Romney to pick Paul Ryan for VP

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

I do not. Where's you get that idea??? I mentioned the RELIGIOUS republicans - religion and politics is pretty fucking republican. But I said 99% of politicians want power over any of their values. I meant ALL politicians. But I like how you jumped to that conclusion.

There are religious democrtas as well. It's just the way it's viewed. And you did also only mention Republicans in your post.

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I do not. Where's you get that idea??? I mentioned the RELIGIOUS republicans - religion and politics is pretty fucking republican. But I said 99% of politicians want power over any of their values. I meant ALL politicians. But I like how you jumped to that conclusion.

There are religious democrtas as well. It's just the way it's viewed. And you did also only mention Republicans in your post.

Of course there are religious democrats... but not ones who bring their religion into politics the way Republicans do.
I also mentioned "99% of politicians." That seems really clear to me.
Anyway, made my point and I stand by it. I am seriously in the pissiest mood I've been in for a very long time today!! I can't handle A Moving Train this afternoon! :lolno:

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

Of course there are religious democrats... but not ones who bring their religion into politics the way Republicans do.

You sure about that? And are you sure it's not politicinas voting for what their constituants want? :corn:

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Of course there are religious democrats... but not ones who bring their religion into politics the way Republicans do.

You sure about that? And are you sure it's not politicians voting for what their constituents want? :corn:

Generally, yeah I'm sure about that. There are exceptions to every rule - that goes without saying for everything I ever say. And yeah, OBVIOUSLY it's often about them voting for what they at least think their constituents want, hence the fact that they are seeking power, i.e. trying to win. That does not in any way, shape or form change what I'm saying. I am NOT going into the fine points of how and why being anti-gay can help people get votes. That does not change what I'm saying about Ryan at all.

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Of course there are religious democrats... but not ones who bring their religion into politics the way Republicans do.

You sure about that? And are you sure it's not politicians voting for what their constituents want? :corn:

Generally, yeah I'm sure about that. There are exceptions to every rule - that goes without saying for everything I ever say. And yeah, OBVIOUSLY it's often about them voting for what they at least think their constituents want, hence the fact that they are seeking power, i.e. trying to win. That does not in any way, shape or form change what I'm saying. I am NOT going into the fine points of how and why being anti-gay can help people get votes. That does not change what I'm saying about Ryan at all.

This issue are far greater than being "anti-gay". :fp: Just becasue a politician votes a certain way may or may not be their own personal views. I mean Obama when campaigning in 2008 said this...and it's a quote... "Federal policy towards animals should respect the dignity of animals and their rightful place as cohabitants of our environment. We should strive to protect animals and their habitats and prevent animal cruelty, exploitation and neglect.... I have consistently been a champion of animal-friendly legislation and policy and would continue to be so once elected." Obama announced that he had co-sponsored legislation to stop the sale for slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros, and signed on as co-sponsor to the bill to ban horse slaughter for human consumption. When asked specifically during the campaign, "Will you support legislation ...to institute a permanent ban on horse slaughter and exports of horses for human consumption," Obama gave an unqualified "Yes."

You know what happened in 2011? On November 18th, as the country was celebrating Thanksgiving, President Obama signed a law, allowing Americans to kill and eat horses.

Now did his personal views change in 3 years...I doubt it. His political views certainly changed however. I'm sure there was a political benefit to how he campaigned with this issue, and I'm sure there was a poltical benefit to flip flopping on the issue as well. What I'm getting at is calling someone anti-gay for how they vote on something is not fair at all.

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

You sure about that? And are you sure it's not politicians voting for what their constituents want? :corn:

Generally, yeah I'm sure about that. There are exceptions to every rule - that goes without saying for everything I ever say. And yeah, OBVIOUSLY it's often about them voting for what they at least think their constituents want, hence the fact that they are seeking power, i.e. trying to win. That does not in any way, shape or form change what I'm saying. I am NOT going into the fine points of how and why being anti-gay can help people get votes. That does not change what I'm saying about Ryan at all.

This issue are far greater than being "anti-gay". :fp: Just becasue a politician votes a certain way may or may not be their own personal views. I mean Obama when campaigning in 2008 said this...and it's a quote... "Federal policy towards animals should respect the dignity of animals and their rightful place as cohabitants of our environment. We should strive to protect animals and their habitats and prevent animal cruelty, exploitation and neglect.... I have consistently been a champion of animal-friendly legislation and policy and would continue to be so once elected." Obama announced that he had co-sponsored legislation to stop the sale for slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros, and signed on as co-sponsor to the bill to ban horse slaughter for human consumption. When asked specifically during the campaign, "Will you support legislation ...to institute a permanent ban on horse slaughter and exports of horses for human consumption," Obama gave an unqualified "Yes."

You know what happened in 2011? On November 18th, as the country was celebrating Thanksgiving, President Obama signed a law, allowing Americans to kill and eat horses.

Now did his personal views change in 3 years...I doubt it. His political views certainly changed however. I'm sure there was a political benefit to how he campaigned with this issue, and I'm sure there was a poltical benefit to flip flopping on the issue as well. What I'm getting at is calling someone anti-gay for how they vote on something is not fair at all.

I only skimmed this - too pissy to care anymore, sorry - but anyway, I think Ryan is anti gay-rights. Obviously. But even if he weren't, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you defending Ryan? If so, if he were pro gay rights and voting the opposite, that would make him worse. So are you arguing the point of politicians often not voting just on their personal feelings? If that's what you're doing, I agreed with you a bunch of posts back, but disagreed that Ryan's voting record on gay rights is based on economics.
So there you have it.

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

I only skimmed this - too pissy to care anymore, sorry - but anyway, I think Ryan is anti gay-rights. Obviously. But even if he weren't, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you defending Ryan? If so, if he were pro gay rights and voting the opposite, that would make him worse. So are you arguing the point of politicians often not voting just on their personal feelings? If that's what you're doing, I agreed with you a bunch of posts back, but disagreed that Ryan's voting record on gay rights is based on economics.
So there you have it.

What I'm saying is there are many many many factors that go into every vote. To say someone is anti-gay...homophobic...there are a lot more factors than that involved.

Godfather.

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I only skimmed this - too pissy to care anymore, sorry - but anyway, I think Ryan is anti gay-rights. Obviously. But even if he weren't, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you defending Ryan? If so, if he were pro gay rights and voting the opposite, that would make him worse. So are you arguing the point of politicians often not voting just on their personal feelings? If that's what you're doing, I agreed with you a bunch of posts back, but disagreed that Ryan's voting record on gay rights is based on economics.
So there you have it.

What I'm saying is there are many many many factors that go into every vote. To say someone is anti-gay...homophobic...there are a lot more factors than that involved.

WOW !!! I have to agree with that, I would bet most or all politions do not vote from the heart but rather from the wallet or to buy votes.

Godfather.

polaris_x

DS1119 wrote:

What I'm saying is there are many many many factors that go into every vote. To say someone is anti-gay...homophobic...there are a lot more factors than that involved.

sooo ... you are saying that just because someone votes against a gay rights measure doesn't make him anti-gay!? ... and by your logic if i changed a business to whites only because my customers wanted it - it doesn't make me a racist? ...

sooo then basically you are saying money means everything or that essentially people only think of what's best for them and will sell anyone out that doesn't benefit them?

pandora

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

You sure about that? And are you sure it's not politicians voting for what their constituents want? :corn:

Generally, yeah I'm sure about that. There are exceptions to every rule - that goes without saying for everything I ever say. And yeah, OBVIOUSLY it's often about them voting for what they at least think their constituents want, hence the fact that they are seeking power, i.e. trying to win. That does not in any way, shape or form change what I'm saying. I am NOT going into the fine points of how and why being anti-gay can help people get votes. That does not change what I'm saying about Ryan at all.

This issue are far greater than being "anti-gay". :fp: Just becasue a politician votes a certain way may or may not be their own personal views. I mean Obama when campaigning in 2008 said this...and it's a quote... "Federal policy towards animals should respect the dignity of animals and their rightful place as cohabitants of our environment. We should strive to protect animals and their habitats and prevent animal cruelty, exploitation and neglect.... I have consistently been a champion of animal-friendly legislation and policy and would continue to be so once elected." Obama announced that he had co-sponsored legislation to stop the sale for slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros, and signed on as co-sponsor to the bill to ban horse slaughter for human consumption. When asked specifically during the campaign, "Will you support legislation ...to institute a permanent ban on horse slaughter and exports of horses for human consumption," Obama gave an unqualified "Yes."

You know what happened in 2011? On November 18th, as the country was celebrating Thanksgiving, President Obama signed a law, allowing Americans to kill and eat horses.

Now did his personal views change in 3 years...I doubt it. His political views certainly changed however. I'm sure there was a political benefit to how he campaigned with this issue, and I'm sure there was a poltical benefit to flip flopping on the issue as well. What I'm getting at is calling someone anti-gay for how they vote on something is not fair at all.

:thumbup:
I didn't skim this post and that was a crappy thing to do, President Obama :wtf:

DS1119

polaris_x wrote:

sooo then basically you are saying money means everything or that essentially people only think of what's best for them and will sell anyone out that doesn't benefit them?

In politics...most definately 100%. Why do you think 2nd term Presidents become much more aggressive with their own agendas? They don't have to worry about re-election! Same goes for retiring Senators and Representitives. Politics is simple...you follow the party lines...you follow what your constituents want...and you listen to the people, business', and lobbyists that got you elected. The minute a politician stops doing that...it's time to look for another job.

