Romney to pick Paul Ryan for VP
Comments
-
inlet13 wrote:Admittedly, I know little about Paul Ryan, but today I heard he sleeps in his congressional office. If that's true, that part .... there, that, that's pretty cool.
Otherwise, I don't know. Will be interesting. I don't see this swaying too many people.
Why do you think that's cool?
I think that's kinda creepy.
Paul Ryan's idol was Ayn Rand. She was a rather dispicable soul who was essentially the basis for the economic theory of "fuck you, I'm getting mine and I'll step over your dead body to get it." I think she called it "self-interest."
She was also dead set against government supported health care until she got old and went on Medicaid. It wasn't really hypocrisy on her part. She was proud to be selfish and while railing on others for being on it, she selfishly took it for herself.
Paul Ryan wants to totally dismantle pretty much every social program we have from student loans to Medicare to social security. And he wants to do this so he can give those job-creating billionaires like Meghan McCain tax cuts AND spend a few billion dollars more on defense since the last ten years of warring in the middle east has turned out so well for us.
His budget plan was so mortifying that even Romeny is distancing himself from it, even though a few years ago he was a big supporter of it.
And on a personal note, Paul Ryan has not only voted against marriage equality every chance he got, he's also voted against any protections for lgbt people at all, supporting allowing lgbt people to be fired and evicted for being glbt, making adoption illegal for glbt people, and opposing even anti-bullying bills.
Ryan was a major opposer of ending DADT. He also was very vocal against the Matthew Sheppherd law.
He's also supported laws that would not only force women to view sonograms of their rapist's fetuses, but would outlaw certain forms of birth control.
Trust me... This is not a guy who will appeal to the soccer moms in the swing states.0 -
:shock:Prince Of Dorkness wrote:inlet13 wrote:Admittedly, I know little about Paul Ryan, but today I heard he sleeps in his congressional office. If that's true, that part .... there, that, that's pretty cool.
Otherwise, I don't know. Will be interesting. I don't see this swaying too many people.
Why do you think that's cool?
I think that's kinda creepy.
Paul Ryan's idol was Ayn Rand. She was a rather dispicable soul who was essentially the basis for the economic theory of "fuck you, I'm getting mine and I'll step over your dead body to get it." I think she called it "self-interest."
She was also dead set against government supported health care until she got old and went on Medicaid. It wasn't really hypocrisy on her part. She was proud to be selfish and while railing on others for being on it, she selfishly took it for herself.
Paul Ryan wants to totally dismantle pretty much every social program we have from student loans to Medicare to social security. And he wants to do this so he can give those job-creating billionaires like Meghan McCain tax cuts AND spend a few billion dollars more on defense since the last ten years of warring in the middle east has turned out so well for us.
His budget plan was so mortifying that even Romeny is distancing himself from it, even though a few years ago he was a big supporter of it.
And on a personal note, Paul Ryan has not only voted against marriage equality every chance he got, he's also voted against any protections for lgbt people at all, supporting allowing lgbt people to be fired and evicted for being glbt, making adoption illegal for glbt people, and opposing even anti-bullying bills.
Ryan was a major opposer of ending DADT. He also was very vocal against the Matthew Sheppherd law.
He's also supported laws that would not only force women to view sonograms of their rapist's fetuses, but would outlaw certain forms of birth control.
Trust me... This is not a guy who will appeal to the soccer moms in the swing states.
Doesn't he sit in an elected office though? If so, that means people are willing to vote for him. Which is pretty scary if really any one of the things you said is true, let alone all of them.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
I think that makes him sound kind of crazy and obsessive. He has a family with kids... why don't they live in Washington so he can live at least a little bit like a normal human being?? Seems odd to me. Unless he's divorced and I missed that part. If so, well, it's still weird to sleep in your office as it doesn't lend to someone being well-rounded or anything, but it's better than him keeping his family in another state for years on end while he crashes in his desk.inlet13 wrote:Admittedly, I know little about Paul Ryan, but today I heard he sleeps in his congressional office. If that's true, that part .... there, that, that's pretty cool.
Otherwise, I don't know. Will be interesting. I don't see this swaying too many people.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Prince Of Dorkness wrote:She was also dead set against government supported health care until she got old and went on Medicaid. It wasn't really hypocrisy on her part. She was proud to be selfish and while railing on others for being on it, she selfishly took it for herself.
states.
