Who is Paul Ryan...

[TaintedNylon]

Originally Posted by Evidence

Eh, its hard to get your point across online where people cant see your tone or temprament. And in any case, youre not the only condescending one by a long shot. Was just pointing it out since you thought I was talking about you in my previous post (which I wasnt).

[Ryan D]

Are you talking about Ryan's 2010 budget that had chance of passing (Republicans in minority in congress at the time) or his most recent one?

Just curious as I have seen some talking heads point at his admittedly more extreme budget and act like it was his current proposal.

[TaintedNylon]

Originally Posted by Ryan D

Are you talking about Ryan's 2010 budget that had chance of passing (Republicans in minority in congress at the time) or his most recent one?

Just curious as I have seen some talking heads point at his admittedly more extreme budget and act like it was his current proposal.

2010. I referred to the budget as being of the past. "was". Even still - his current budget is trash coming from someone as smart as he is.

Edit: It is just safe to say on my part that I have never seen a legitimate budget come from Ryan. LONG before he was in the running with Romney, I was actually vocal about Ryan's budget proposals. Trying to find a brief piece I wrote on the matter.

[Evidence]

I dont know much about his new plan, but from what I understand is its supposed to be whacking a big chunk off medicare (if I understand correctly?) That seems like a horrible political move to make at a time like this....granted, theres not a whole lot that compares to Obama steam rolling his extreme healthcare plan through congress, but still. When are politicians in this country going to learn that we have a soft spot for our elderly, and leaving them helpless when it comes to medical care is a big no-no?

[Ryan D]

If you don't think he is stupid, do you think his proposals are political gamesmanship?

[TaintedNylon]

Originally Posted by Ryan D

If you don't think he is stupid, do you think his proposals are political gamesmanship?

Absolutely.

[Ricerking13]

Originally Posted by TaintedNylon

No offense, but I feel like everyone in this thread is just pointing to "all of the retarded liberals" instead of actually answering the legitimate points brought up by myself and phreak.

Originally Posted by phreakdna

lol. god knows I enjoy the idea of an 'average "Lib" (really?) arguing' with the level of detail/reason that he's generally shown in this thread, but that's pretty ambitious (for either party).

I would offer though, no one has really shown how anything he's said is wrong. if you are super lazy and ignore him because of some false equivalence, its your loss. if he's wrong, show him how... imo, you are acting as the shining example of the stupidity of our media as it exists today.

the news refuses to call people on their shit even when they're openly lying. all the public gets is "MACHINE said x", "TaintedNylon said y"... no analysis of the underlying points made by each.

case in point today, I bet that they'll continue to report that "Romney says Obama is cutting Medicare for seniors to pay for Obamacare. Obama says 'cuts' keep Medicare solvent for another 8 years without a reduction in benefits..." today. and if a reporter/presenter grows a pair and cares about reporting lies with the same weight as facts the reality is painfully easy to attain.

You/He's not the one at issue for being like Machine.

My complaint with him, is he's doing a rather abrasive job of disagreeing with certain right stances, and using his obvious financial knowledge to "prove" many left complaints on those topics. Sometimes it fits... but at least the way he comes off to me ITT is too abrasive and biased to be taken at face value. Not close to the chain email shit being posted by Machine though, lol.

[Karlen]

Originally Posted by TaintedNylon

I don't know why you're laughing. It's apparent you are unable to do simple math since you support Ryan's budget.

Really, we are ALL laughing at you.

Show me where I said I support Ryan's budget. I'll be right here waiting.

[TaintedNylon]

Originally Posted by Karlen

Show me where I said I support Ryan's budget. I'll be right here waiting.

We already went in to the matter of me being a douche bag earlier.

[Karlen]

Originally Posted by TaintedNylon

I don't know why you're laughing. It's apparent you are unable to do simple math since you support Ryan's budget.

Really, we are ALL laughing at you.

Show me where I said I support Ryan's budget. I'll be right here waiting.

