Romney to pick Paul Ryan for VP

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

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.

Not 100%, I don't believe. I've known some politicians (including the President of the Liberal Party of British Columbia - I was good friends with his son), and they definitely have personal feelings wrapped up into their political behaviour as well. I know that some politicians are just like you say - and basically dead inside! But it is absolutely not 100% (even though 99% of them do still thrive on power above everything else). Jack Layton, late leader of Canada's New Democrat Party (RIP Jack) is basically a national hero because he's celebrated for walking his walk and there was a national day of mourning when he died last year of cancer, and he was just leader of the opposition ( :( ) because millions of people recognized how precious a national political leader who was actually honest and stood up for what he truly believed in was. It makes me sad just thinking of him, and so many others genuinely feel the same way ... anyway, the point is that yes, most politicians are scum, but not all of them.

The quote here was Jack's, and he absolutely meant it. He wrote it in a letter to Canadians on his death bed. And he was really successful for years as the NPD leader (though they never won because our left is split between 2 parties unfortunately) - if it weren't for the cancer that got him, he would almost certainly have won Canada's next election for Prime Minister.


Good politicians are possible. A nation just needs voters who will embrace what's possible..... sorry for getting off track. I just had a Jack Layton nostalgic moment! :oops:

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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...

it is a good thing for the GOP this is happening now as it will lose steam in the next few weeks after the convention and probably eventually be forgotten about when all the rage in political punditry will be discussing how much Michelle Obama's shirt cost...you know.. the important stuff that votes should be based on.

this might have been the worst use of the word legitimate of all time.

PJ_Soul

Do any of the women here know who to pull off that trick btw? It sounds like a handy skill to have!

gimmesometruth27

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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...

it is a good thing for the GOP this is happening now as it will lose steam in the next few weeks after the convention and probably eventually be forgotten about when all the rage in political punditry will be discussing how much Michelle Obama's shirt cost...you know.. the important stuff that votes should be based on.

this might have been the worst use of the word legitimate of all time.

i agree with the use of the word legitimate part.

but i have to disagree that this is going to go away. akin is staying in the missouri race, and they are going to continue to hammer akin with this and as a result, by akin's connection to ryan, the big ticket is going to continue to be hammered with it. this is why romney, ryan, and the party leaders were so proactive with calling him for him to quit the race. they know that if akin stays in there is going to be a big problem for the big ticket, and he is staying in, so this is a big problem for ryan and romney.

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i agree with the use of the word legitimate part.

but i have to disagree that this is going to go away. akin is staying in the missouri race, and they are going to continue to hammer akin with this and as a result, by akin's connection to ryan, the big ticket is going to continue to be hammered with it. this is why romney, ryan, and the party leaders were so proactive with calling him for him to quit the race. they know that if akin stays in there is going to be a big problem for the big ticket, and he is staying in, so this is a big problem for ryan and romney.

you certainly could be right. It will definitely hurt the GOP ticket in Missouri that is for sure. I hope this sinks Romney, maybe the GOP will get the point...LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE, focus on fiscal issues and get the fuck out of personal lives of people. Stop trying to legislate your fictitious moral standards and start letting people make choices...They would get a ton of independent support if they moved this direction...

gimmesometruth27

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i agree with the use of the word legitimate part.

but i have to disagree that this is going to go away. akin is staying in the missouri race, and they are going to continue to hammer akin with this and as a result, by akin's connection to ryan, the big ticket is going to continue to be hammered with it. this is why romney, ryan, and the party leaders were so proactive with calling him for him to quit the race. they know that if akin stays in there is going to be a big problem for the big ticket, and he is staying in, so this is a big problem for ryan and romney.

you certainly could be right. It will definitely hurt the GOP ticket in Missouri that is for sure. I hope this sinks Romney, maybe the GOP will get the point...LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE, focus on fiscal issues and get the fuck out of personal lives of people. Stop trying to legislate your fictitious moral standards and start letting people make choices...They would get a ton of independent support if they moved this direction...

i completely agree with you. they are appealing to the fringe right trying to make that the new middle, when most americans are reasonable centrists or moderates. they don't want to be one extreme or another and do not want a government of one extreme or the other. but what happens over time, is people get angry and frustrated and move further to the extremes, which is what gives us the huge schism that we see in american politics today. this is certainly what has happened to me over the years. believe it or not, i was more of a moderate under clinton. i think bush being given the presidency angered me, and then the subsequent 8 years of him moved me way left in effort to oppose all of the things he stood for and accomplished.