Not really. I'm against the 65MPH speed limit but doesn't mean I still don't obey it or know the ramifications if I exceed it. There's a huge difference between what you feel and following the laws. If she fought against it great...when it took time to take advantage of it why not? I can still bitch about the speed limit while still adhereing to the laws. If the current laws states she's entitled...go for it. It benefitted her so do it. :?0 -
Agreed. She's a total nut job, but as long as people's taxes go towards such a program, they should take full advantage of the program they're paying for, even if it's their preference that the benefit didn't exist (I think it's ludicrous for anyone to be against such programs in the first place, but hey...).DS1119 wrote:Prince Of Dorkness wrote:She was also dead set against government supported health care until she got old and went on Medicaid. It wasn't really hypocrisy on her part. She was proud to be selfish and while railing on others for being on it, she selfishly took it for herself.
states.
Not really. I'm against the 65MPH speed limit but doesn't mean I still don't obey it or know the ramifications if I exceed it. There's a huge difference between what you feel and following the laws. If she fought against it great...when it took time to take advantage of it why not? I can still bitch about the speed limit while still adhereing to the laws. If the current laws states she's entitled...go for it. It benefitted her so do it. :?With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
DS1119 wrote:Prince Of Dorkness wrote:She was also dead set against government supported health care until she got old and went on Medicaid. It wasn't really hypocrisy on her part. She was proud to be selfish and while railing on others for being on it, she selfishly took it for herself.
states.
Not really. I'm against the 65MPH speed limit but doesn't mean I still don't obey it or know the ramifications if I exceed it. There's a huge difference between what you feel and following the laws. If she fought against it great...when it took time to take advantage of it why not? I can still bitch about the speed limit while still adhereing to the laws. If the current laws states she's entitled...go for it. It benefitted her so do it. :?
Like I said.. She never claimed that she wouldn't take whatever she could,get no matter what she had to do.
So while she failed against it.. Using it was pretty much her style. So not really hypocritical.
She was still bonkers.0 -
Prince Of Dorkness wrote:She never claimed that she wouldn't take whatever she could,get no matter what she had to do.
Doesn't everyone take what they can?0 -
http://www.advocate.com/politics/electi ... -pick-veep
Lovely - honest to god homophobes are running for president and vice president. :fp:With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
PJ_Soul wrote:
At least this a fair and unbiased source. :fp: Shall we dig up some other fair and unbiased sources talking about the other side then too? 0 -
DS1119 wrote:Prince Of Dorkness wrote:She never claimed that she wouldn't take whatever she could,get no matter what she had to do.
Doesn't everyone take what they can?
Honestly... No. They don't. Not like that.
We can debate the two-faced "for me, not for thee" attitude of Ayn Rand in another thread, maybe, but while I'm not surprised at someone whose whole mantra was "greed is good, fuck you" taking what they can get while unloading on others who do the same, there are many people who have done a lot of work to help others in their lives when they could have spent that time helping themselves.0 -
DS1119 wrote:PJ_Soul wrote:
At least this a fair and unbiased source. :fp: Shall we dig up some other fair and unbiased sources talking about the other side then too?
No. We can't. If you're going to say that a glbt news magazine isn't reliable when talking about glbt issues, then no Christians can be considered trustworthy when talking about religious freedoms and the wall street journal isn't allowed to be considered a reliable source when taking about money.
And what "other side" did you want? Someone to talk about how great it is that he voted to ban glbt adoption or someone to say he didn't REALLY vote to keep DADT.
The article linked there is just a list of facts. How he voted. That isn't an opinion piece. So "biased" and "balanced" don't apply. Unless there's a fact you think they have wrong.Post edited by Prince Of Dorkness on0 -
Prince Of Dorkness wrote:DS1119 wrote:Prince Of Dorkness wrote:She never claimed that she wouldn't take whatever she could,get no matter what she had to do.
Doesn't everyone take what they can?
Honestly... No. They don't. Not like that.
We can debate the two-faced "for me, not for thee" attitude of Ayn Rand in another thread, maybe, but while I'm not surprised at someone whose whole mantra was "greed is good, fuck you" taking what they can get while unloading on others who do the same, there are many people who have done a lot of work to help others in their lives when they could have spent that time helping themselves.
When PJ tickets go on sale...you can have them or I can have them. No in between...just you or me. Please don't tell me you will defer those tickets to me. :fp: Society is the way it is. Take care of yourself, family, then friends. Just the way it is. 0 -
DS1119 wrote:When PJ tickets go on sale...you can have them or I can have them. No in between...just you or me. Please don't tell me you will defer those tickets to me. :fp: Society is the way it is. Take care of yourself, family, then friends. Just the way it is.
I'd think that there's a difference between which one of us gets front row seats at a rock concert is a bit different than wether I'm willing to donate my time to promote a benefit for a local homeless youth shelter.