[TaintedNylon]

Originally Posted by Karlen

Show me where I said I support Ryan's budget. I'll be right here waiting.

That response was an implied "you didn't". I apologize.

[Karlen]

The two posts were not intentional, server errors out the fucking wazoo

[TaintedNylon]

Originally Posted by Karlen

The two posts were not intentional, server errors out the fucking wazoo

Oh. Fair enough.

[phreakdna]

Originally Posted by TaintedNylon

Absolutely.

to what end?

[Ricerking13]

Originally Posted by phreakdna

to what end?

What slightly/completely uneducated voter isn't going to want to hear a balanced budget/deficit right now?

[phreakdna]

Originally Posted by Ricerking13

What slightly/completely uneducated voter isn't going to want to hear a balanced budget/deficit right now?

I guess its a balance between a voter hearing it once when the author calls it balanced, etc to much fanfare and then the same voter hearing how the budget is a complete sham when it comes to actually balancing the budget/deficit.

in my head, it solidifies the Fox base because the voter will only hear the first part and won't hear about the second part but Fox voters aren't going to vote for the other 'side'... if I were an adviser, I would be nervous that it could turn the chatter media class against his facade of fiscal wonk, who could then turn even more people onto the idea that the budget fails basic math tests so you look stupid to people paying attention.

its a calculation I guess... if its just a rouse to be able to say "I've got a plan, the other guy doesn't" there is value there, but the calculus relies on the voters being stupid/not paying attention. unfortunately not a bad strategy with alot of US voters but I guess its the optimist in me that wants to reject the idea of treating US voters like the dog from Up and just hoping they get distracted after the initial rollout.

[Ricerking13]

Originally Posted by phreakdna

I guess its a balance between a voter hearing it once when the author calls it balanced, etc to much fanfare and then the same voter hearing how the budget is a complete sham when it comes to actually balancing the budget/deficit.

in my head, it solidifies the Fox base because the voter will only hear the first part and won't hear about the second part but Fox voters aren't going to vote for the other 'side'... if I were an adviser, I would be nervous that it could turn the chatter media class against his facade of fiscal wonk, who could then turn even more people onto the idea that the budget fails basic math tests so you look stupid to people paying attention.

its a calculation I guess... if its just a rouse to be able to say "I've got a plan, the other guy doesn't" there is value there, but the calculus relies on the voters being stupid/not paying attention. unfortunately not a bad strategy with alot of US voters but I guess its the optimist in me that wants to reject the idea of treating US voters like the dog from Up and just hoping they get distracted after the initial rollout.

Phreak you are over thinking it... and giving too much credit. Also, it hurts me to say those things... but it's true.

Get "fox voters" out of your head... we already know where they are going to vote, and there aren't nearly the amount of them you think there are.

I'm talking about the other 85% of people in this country... that aren't what you would consider a "fox voter", which ever way they lean.

It's my opinion the majority of that 85% is good at something, worthwhile to this country, and not what I would call a "stupid person". However, I think that same majority would think a "balanced budget/deficit" is a good idea. Not based on politics, intelligence, the math, etc etc etc... but based on it SOUNDING like a good idea. Most people don't spend a fraction of the time you and I do researching ANYTHING... let alone politics... and even further removed financial concepts.

It's GOOD political gamesmanship and will win votes.

[TaintedNylon]

Originally Posted by Ricerking13

Phreak you are over thinking it... and giving too much credit. Also, it hurts me to say those things... but it's true.

Get "fox voters" out of your head... we already know where they are going to vote, and there aren't nearly the amount of them you think there are.

I'm talking about the other 85% of people in this country... that aren't what you would consider a "fox voter", which ever way they lean.

It's my opinion the majority of that 85% is good at something, worthwhile to this country, and not what I would call a "stupid person". However, I think that same majority would think a "balanced budget/deficit" is a good idea. Not based on politics, intelligence, the math, etc etc etc... but based on it SOUNDING like a good idea. Most people don't spend a fraction of the time you and I do researching ANYTHING... let alone politics... and even further removed financial concepts.

It's GOOD political gamesmanship and will win votes.

Yep. The balanced budget simply sounds good to the common individual with little knowledge because that common individual, as a household, must balance their own budget. Most people still don't even understand fiat money.

[NachO_SRT]

How about non-budget related issues.

Size of government.
2A rights.
Family Values.
Education level.
History in business.
Foreign Policy.

As it stands now, our current leader bent knee to another head of state. I may be old school, but, you dont do that unless your plan on being submissive. We were not founded by submission, we were founded as a sovereign nation with the right to govern ourselves without influence from other nations.

I'm not preaching isolationism, I'm talking about BE AMERICAN, have pride in America and do not under any circumstances apologize for any of our past choices.

I started this thread with a basis of facts, we havent been so good at presenting any new facts in a non-biased way.

I wanna own guns, I don't want the government to tell me how to live my life. I'd like to preserve the freedoms that were granted in our founding documents.

Fact is, the current leadership screwed the pooch on may other levels, not just our economy.

NachO

[Scooby24]

Originally Posted by NachO_SRT

How about non-budget related issues.

Size of government.
2A rights.
Family Values.
Education level.
History in business.
Foreign Policy.

As it stands now, our current leader bent knee to another head of state. I may be old school, but, you dont do that unless your plan on being submissive. We were not founded by submission, we were founded as a sovereign nation with the right to govern ourselves without influence from other nations.

I'm not preaching isolationism, I'm talking about BE AMERICAN, have pride in America and do not under any circumstances apologize for any of our past choices.

I started this thread with a basis of facts, we havent been so good at presenting any new facts in a non-biased way.

I wanna own guns, I don't want the government to tell me how to live my life. I'd like to preserve the freedoms that were granted in our founding documents.

Fact is, the current leadership screwed the pooch on may other levels, not just our economy.

NachO

That doesn't seem to be Paul's Platform.

Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)
Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
Voted YES on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)

We're supposed to be granted the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There's a lot up there that doesn't grant that.

[NachO_SRT]

^^^ you picked one statement, and cried foul - It appears he is for Family Values based on a few of those voting records...


Paul Ryan On our 2A rights -

Avid bow hunter who skins his own prey. (Apr 2012)
Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
National cross-state standard for concealed carry. (Jan 2009)
Ban gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC. (Mar 2007)
Allow reloading spent military small arms ammunition. (Apr 2009)

On welfare and poverty:

End federal food stamps with block grant to the states. (Apr 2012)
Direct federal grants to persistently impoverished districts. (Apr 2012)
Food stamp program is rife with waste, fraud & abuse. (Apr 2012)
Time-limit & work requirement for need-based aid. (Apr 2012)
Left federal barriers to community & institution empowerment. (Apr 2012)
Voted NO on instituting National Service as a new social invention. (Mar 2009)
Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)


I'm not so dense that I cant see every time I vote I need to make a compromise, the perfect candidate for me, would be ME. So I can see where a majority of this mans voting record points toward a majority of my major concerns, even though I don't 100% agree with him - he came from blue collar roots and knows what the value of a dollar is. He's not for FREE MONEY, and he tends to vote for programs that enforce the basic American value of "build yourself up", he did that himself.

I could care less about some of the issues you posted.


NachO

[The Lox]

Originally Posted by NachO_SRT

^^^ you picked one statement, and cried foul - It appears he is for Family Values based on a few of those voting records...