PJ_Soul

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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...

it is a good thing for the GOP this is happening now as it will lose steam in the next few weeks after the convention and probably eventually be forgotten about when all the rage in political punditry will be discussing how much Michelle Obama's shirt cost...you know.. the important stuff that votes should be based on.

this might have been the worst use of the word legitimate of all time.

i agree with the use of the word legitimate part.

but i have to disagree that this is going to go away. akin is staying in the missouri race, and they are going to continue to hammer akin with this and as a result, by akin's connection to ryan, the big ticket is going to continue to be hammered with it. this is why romney, ryan, and the party leaders were so proactive with calling him for him to quit the race. they know that if akin stays in there is going to be a big problem for the big ticket, and he is staying in, so this is a big problem for ryan and romney.

I think Akin will pull out eventually. This shit show will wear him down soon enough, and he will continue to get pressured by Romney and others... I think we'll hear the "I'm doing what's best for the party" speech before the election.

mikepegg44

PJ_Soul wrote:

I think Akin will pull out eventually. This shit show will wear him down soon enough, and he will continue to get pressured by Romney and others... I think we'll hear the "I'm doing what's best for the party" speech before the election.

but I don't think anyone can run then unless I am mistaken....they won't let it go unopposed but I could certainly be wrong...and it would DEFINITELY be the best thing for the party

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

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.

Wow. :fp:

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

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.

Not 100%, I don't believe. I've known some politicians (including the President of the Liberal Party of British Columbia - I was good friends with his son), and they definitely have personal feelings wrapped up into their political behaviour as well. I know that some politicians are just like you say - and basically dead inside! But it is absolutely not 100% (even though 99% of them do still thrive on power above everything else). Jack Layton, late leader of Canada's New Democrat Party (RIP Jack) is basically a national hero because he's celebrated for walking his walk and there was a national day of mourning when he died last year of cancer, and he was just leader of the opposition ( :( ) because millions of people recognized how precious a national political leader who was actually honest and stood up for what he truly believed in was. It makes me sad just thinking of him, and so many others genuinely feel the same way ... anyway, the point is that yes, most politicians are scum, but not all of them.

The quote here was Jack's, and he absolutely meant it. He wrote it in a letter to Canadians on his death bed. And he was really successful for years as the NPD leader (though they never won because our left is split between 2 parties unfortunately) - if it weren't for the cancer that got him, he would almost certainly have won Canada's next election for Prime Minister.


Good politicians are possible. A nation just needs voters who will embrace what's possible..... sorry for getting off track. I just had a Jack Layton nostalgic moment! :oops:

Good politicians are just good salespeople! They only sell the word of the people behind them.

Cliffy6745

If you vote against equal rights for gay people, regardless why you voted that way, you are anti-gay. Simple as that. It is a pretty black and white situation. Either you favor equal rights or you don't and your reasoning really makes no fucking difference.

This is incredibly stupid.

DS1119

Cliffy6745 wrote:

If you vote against equal rights for gay people, regardless why you voted that way, you are anti-gay. Simple as that. It is a pretty black and white situation. Either you favor equal rights or you don't and your reasoning really makes no fucking difference.

This is incredibly stupid.

So when the president voted, and not even voted...signed into law, in Novemeber of 2011 for the slaughter and consumption of horses (even though he said he wouldn't while campaigning) he must be anti-animal correct?

Cliffy6745

DS1119 wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

If you vote against equal rights for gay people, regardless why you voted that way, you are anti-gay. Simple as that. It is a pretty black and white situation. Either you favor equal rights or you don't and your reasoning really makes no fucking difference.

This is incredibly stupid.

So when the president voted in April of 2011 for the slaughter and consumption of horses (even though he said he wouldn't while campaigning) he must be anti-animal correct?

Fine, I really don't give a fuck if he is "anti-horse" and I couldn't give two fucks if someone eats a horse.