There have been many times I've given things of mine to people I thought needed them more. Maybe that makes me weak or stupid. Or just someone who realizes that sometimes we all need help.0 -
Prince Of Dorkness wrote:DS1119 wrote:PJ_Soul wrote:
At least this a fair and unbiased source. :fp: Shall we dig up some other fair and unbiased sources talking about the other side then too?
No. We can't. If you're going to say that a glbt news magazine isn't reliable when talking about glbt issues, then no Christians can be considered trustworthy when talking about religious freedoms and the wall street journal isn't allowed to be considered a reliable source when taking about money.
And what "other side" did you want? Someone to talk about how great it is that he voted to ban glbt adoption or someone to say he didn't REALLY vote to keep DADT.
The article linked there is just a list of facts. How he voted. That isn't an opinion piece. So "biased" and "balanced" don't apply. Unless there's a fact you think they have wrong.
Seriosuly? :fp: SO quoting an article from an "alernative website" is unbiased? Certainly you can't be serious. That's like me quoting an article from a Red Sox website assuming they would be unbiased about how good the New York Yankees are! 0 -
DS1119 wrote:Seriosuly? :fp: SO quoting an article from an "alernative website" is unbiased? Certainly you can't be serious. That's like me quoting an article from a Red Sox website assuming they would be unbiased about how good the New York Yankees are!
If they then laid out a list of stats like "they won this many games" and "they lost this many," then... Well yeah.
You can draw your own conclusions, I guess.
Clearly you only believe news if it's told by straight people? Because they're never "unbiased?"
:fp: :fp: 0 -
Prince Of Dorkness wrote:DS1119 wrote:When PJ tickets go on sale...you can have them or I can have them. No in between...just you or me. Please don't tell me you will defer those tickets to me. :fp: Society is the way it is. Take care of yourself, family, then friends. Just the way it is.
I'd think that there's a difference between which one of us gets front row seats at a rock concert is a bit different than wether I'm willing to donate my time to promote a benefit for a local homeless youth shelter.
There have been many times I've given things of mine to people I thought needed them more. Maybe that makes me weak or stupid. Or just someone who realizes that sometimes we all need help.
There's zero difference. It all comes to the fundamental truth that it comes down to you or me. That's the method of man. When all is said and done...at the end of the day...that's the way it is. Can we hel other people out, sure. But at the end of the day if someone has one piece of food and they're hungry...they're not giving it away.
With that mindset, if someone doesn't like the laws, go ahead and change them. But never blame someone for adhering to the laws the society has voted to uphold. I don't care if you're a multi-billionaire, if society dictates you're eligible for MEdicaid go get it.0 -
Prince Of Dorkness wrote:DS1119 wrote:Seriosuly? :fp: SO quoting an article from an "alernative website" is unbiased? Certainly you can't be serious. That's like me quoting an article from a Red Sox website assuming they would be unbiased about how good the New York Yankees are!
If they then laid out a list of stats like "they won this many games" and "they lost this many," then... Well yeah.
You can draw your own conclusions, I guess.
Clearly you only believe news if it's told by straight people? Because they're never "unbiased?"
:fp: :fp:
Not at all...but I certainly don;t only believe news "fed" to me from an alternative website. Perhaps I should read a white supremicist webpage...I'm sure they would be unbiased correct and state the same "facts" from the quoted page? Or is it tonly the alternative lifestyle pages that tell the "total" truth? :fp: 0 -
DS1119 wrote:There's zero difference. It all comes to the fundamental truth that it comes down to you or me. That's the method of man. When all is said and done...at the end of the day...that's the way it is. Can we hel other people out, sure. But at the end of the day if someone has one piece of food and they're hungry...they're not giving it away.
:fp: but there ISN'T "one piece of food."
There's plenty of food... There are those who hoard it and keep way more than they need while letting others starve and those who are willing to try to help out.
I guess that concept it too socialist for you?0 -
Prince Of Dorkness wrote:DS1119 wrote:There's zero difference. It all comes to the fundamental truth that it comes down to you or me. That's the method of man. When all is said and done...at the end of the day...that's the way it is. Can we hel other people out, sure. But at the end of the day if someone has one piece of food and they're hungry...they're not giving it away.
:fp: but there ISN'T "one piece of food."
There's plenty of food... There are those who hoard it and keep way more than they need while letting others starve and those who are willing to try to help out.
I guess that concept it too socialist for you?
It all comes down to who determines what is needed? I have a two car garage. I don't need one but I like it. I grew up with a pool...did I need it, nope, but I liked it. Who's to say what someone needs and doesn't need. If someone feels they need something they don't have go pull your knickers up and go get it. If someone has 5 billion dollars sitting in a bank account...good for them. Who is to say what anyone needs or doesn't need? :fp: 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help