Paul Ryan On our 2A rights -

Avid bow hunter who skins his own prey. (Apr 2012)
Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
National cross-state standard for concealed carry. (Jan 2009)
Ban gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC. (Mar 2007)
Allow reloading spent military small arms ammunition. (Apr 2009)

On welfare and poverty:

End federal food stamps with block grant to the states. (Apr 2012)
Direct federal grants to persistently impoverished districts. (Apr 2012)
Food stamp program is rife with waste, fraud & abuse. (Apr 2012)
Time-limit & work requirement for need-based aid. (Apr 2012)
Left federal barriers to community & institution empowerment. (Apr 2012)
Voted NO on instituting National Service as a new social invention. (Mar 2009)
Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)


I'm not so dense that I cant see every time I vote I need to make a compromise, the perfect candidate for me, would be ME. So I can see where a majority of this mans voting record points toward a majority of my major concerns, even though I don't 100% agree with him - he came from blue collar roots and knows what the value of a dollar is. He's not for FREE MONEY, and he tends to vote for programs that enforce the basic American value of "build yourself up", he did that himself.

I could care less about some of the issues you posted.

NachO

You could, sure, but for every person like you who could care less about those issues, there are other people who could care less about the issues you posted above. I think your personal stance is a fundamental problem with the two party system. These politicians at some point are forced to vote within the party system in order to protect thier "base". The issue is that the only people who are ok with that are the people on extreme of each party, when in reality the majority of this country is somewhere in between and doesn't fully side with either party.

Take abortion for example - a topic which Ryan has very clear views of. If the GOP didn't have the "pro life" people who will NEVER vote Democrat because of religious views the party would lose one of its major footholds. I personally for instance believe the choice should be up to the woman, and never has anything to do with men. So if I couldn't get past that topic I could never vote for a Republican.....

There are so many issues with our current system, I have little faith that it can ever truly support the choice that we supposedly have when we vote. We should never have to "settle" for any candidates, ever....

[Scooby24]

Originally Posted by NachO_SRT

^^^ you picked one statement, and cried foul - It appears he is for Family Values based on a few of those voting records...

I picked the statement I dont agree with. Those votes aren't in support of family values they are anti gay rights.

Originally Posted by NachO_SRT

Paul Ryan On our 2A rights -

Avid bow hunter who skins his own prey. (Apr 2012)
Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
National cross-state standard for concealed carry. (Jan 2009)
Ban gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC. (Mar 2007)
Allow reloading spent military small arms ammunition. (Apr 2009)

On welfare and poverty:

End federal food stamps with block grant to the states. (Apr 2012)
Direct federal grants to persistently impoverished districts. (Apr 2012)
Food stamp program is rife with waste, fraud & abuse. (Apr 2012)
Time-limit & work requirement for need-based aid. (Apr 2012)
Left federal barriers to community & institution empowerment. (Apr 2012)
Voted NO on instituting National Service as a new social invention. (Mar 2009)
Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)


I'm not so dense that I cant see every time I vote I need to make a compromise, the perfect candidate for me, would be ME. So I can see where a majority of this mans voting record points toward a majority of my major concerns, even though I don't 100% agree with him - he came from blue collar roots and knows what the value of a dollar is. He's not for FREE MONEY, and he tends to vote for programs that enforce the basic American value of "build yourself up", he did that himself.

I could care less about some of the issues you posted.


NachO

I couldn't vote for a candidate that is okay with the patriot act or violates what I believe to be the foundational ideology of Liberty when I know that there are candidates outside of the DNC or GOP that aren't a compromise.

[HonduhDave]

Originally Posted by NachO_SRT

Avid bow hunter who skins his own prey. (Apr 2012)

Well, that's the only issue that mattered to me. It's clear who I must vote for now...

[Oblique]

Originally Posted by NachO_SRT

^^^ you picked one statement, and cried foul - It appears he is for Family Values based on a few of those voting records...

I could care less about some of the issues you posted.


NachO

That is the problem with conservatives like you. You only care about preserving individual freedom as long as that means the freedoms YOU like and enjoy and support. Fuck everyone else right? We don't live in a free nation if not everyone has freedom. You say you support the government not telling you how to live and then Scooby points out several key things that Paul Ryan has voted for that directly take away freedom and support the government moral policing us and you say you don't care about any of those issues???

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak out for me.