DS1119

pandora wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

You sure about that? And are you sure it's not politicians voting for what their constituents want? :corn:

This issue are far greater than being "anti-gay". :fp: Just becasue a politician votes a certain way may or may not be their own personal views. I mean Obama when campaigning in 2008 said this...and it's a quote... "Federal policy towards animals should respect the dignity of animals and their rightful place as cohabitants of our environment. We should strive to protect animals and their habitats and prevent animal cruelty, exploitation and neglect.... I have consistently been a champion of animal-friendly legislation and policy and would continue to be so once elected." Obama announced that he had co-sponsored legislation to stop the sale for slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros, and signed on as co-sponsor to the bill to ban horse slaughter for human consumption. When asked specifically during the campaign, "Will you support legislation ...to institute a permanent ban on horse slaughter and exports of horses for human consumption," Obama gave an unqualified "Yes."

You know what happened in 2011? On November 18th, as the country was celebrating Thanksgiving, President Obama signed a law, allowing Americans to kill and eat horses.

Now did his personal views change in 3 years...I doubt it. His political views certainly changed however. I'm sure there was a political benefit to how he campaigned with this issue, and I'm sure there was a poltical benefit to flip flopping on the issue as well. What I'm getting at is calling someone anti-gay for how they vote on something is not fair at all.

:thumbup:
I didn't skim this post and that was a crappy thing to do, President Obama :wtf:

I guess by Obama signing this law he's anti-animal...or at least anti-horse. Not sure which one. By reversing his stance he campaigned with though it certainly appears it doesn't make him anti-lying!

Johnny Abruzzo

pandora wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

What I'm getting at is calling someone anti-gay for how they vote on something is not fair at all.

:thumbup:
I didn't skim this post and that was a crappy thing to do, President Obama :wtf:

Really, using somebody's on record votes (which are always the same, dozens of times, on this issue) is not a fair way to determine that person's view on the issue? :? :? :?

What's the difference between eating horses and eating pigs or cows? Other than, you know, maybe the meat isn't as good. It's kind of a strange taboo in this country.

DS1119

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

pandora wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

What I'm getting at is calling someone anti-gay for how they vote on something is not fair at all.

:thumbup:
I didn't skim this post and that was a crappy thing to do, President Obama :wtf:

Really, using somebody's on record votes (which are always the same, dozens of times, on this issue) is not a fair way to determine that person's view on the issue? :? :? :?

What's the difference between eating horses and eating pigs or cows? Other than, you know, maybe the meat isn't as good. It's kind of a strange taboo in this country.

It's not about horses versus pigs. It's about the President saying one thing while campaigning and doing another while in office. So which way are his true feelings about the matter? His campaign stance or his voting stance? All I'm saying is there are sveral factors going into every vote. The gay marriage vote goes well beyone if someone is a homophobe or anti-gay. There are so many different factors involved. So many. :fp:

Johnny Abruzzo

I'm not arguing with this guy - he will just carry it around in circles for days on end. Not sucking me in with your nonsense.


For all the GOP's moronic shenanigans, this race is tightening. :roll:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/aug-21-romney-showing-improved-results-in-swing-state-polls/

DS1119

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

I'm not arguing with this guy - he will just carry it around in circles for days on end. Not sucking me in with your nonsense.


For all the GOP's moronic shenanigans, this race is tightening. :roll:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/aug-21-romney-showing-improved-results-in-swing-state-polls/

It's not moronic. You can't apply one set of logic and/or rules to one thing and not apply it to all.

gimmesometruth27

back on topic.

romney, paul ryan, and todd akin are all cut from the same stone. romney is now the leader of the party, he sets the party agenda, and as we saw yesterday, akin's views are directly in line with the party line on abortion. paul ryan and akin are one in the same.

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

back on topic.

romney, paul ryan, and todd akin are all cut from the same stone. romney is now the leader of the party, he sets the party agenda, and as we saw yesterday, akin's views are directly in line with the party line on abortion. paul ryan and akin are one in the same.

Republicans have made it pretty clear for a long time that they are pro-life.

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I only skimmed this - too pissy to care anymore, sorry - but anyway, I think Ryan is anti gay-rights. Obviously. But even if he weren't, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you defending Ryan? If so, if he were pro gay rights and voting the opposite, that would make him worse. So are you arguing the point of politicians often not voting just on their personal feelings? If that's what you're doing, I agreed with you a bunch of posts back, but disagreed that Ryan's voting record on gay rights is based on economics.
So there you have it.

What I'm saying is there are many many many factors that go into every vote. To say someone is anti-gay...homophobic...there are a lot more factors than that involved.

I knoooooowwww. I've already said I think the same thing. But I'm saying I don't think Ryan was voting because of economics like you suggested, and I do think that he is anti-gay.

gimmesometruth27

Jason P wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

back on topic.

romney, paul ryan, and todd akin are all cut from the same stone. romney is now the leader of the party, he sets the party agenda, and as we saw yesterday, akin's views are directly in line with the party line on abortion. paul ryan and akin are one in the same.

Republicans have made it pretty clear for a long time that they are pro-life.

but being pro life to the extent that a woman must carry the baby of her rapist or her incestous brother to term is just plain wrong and it is politically risky...