Romney chooses Ryan

[Wreaver]

So, what's Ryan's record say about him? It says he's just another big government lover. Sean Shepard has a few facts for the fans.

Don't forget, he voted to make the Patriot Act permanent and the NDAA!

 

[pudly]

You two need to get together and figure out which it really is. Seems like if he votes for a program to benefit children, he gets people complaining that he supports the program and that he doesn't support kids. Seems like if he votes for programs to provide benefits for the poor, he gets people complaining that he supports those programs and that he doesn't support the poor. etc, etc...

However, he's pretty much against the poor, kids, women, gays, animals, medicinal advances, and the environment.

Paul Ryan voted YES on all of the following:

• No Child Left Behind (2001)
• Expansion of Medicare/prescription drug benefit (2003)
• $70 million Section 8 housing vouchers (2006)
• Head Start Act (2007)
• Extending unemployment benefits from 39 to 59 weeks (2008)

 

[sepe]

Don't forget, he voted to make the Patriot Act permanent and the NDAA!

But but but...his 2nd Amendment friendly record shows he is a friend of freedom!!!! He could be handing out free bacon sandwiches and AR15s and I'd say his negatives on his record still outweighed the positives.

 

[NYFelon]

Still not voting for Romney.

Sorry.

 

[24Carat]

You're absolutely right, I guess when provided with the choice between two candidates who support the Patriot Act and government mandated healthcare, who want to have the federal government to have a say in how Americans conduct their lives (involving themselves in gay marriage, abortion, whether you watch "objectionable" material, smoke marijuana*, etc.), who will spend money we don't have in countries where we don't need to be, I should vote for the one who's not a socialist because he's somehow better. That's how things improve, right?

HELL NO. I vote for liberty and freedom.

* I never have and never will smoke marijuana, but I'm pretty sure there's better uses for our prison space than marijuana users.

You are also voting for a conclusive liberal tilt in the SCOTUS that will last for literally decades! Thanks for that! The single biggest prize you can hand the socialist architects of our society. Thanks for that! No really, I appreciate you assisting in eliminating the American dream for my Grandchildren. But as long as you can sleep at night, that's what is important here !!!

 

[jamil]

You are also voting for a conclusive liberal tilt in the SCOTUS that will last for literally decades! Thanks for that! The single biggest prize you can hand the socialist architects of our society. Thanks for that! No really, I appreciate you assisting in eliminating the American dream for my Grandchildren. But as long as you can sleep at night, that's what is important here !!!

Well I guess I'll go ahead and say it before the anarchists get to it. Obama's newest best friend Roberts was appointed by a supposed conservative. But at least with "conservative" appointees we at least get to roll the dice. The next Obama appointment will be loyal and absolutely communist just like his last two.

 

[hornadylnl]

You are also voting for a conclusive liberal tilt in the SCOTUS that will last for literally decades! Thanks for that! The single biggest prize you can hand the socialist architects of our society. Thanks for that! No really, I appreciate you assisting in eliminating the American dream for my Grandchildren. But as long as you can sleep at night, that's what is important here !!!

And you voting for Romney is kicking the can of collapsing government down the road so that your grandchildren get to suffer and not yourself.

 

[Yup!]

Definitely not OK with Obama. Romney talks a good talk, and he certainly acts like a good Republican (now, anyway). In reality, I don't think its going to matter who wins, because I don't think they're that different.

But it does matter. If for no other reason, to send a message that the incumbents, are not safe. Any future elected official should understand this going into their new term.

I want to know why more liberals don't support Johnson. I mean, here we have a guy who says gay marriage should be legal (liberal position, check). He would legalize and regulate marijuana (HIPPIE liberal position, check). He has stated he would get our troops out of Afghanistan (dovish liberal position, check).

As petty as this sounds, I want someone who represents the whole nation to "Look Presidential", admittedly I don't know what the look is. Pres. Obama has the look, but IMO that's all. I've yet to be impressed with the way Ron Paul carries himself, and I can not imagine him meeting with foreign leaders and being taken seriously. It's more than what you believe in. Its how you will interact with the WHOLE world. In some instances, I'll concede a smaller issue, to win in the end.

The reason I'm guessing is that liberals really, really hate it when people succeed without the all powerful government. Of course, I'm also guessing the current crop of Republicans running for office really, really hate it when someone makes them look like they're not really the party of liberty of freedom that they say they are. I was a diehard lifelong Republican until it became clear to me that money and power was more important to them than freedom and liberty.

I think its more than that. I think the Liberal base, deep down fundamentally believe that while they want their candidate to win, the "Lesser of two evils" scenario is for the good of the nation. So only the diehards dig in.

Side note to help you understand my frame of reference - I'm a licensed PE. I got my MBA, busted my ass at work, and was laid off in 2009. It took me two and a half years of looking to find work ("overqualified", or "you don't meet every <preferred> skill we listed", etc.), while I was a stay-at-home dad and my wife went back to work to help make some money so we could keep our house. I will never forget what the "Tea Party" said about those of us who were out of work purely due to economic conditions at that time.

So, do you not feel a Romney/Ryan ticket is working to make this better? If Romney's real agenda was to grow govt, kill jobs, ban guns, raise the deficit, why would he pick Ryan as has his running mate? I think, more than before, that Romney, at least right now, firmly believes that the way to help you, and others in your situation, is to get the economy back in shape. His pick of Ryan is the best person to help him do that.

And lest you think that makes Obama more attractive, the first thing I look at when examining candidates is whether or not they FULLY trust the American people enough to let them bear arms. If you don't support it or have been against it in the past, end of discussion. That's why I voted Ellsworth instead of Coats. I'm no Democrat, but he was leaps and bounds better than Coats on 2A.

So if everyone can carry a gun, but no stores are open to carry them into, and you don't have $0.10 to buy a bullet, does it really matter? I firmly believe "Shall not be infringed' those words were put in the specifically. I'd voting Romney/Ryan on the premise that gun control, as currently written into law will not change under this administration, they will be to busy with the Economy issue to spend time on a 2A battle. Your 2A rights need to be restored at the local level, and that is where your Liberal vote should really be best used. The more liberals we have at the local level, eventually someone with the clout to make a difference globally will rise to the top.

In my opinion Johnson is just a guy who gets what the Constitution is about, and will run the country that way. There's nothing in the Constitution that defines marriage.

Great points, but the gay population makes up around 4% of the total population. At this stage in our country, is the #1 issue Gay Rights? Would it not be wise to tackle and issue that effects 100% of the country, rather than spending time solely benefiting 4%, or the Gun Community, which I"m guessing is closer to 50%. 100% of us, need the economy back on track. Same point as before, at the local level, elect someone who should be more community focused, and helping the special interest groups.

I'm betting if we limited our role as world policeman, pulled troops out of Afghanistan and let them live here in the states and just protect our borders, you probably could cut military spending by 43% by reducing the amount of logistics it takes to operate the military all over the world.

I've agreed that ALL budgets can be cut. But when Johnson comes right out and says 43%, without the numbers to show why, he's no better than any other politician. If he cuts the DOD budget 42%, some will call him a failure. If he cuts it 44% the other crown will call him a failure. Until he's sitting in the seat, and has access to all the data, and understands the opposing point of view can he really make a claim like this.

Can't say for sure if he'll be able to do it, but I think based on his track record if nothing else he would at least veto most of the BS earmarks Congress throws to the President now.

Don't get me started on Earmarks. I have no clue how Funding for Soccer Balls for circus clowns, ends up in a bill to limit abortion. (made that up) - But the crap that gets put into a bill to 'buy a vote' is truly an issue.

 

[Yup!]

Still not voting for Romney.

Sorry.

Would you like me to do it for you, all I need is a copy of your DL.

 

[Yup!]

I'm a Vikings fan too. And while this is a very good point, I could never personally root for the Packers, even if it meant that it would help my team because I hate them. But that's an emotional thing. If I took the emotional part out of the process I would follow reason and support the best outcome for my team. A lot of the posts from the anarchists seem pretty emotional to me.

First of all, I don't believe you. No big, but man, seriously, all you need is the Packers to win to give the Vikings a playoff spot. I find it difficult to believe that you truly could watch the game, and not (at least internally) pull for the packers.

Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and believe your story. It then bothers me that you hate a "Football" team enough to no be able to cheer for them. It's a sport, is a group of people who you don't know, and you've dug in against them so hard that your willing to sacrifice your own team just to prove your point. I'm not so sure that this mindset isn't more dangerous.

 

[24Carat]

And you voting for Romney is kicking the can of collapsing government down the road so that your grandchildren get to suffer and not yourself.

What about it hornadylnl? Are the "sit at home" or "blow my vote" idiots so short sighted they can't foresee the utter collapse of the ideals this country was founded on ?

THE CONDITION OF THE COURT WILL BE ALTERED FOR DECADES !!!!!

Stop with the attempts of distraction just one second and forward your thoughts on the result of a clearly stacked deck in the SCOTUS. So Roberts had an apparent aneurysm or something, he is also going to be departing the Court someday too. Maybe by next week, God willing!

The ethereal Libertarian / Uber Conservative Administration so many wet dream about will be hamstrung for the entirety of a Liberal tilted court.

 

[Yup!]

Wow... just wow. Then why should I care when they ban your double barrel and wheel gun?

Don't be wow'd. I'm more concerned about the others issues plaguing our country right now. If we spend all our time worrying about an assault weapon ban, and miss the fact that the country is broke, your assault weapon is not going to pay your mortgage. Make no mistake, I am NOT for an assault weapon ban. "Shall not be Infringed"

Prove it. What effect? Aside from the crime that the prohibition laws create, what is the effect?

That's the same nonsense spewed by those who argued to continue prohibition.

It's a lie.

I don't have the data to prove/disprove it. But I go back to my original point, right now, there are bigger issues.

 

[jamil]

First of all, I don't believe you. No big, but man, seriously, all you need is the Packers to win to give the Vikings a playoff spot. I find it difficult to believe that you truly could watch the game, and not (at least internally) pull for the packers.

Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and believe your story. It then bothers me that you hate a "Football" team enough to no be able to cheer for them. It's a sport, is a group of people who you don't know, and you've dug in against them so hard that your willing to sacrifice your own team just to prove your point. I'm not so sure that this mindset isn't more dangerous.

It's just a game. Don't take it too seriously. I don't. It's where I get to love and hate just for the sake of either. Hatred skews judgment and I refuse to allow myself to hate real people. I don't hate Obama, though I do hate his policies. But I can hate the packers (and lakers, and white sox, and bruins, especially the buckeyes) and whatever judgment that skews has no real consequence and is quite fun.

My son is a Bears fan. I root with him for the Bears (except when they play the Vikings). He does the same when with the Vikings. It's just a game. And yes, I have rooted against the Packers even when their win benefited the Vikings. BTW, I hated Bret Favre when he played for the Packers and loved him when he played for the Vikes...the first year. Sports is awesome.

 

[Yup!]

It's just a game. Don't take it too seriously. I don't. It's where I get to love and hate just for the sake of either. Hatred skews judgment and I refuse to allow myself to hate real people. I don't hate Obama, though I do hate his policies. But I can hate the packers (and lakers, and white sox, and bruins, especially the buckeyes) and whatever judgment that skews has no real consequence and is quite fun.

My son is a Bears fan. I root with him for the Bears (except when they play the Vikings). He does the same when with the Vikings. It's just a game. And yes, I have rooted against the Packers even when their win benefited the Vikings. BTW, I hated Bret Favre when he played for the Packers and loved him when he played for the Vikes...the first year. Sports is awesome.

Gotcha.

So you voting for Romeny/Ryan then?

 

[jamil]

Gotcha.

So you voting for Romeny/Ryan then?

I think I've said either in this thread or another that with Ryan on the ticket I may not even hold my nose when I pull that lever.

 

[jedi]

Meh.

If the last name were "Paul" I might have an interest.

Nah now a ticket with Ron Paul **AND** Paul Ryan in either order that I would vote for in a heartbeat.

FINALLY, FINALLY, FINALLY I can get excited about the Romney campaign!

I'm done with the Rs. I've finally come to the realization that they are the same as the Ds. So long blue and red. Hello 3rd parties.

 

[buckstopshere]

What about it hornadylnl? Are the "sit at home" or "blow my vote" idiots so short sighted they can't foresee the utter collapse of the ideals this country was founded on ?

and those who have libertarian views are constantly being accused of resorting to name calling when the reality is it rarely happens.

On the flip side, you just offended anyway who is voting third party by calling them an idiot. You should apologize.

If you can't resist the urge to name call, I suggest that you take some time to rethink whether or not you would like a seat at the adult table.

And you really should apologize.

 

[.45 Dave]

Still not voting for Romney.

Sorry.

I'm voting against Obama and for someone who can win. I like some of the Libertarian viewpoints but not all. I feel the same way about the Republicans. So I guess I'm just one of those flip-flopping human beings who doesn't necessarily like what I'm voting for but must do it out of necessity.

If I waited for the perfect candidate who fits all my criteria I would never be able to vote. This isn't a perfect world and, quite frankly, the people who are waiting for someone who fits them perfectly should just stop whining and run for office themselves. Obviously THEY are their own perfect candidate and are the only ones who can satisfy all they dream of in a candidate.

Good thing their wives, children and friends don't feel the same way about a perfect husband and father or friend or else they's all be pretty lonely people.

Let all who have never flipped on an issue cast the first flop (which seems to be a lot of on this thread)

BTW--this rant is not aimed at you personally but there seems to be a lot of wishful thinking and not a lot of hard thinking going on in the arguments here.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

and those who have libertarian views are constantly being accused of resorting to name calling when the reality is it rarely happens.

On the flip side, you just offended anyway who is voting third party by calling them an idiot. You should apologize.

If you can't resist the urge to name call, I suggest that you take some time to rethink whether or not you would like a seat at the adult table.

And you really should apologize.

I've been arguing all week on a liberal facebook page and called all manor of obscenities. I don't need that crap here. Let's be adults and understand that we have different views even if we don't agree that is no need to name call.

 

[WebHobbit]

People, people....think about what you are doing. If we continue to vote for essentially the SAME PEOPLE but with different names.....we will continue to get the SAME RESULT. OVER & OVER again. This is why we should "waste" our vote on a third party candidate. We are voting for the future. we are making a statement. The idea is that little by little we increase the percentage of the vote a third party ticket takes until one day we CAN WIN. It will take a while but I like to think it possible.

I'm throwing in with these folks:

Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government