Romney to pick Paul Ryan for VP

Prince Of Dorkness

DS1119 wrote:

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:

Can you give me an example of a news source that isn't "alternative?"

Clearly you think a news paper that's been around since the early 70s and that's won countless journalism awards like The Advocate to be as reliable as an underground nazi website so tell us... What's a good reliable source of unbiased news?

Prince Of Dorkness

DS1119 wrote:

Who is to say what anyone needs or doesn't need? :fp:

Well Ayn rand needed chemotherapy to deal with her lung cancer and I guess her doctor told her that.

But please... Dazzle us more with how many cars you have. I find it fascinating.

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

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:

Can you give me an example of a news source that isn't "alternative?"

Clearly you think a news paper that's been around since the early 70s and that's won countless journalism awards like The Advocate to be as reliable as an underground nazi website so tell us... What's a good reliable source of unbiased news?

Nope they're all biased. You read and absorb from everywhere you can and form your opinions. To quote one source here like that poster did and assume that's the total truth is nothing but ignorant. I could find 50 other sources to contradict what was posted and then I'm sure whe could find 50 more to contradict mine and it keeps going on and on.

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Who is to say what anyone needs or doesn't need? :fp:

Well Ayn rand needed chemotherapy to deal with her lung cancer and I guess her doctor told her that.

But please... Dazzle us more with how many cars you have. I find it fascinating.

:? You pretty much have lost me. She needed chemo...ok?? :? I have a two car garage...ok?? :? I also have two bathrooms and three TV's. Anything else you want to know?

Prince Of Dorkness

DS1119 wrote:

I could find 50 other sources to contradict what was posted and then I'm sure whe could find 50 more to contradict mine and it keeps going on and on.

Really.

You can find 50 news sources that say Paul Ryan supported glbt adoption and 50 news sources that say he supported ending the DADT policy?

Well... Ok... How's this? Find us one.

Just one.

You're the one who said you can find 50. I'll take one. Go find one website that says Paul Ryan supported the end of DADT.

If you can find 50... Surely one can't take you long.


I'll wait.

Prince Of Dorkness

DS1119 wrote:

:? You pretty much have lost me. She needed chemo...ok?? :? I have a two car garage...ok?? :? I also have two bathrooms and three TV's. Anything else you want to know?

We started this talking about Ayn Rand and you made it about wanting pearl jam tickets and your pool and two-car garage.

did you want a blow-by-blow or can you go back and read it yourself?

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

I could find 50 other sources to contradict what was posted and then I'm sure whe could find 50 more to contradict mine and it keeps going on and on.

Really.

You can find 50 news sources that say Paul Ryan supported glbt adoption and 50 news sources that say he supported ending the DADT policy?

Well... Ok... How's this? Find us one.

Just one.

You're the one who said you can find 50. I'll take one. Go find one website that says Paul Ryan supported the end of DADT.

If you can find 50... Surely one can't take you long.


I'll wait.

I can find 50 sources of why he did what he did. That's pretty easy and fundamental. :fp: Not everything is voted on as clear as day as a yes or no on a single topic. What if that vote was coupled along with a bill to not club baby seals? WHere's that news? Also, if his constituents feel, or he feels he represents his constituents the best he will vote properly along those lines. By making such a black and white statement as you say is like saying Obama supports murder when he signed off on taking Bin Laden out. I guess that makes Obama an accessory in murder correct?

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

:? You pretty much have lost me. She needed chemo...ok?? :? I have a two car garage...ok?? :? I also have two bathrooms and three TV's. Anything else you want to know?

We started this talking about Ayn Rand and you made it about wanting pearl jam tickets and your pool and two-car garage.

did you want a blow-by-blow or can you go back and read it yourself?

No I'm familiar with it. I believe you made the point about fighting about Medicaid but then collecting it. I could read it back for you if you want?

Prince Of Dorkness

DS1119 wrote:

No I'm familiar with it. I believe you made the point about fighting about Medicaid but then collecting it. I could read it back for you if you want?

Right.. Which you then made about your pool and your garage and stuff.

Prince Of Dorkness

DS1119 wrote:

What if that vote was coupled along with a bill to not club baby seals?

Baby seals.

You're so unaware of current events that you think the vote to end DADT was maybe coupled with a bill protecting baby seals.

Well, that explains a lot.

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

No I'm familiar with it. I believe you made the point about fighting about Medicaid but then collecting it. I could read it back for you if you want?

Right.. Which you then made about your pool and your garage and stuff.

Wow. :fp: There was quite a bit more there than that. Some sort of BS about how you feel people who have enough shouldn't have that much...or blah blah blah...some sort of socialist bs. If you don't remember just read through.

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

What if that vote was coupled along with a bill to not club baby seals?

Baby seals.

You're so unaware of current events that you think the vote to end DADT was maybe coupled with a bill protecting baby seals.

Well, that explains a lot.

First of all, it was an example. :fp: Second of all, taking that hard line a stand about a single vote when not taking the other circumstances surrounding any stance a politician takes is like the exmple I used of Obama is a murderer. He did sign off on the assasination of Bin Laden correct? I guess he's a murderer. Simple as that then. I say we gather our pitchforks and storm the WHite House. There really couldn't have been any other factors going into that decision correct? :fp:

Prince Of Dorkness

DS1119 wrote:

Wow. :fp: There was quite a bit more there than that. Some sort of BS about how you feel people who have enough shouldn't have that much...or blah blah blah...some sort of socialist bs. If you don't remember just read through.

No.. You said that everyone takes all they can get. Don't think I said that there should be a limit on how much anyone has, just that some people are willin to help others out and some aren't.

It was about how you'd take whatever you could get and then there was some doomsday "one piece of food" scenario and then you bragging about having a two car garage and a pool.

I can draw you a pie chart if you want.

Prince Of Dorkness

DS1119 wrote:

First of all, it was an example. :fp: Second of all, taking that hard line a stand about a single vote when not taking the other circumstances surrounding any stance a politician takes

And it was an absurd one.

You've talked yourself into a corner.

You said you could find 50 news sources to contradict the facts in that article.

I told you to go find one. Just one source that said he didn't vote against repealing DADT.

Instead, you suggested that maybe he was protecting the baby deals the two times he voted on the DADT repeal (which was a stand-alone bill with no mention of baby seals), And you said that because you can't find a single article that says he didn't vote "no" on repealing DADT twice.

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Wow. :fp: There was quite a bit more there than that. Some sort of BS about how you feel people who have enough shouldn't have that much...or blah blah blah...some sort of socialist bs. If you don't remember just read through.

No.. You said that everyone takes all they can get. Don't think I said that there should be a limit on how much anyone has, just that some people are willin to help others out and some aren't.

It was about how you'd take whatever you could get and then there was some doomsday "one piece of food" scenario and then you bragging about having a two car garage and a pool.

I can draw you a pie chart if you want.

Wow...you really do hear what you want to hear. :fp: I wasn't bragging about having a two car garage. You brought up the ridiculous point about someone having enough and should ditribute like this was Communist Russia or something and I brought up the point about who determines what is enough? Is it you. Is it me? I mean I live a neighborhood where a family has a five car garage. SHould I go to their house...knock on the door and say you have enough fucker, had it over! Try rereading the threads...it will help you.

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

First of all, it was an example. :fp: Second of all, taking that hard line a stand about a single vote when not taking the other circumstances surrounding any stance a politician takes

And it was an absurd one.

You've talked yourself into a corner.

You said you could find 50 news sources to contradict the facts in that article.

I told you to go find one. Just one source that said he didn't vote against repealing DADT.

Instead, you suggested that maybe he was protecting the baby deals the two times he voted on the DADT repeal (which was a stand-alone bill with no mention of baby seals), And you said that because you can't find a single article that says he didn't vote "no" on repealing DADT twice.

No I haven't talked myself into a corner. Also, I think it''s quite funny that you keep bringing up the "baby seal" example I used when I never said this bill was coupled with something like that and you conveniently leave out the three other points I make in the same sentence. I think that's called "selective quotes" or "selective journalisn" quite like that webpage. You really are quite lost if you believe single votes by politicians are determined solely by them and don't follow other protocol and circumstance. Furthering that you keep avoiding the point I make about Obama being a murderer correct. I mean he signed the order to assasinate Bin Laden correct? There wasn't anything else that went into that decision correct? I mean he basically just wanted to kill Bin Laden one day so he woke up and said "you know what guys...today we kill Bin Laden". He signed the order adn it was done. I guess that makes him a murderer as much as Paul's vote on this single issue makes him what this "alternative" lifestyle page paints him to be.

Prince Of Dorkness

DS1119 wrote:

You brought up the ridiculous point about someone having enough and should ditribute like this was Communist Russia or something

Comprehension fail.

You said that everyone takes everything they can get, I said that some just take what they need And help others who don't have what they need.

I sure never said anyone SHOULD do anything.

And "communist Russia?" you know the 90s like... Happened, right?

Prince Of Dorkness

DS1119 wrote:

You really are quite lost if you believe single votes by politicians are determined solely by them and don't follow other protocol and circumstance.

So you didn't read the article. Because it wasn't about a "single vote" but how he has 100% of the time voted against any and all glbt issues... Adoption, DADT, DOMA, hate crimes, ENDA, immigration, marriage equality and even anti-bullying. Over his 7 terms.

Furthering that you keep avoiding the point I make about Obama being a murderer correct.

Well if you mean your desperate and rather pathetic attempt to change the subject to something else, then yes... I'm ignoring it.

I guess that makes him a murderer as much as Paul's vote on this single issue makes him what this "alternative" lifestyle page paints him to be.

Like I pointed about above, it's many issues... Over many years... And many votes. A "pattern," if you will.

I realize you're getting a juvenile kick out of telling me I'm an "alternative lifestyle" but that says more about you than anything else.

And calling The Advocate (a news magazine that been in print since the early 70s and has won a lot on journalism awards) an "alternative page" and comparing it to a nazi website shows how desperate you are to make your "points."

ComeToTX

I don't really trust any politicians to have any interest in my financial situation. Therefore I usually vote on social issues. Paul Ryan is ready to take us back 100 years or more. No thanks. Anti-elderly, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-poor and pro military spending out the ass. Maybe the easiest choice for me since '04.

ComeToTX

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) cosponsored a bill that would give fetuses full personhood rights from the moment of fertilization, which was even rejected by voters in the socially conservative state of Mississippi. He voted to defund federal family planning programs, authored a budget that dismantles Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, all of which disproportionately aid and employ women, and voted multiple times to prevent women in the military from using their own money to pay for abortions at military hospitals.

Ryan also supported a highly controversial bill that Democrats nicknamed the "Let Women Die Act," which would have allowed hospitals to refuse to provide a woman emergency abortion care, even if her life is on the line.