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i agree with the use of the word legitimate part.

but i have to disagree that this is going to go away. akin is staying in the missouri race, and they are going to continue to hammer akin with this and as a result, by akin's connection to ryan, the big ticket is going to continue to be hammered with it. this is why romney, ryan, and the party leaders were so proactive with calling him for him to quit the race. they know that if akin stays in there is going to be a big problem for the big ticket, and he is staying in, so this is a big problem for ryan and romney.

you certainly could be right. It will definitely hurt the GOP ticket in Missouri that is for sure. I hope this sinks Romney, maybe the GOP will get the point...LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE, focus on fiscal issues and get the fuck out of personal lives of people. Stop trying to legislate your fictitious moral standards and start letting people make choices...They would get a ton of independent support if they moved this direction...

i completely agree with you. they are appealing to the fringe right trying to make that the new middle, when most americans are reasonable centrists or moderates. they don't want to be one extreme or another and do not want a government of one extreme or the other. but what happens over time, is people get angry and frustrated and move further to the extremes, which is what gives us the huge schism that we see in american politics today. this is certainly what has happened to me over the years. believe it or not, i was more of a moderate under clinton. i think bush being given the presidency angered me, and then the subsequent 8 years of him moved me way left in effort to oppose all of the things he stood for and accomplished.

I have enjoyed the dems strategy of continually painting them into corners on social issues...Bunch of fucking idiots running the GOP right now...they just keep jumping into those tiger traps thinking the vocal minority base is going to speed them through every election.

DS1119

Cliffy6745 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

If you vote against equal rights for gay people, regardless why you voted that way, you are anti-gay. Simple as that. It is a pretty black and white situation. Either you favor equal rights or you don't and your reasoning really makes no fucking difference.

This is incredibly stupid.

So when the president voted in November (corrected) of 2011 for the slaughter and consumption of horses (even though he said he wouldn't while campaigning) he must be anti-animal correct?

Fine, I really don't give a fuck if he is "anti-horse" and I couldn't give two fucks if someone eats a horse.

Ok, and that's fine. Neither do I in regards to eating horse.

I guess that's why I post stuff like this. What the AMerican public needs to realize is there's a segment...a good segment of people...who don't give a shit about gay marriage. If they're not gay or don't believe in it, why would they want it to be legalized? If it's only going to increase their cost of living (which it will just simply in insurance costs) especailly in these economic times, why vote for or push for it? Just doesn't make sense. The Republicans represent in a larger part this segment of people. That's the stance the politicinas will take. They're representing their party. To call one politician however homophobic or anti-gay becasue of this is quite ignorant in my opinion since he's only representing his party and constituants.

Jason P

Cliffy6745 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

If you vote against equal rights for gay people, regardless why you voted that way, you are anti-gay. Simple as that. It is a pretty black and white situation. Either you favor equal rights or you don't and your reasoning really makes no fucking difference.

This is incredibly stupid.

So when the president voted in April of 2011 for the slaughter and consumption of horses (even though he said he wouldn't while campaigning) he must be anti-animal correct?

Fine, I really don't give a fuck if he is "anti-horse" and I couldn't give two fucks if someone eats a horse.

Horses are people too.

DS1119

Jason P wrote:

Horses are people too.

But lies are still lies.

Jason P

DS1119 wrote:

Ok, and that's fine. Neither do I in regards to eating horse.

I guess that's why I post stuff like this. What the AMerican public needs to realize is there's a segment...a good segment of people...who don't give a shit about gay marriage. If they're not gay or don't believe in it, why would they want it to be legalized? If it's only going to increase their cost of living (which it will just simply in insurance costs) especailly in these economic times, why vote for or push for it? Just doesn't make sense. The Republicans represent in a larger part this segment of people. That's the stance the politicinas will take. They're representing their party. To call one politician however homophobic or anti-gay becasue of this is quite ignorant in my opinion since he's only representing his party and constituants.

Wow, DS ... that was a totally serious post ... are you feeling well?

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

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.

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.

Wow. :fp:

:?: In other words, I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it applies to Ryan in this case. I have no clue why you find that funny or wow-worthy or hard to understand.

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

:?: In other words, I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it applies to Ryan in this case. I have no clue why you find that funny or wow-worthy or hard to understand.

Because he's the Vice Presidential candidate of the fucking United States!!! :fp: You don't get to that level by marching to the beat of your own drum! He has the support of a Presidential candidtae. He has the support of the Republican party. He has the support of all of the lobbyist groups who support that party. Hate to shock the World here...but he's not a lone wolf with his own ideals. He represents the ideals of the people that support him and got him to where he is. :fp: EVeryone always looks at elections like it's a "him vs. him" situation. Far from. These candidates are representing millions and millions of people no matter where they stand on any issue. If you think it was "one" person voting against gay marriage....he's representing millions and millions of people that feel the same way. :fp: