wall Street to crash with the rest of our economy! Your great-grandfather got rich building public railways and roads? We’re going to cut taxes for the rich to historic lows and raise taxes on the struggling middle class to barely cover the cost of plugging potholes!

It’s “I Got Mine, Now Screw You!” economics. This kind of hard-heartedness may appeal to the extreme fringe base of Republican voters, but it is as repulsive to mainstream voters as it is corrosive to the American dream. The Romney-Ryan budget focuses 62 percent of its cuts on programs that help the poor — in order to pay for more tax breaks for the already-rich and, incidentally, raise the deficit.

---

How do people seriously fall for this ****ing nonsense? Ryan, like so many other so-called "conservatives" in today's Republican Tea Party, isn't about cutting government spending and limiting governmental influence. He's about doing whatever it takes to bolster the wallets of him and his rich pals in business. If that means funding $40 billion subsidies to the oil industry by cutting educational aid to college students, then so be it. So long as the rich get richer, Ryan doesn't care how it happens. And middle and lower class people ACTUALLY fall for the BS and believe that Romney, Ryan and their colleagues act with THEIR interests in mind. Baffling. Absolutely baffling.

It's because so much of the conservative platform involves playing to their constituents' morality on "how things should be." You shouldn't give welfare because they didn't earn that money. Rich people shouldn't be taxed more because they shouldn't be punished for success. Government shouldn't borrow money because regular people can't. It can be a very compelling message, especially someone that lives in a more sparsely-populated area. When you live in a small town, the necessity of government isn't as readily apparent, and so people hear their conception of "how things should be" reinforced, and they buy in.

On an intellectual level, it's obviously not very logical. Government needs to respond realities, and it can't govern effectively if it is simply trying to conform it's actions with what people considered "fair" in other contexts and in other time frames. Wholly separate from whether conservatives actually govern in conformance with those morality plays (we all know people win elections on rhetoric and not results, and that both parties generally are just figuring out ways to get theirs, but I digress), the sooner we get morality plays out of general policy conversations, the better.

Now, you won't ever take morals out of debates on abortion, gay marriage, or other issues that implicate religion, and that's fine. But when talking about anything invoking money--be it tax policy, social security, industrial subsidies, restrictions on credit, welfare, health care, etc.--there is simply no reason to argue about something being fair or not fair. Both sides are at fault, because while conservatives love to make the arguments, you get plenty of liberals willing to engage it. Cries about class warfare are stupid either way. When you talk about progressive income tax, it has nothing to do with punishing the rich. Progressive income tax does not exist to be Robin Hood. The reason you place a higher tax burden on the wealthy is because it's the best way to maximize government revenue without damaging the economy. Taking money from someone who already has more money than they can and will prudently spend doesn't implicate economic growth the way that taking money from someone with an average income would. Similarly, giving people welfare seems like free money for someone who doesn't earn it, but it's still a good investment because otherwise that same person would likely resort to crime to make ends meet, ending up in the criminal justice system and costing the government far more to handle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

It's because so much of the conservative platform involves playing to their constituents' morality on "how things should be." You shouldn't give welfare because they didn't earn that money. Rich people shouldn't be taxed more because they shouldn't be punished for success. Government shouldn't borrow money because regular people can't. It can be a very compelling message, especially someone that lives in a more sparsely-populated area. When you live in a small town, the necessity of government isn't as readily apparent, and so people hear their conception of "how things should be" reinforced, and they buy in.

On an intellectually, it's obviously not very logical. Government needs to respond realities, and it can't govern effectively if it is simply trying to conform it's actions with what people considered "fair" in other contexts and in other time frames. Wholly separate from whether conservatives actually govern in conformance with those morality plays (we all know people win elections on rhetoric and not results, and that both parties generally are just figuring out ways to get theirs, but I digress), the sooner we get morality plays out of general policy conversations, the better.

Now, you won't ever take morals out of debates on abortion, gay marriage, or other issues that implicate religion, and that's fine. But when talking about anything invoking money--be it tax policy, social security, industrial subsidies, restrictions on credit, welfare, health care, etc.--there is simply no reason to argue about something being fair or not fair. Both sides are at fault, because while conservatives love to make the arguments, you get plenty of liberals willing to engage it. Cries about class warfare are stupid either way. When you talk about progressive income tax, it has nothing to do with punishing the rich. Progressive income tax does not exist to be Robin Hood. The reason you place a higher tax burden on the wealthy is because it's the best way to maximize government revenue without damaging the economy. Taking money from someone who already has more money than they can and will prudently spend doesn't implicate economic growth the way that taking money from someone with an average income would. Similarly, giving people welfare seems like free money for someone who doesn't earn it, but it's still a good investment because otherwise that same person would likely resort to crime to make ends meet, ending up in the criminal justice system and costing the government far more to handle.

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

It's because so much of the conservative platform involves playing to their constituents' morality on "how things should be." You shouldn't give welfare because they didn't earn that money. Rich people shouldn't be taxed more because they shouldn't be punished for success. Government shouldn't borrow money because regular people can't. It can be a very compelling message, especially someone that lives in a more sparsely-populated area. When you live in a small town, the necessity of government isn't as readily apparent, and so people hear their conception of "how things should be" reinforced, and they buy in.

On an intellectual level, it's obviously not very logical. Government needs to respond realities, and it can't govern effectively if it is simply trying to conform it's actions with what people considered "fair" in other contexts and in other time frames. Wholly separate from whether conservatives actually govern in conformance with those morality plays (we all know people win elections on rhetoric and not results, and that both parties generally are just figuring out ways to get theirs, but I digress), the sooner we get morality plays out of general policy conversations, the better.

Now, you won't ever take morals out of debates on abortion, gay marriage, or other issues that implicate religion, and that's fine. But when talking about anything invoking money--be it tax policy, social security, industrial subsidies, restrictions on credit, welfare, health care, etc.--there is simply no reason to argue about something being fair or not fair. Both sides are at fault, because while conservatives love to make the arguments, you get plenty of liberals willing to engage it. Cries about class warfare are stupid either way. When you talk about progressive income tax, it has nothing to do with punishing the rich. Progressive income tax does not exist to be Robin Hood. The reason you place a higher tax burden on the wealthy is because it's the best way to maximize government revenue without damaging the economy. Taking money from someone who already has more money than they can and will prudently spend doesn't implicate economic growth the way that taking money from someone with an average income would. Similarly, giving people welfare seems like free money for someone who doesn't earn it, but it's still a good investment because otherwise that same person would likely resort to crime to make ends meet, ending up in the criminal justice system and costing the government far more to handle.

---

/thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

/yawn

More inane drivel from the miserable tosser who has Rollen Stewart as his forum avatar. I didn't realize they'd let you use the internet in federal prison.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

Funny story. Rollen Stewart, who is in prison for kidnapping a hotel maid several years back because he thought the rapture was happening, is nuttier than holy hell and spends his time writing (literally) colorful crank letters to various media outlets around the country, talking about the impending apocalypse and whatnot. A few years back, he sent one to our paper. One of our editors still has it. It's freakin' bizarre.

Attachment 38545

---

Still anxiously awaiting yomama's thoroughly witty, well thought out, & poignant response

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...205,b=facebook

LOLOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...205,b=facebook

LOLOL.

---

That is great! One of my favorite Ryan moments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25nUb...e_gdata_player
Just look how dorky he looks trying to hand the guy the award.

How can this be happening?

"Hit the Road Barack"

The Dawgs and beginning to eat their own now ... lol

http://wizbangblog.com/2012/08/20/ne...must-go-story/

The polls on this election are very, very close .... when you give the liberal ticket a +9 percent of persons polled!!

Naw ... this is gonna be another blow out election ... R-money taking it all but Ill. and Calif.

Pass the popcorn,
Pete4256

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete4256

How can this be happening?

"Hit the Road Barack"

The Dawgs and beginning to eat their own now ... lol

http://wizbangblog.com/2012/08/20/ne...must-go-story/

The polls on this election are very, very close .... when you give the liberal ticket a +9 percent of persons polled!!

Naw ... this is gonna be another blow out election ... R-money taking it all but Ill. and Calif.

Pass the popcorn,
Pete4256

---

Romney's going to win every state except Illinois and California?

Good lord, you're a putz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete4256

How can this be happening?

"Hit the Road Barack"

The Dawgs and beginning to eat their own now ... lol

http://wizbangblog.com/2012/08/20/ne...must-go-story/

The polls on this election are very, very close .... when you give the liberal ticket a +9 percent of persons polled!!

Naw ... this is gonna be another blow out election ... R-money taking it all but Ill. and Calif.

Pass the popcorn,
Pete4256

---

How about a friendly wager. If Obama wins the election, then we'll have Clay/Dee IP ban you. If Romney wins the election, then Clay/Dee can IP ban me

Obviously this is a winning proposition for the forum as a whole b/c either you'll have to admit that you know Romney has no shot or the sane members of this forum will eventually get a break from your constant drivel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

Romney's going to win every state except Illinois and California?

Good lord, you're a putz.

---

Only two dumb states in the union

Tell you what, Pete. I live in New York. If Romney wins New York, I'll gladly leave the forum forever. If Obama wins New York, then you leave.

Obama's leading by 29 points in the latest Siena poll.

I do find it funny pete is talking like we are in love with Obama. It doesn't seem like any of us are all that thrilled with Obama right now, though we are even less thrilled about Romney.