Romney Selects Ryan as VP

[HomeyG]

Thoughts!!!!

[barohar]

Too far right. Afraid it may have a negative effect on Romney, and right now I don't think he can afford any more negativity. I'm not sure it will matter since the GOP is having a hard time defining themselves as anything other than obstructionists. I think Romney needed a more middle of the road VP to help with the independents, and this I fear will solidify his position as too conservative. Either way, neither the GOP, nor Dem, candidate is a good choice. IMO

“Still it might be nice, once in a while, not to have to choose between evils. Just once, couldn't I choose the lesser good?”
― Laurell K Hamilton, Danse Macabre

[Mr Douglas]

I guess I don't understand any of it in the first place. Why would anyone trust a (former) quite liberal Democrat running on the Republican ticket, and not trust the Libertarian running on the Republican ticket? Libertarianism is, in fact, at the core of conservative values. Not Neocon values, but REAL conservatism. The Establishment's Judas goat media strikes again!

As far as Ryan, he voted for the NDAA and Patriot Act extensions, as so many others did, which is traitorous to the US Constitution. One cannot take an Oath to support and defend the US Constitution, and then do so by destroying it. I'd also like to know how a 30 year plan to balance the budget is viable. While I agree that 30 years is about how long it took to get us in this debt/budget mess, some hard choices need to be made ASAFP. The 'can' has been kicked down the road long enough!

[evilkumquat]

Ryan's thugs rough up an old man who dared protest his attack on "entitlement" programs we've paid into for most of our lives.

The arrogant !#!@$#! then cracked jokes and laughed at the old man while the ghouls in the audience chuckled right along.

Today's Republican Party - bullies and arrogant plutocrats.

[Mr Douglas]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/co...s/301us619.htm
No time to argue today, but according to the SC in 1937 Social Security IS a tax, and falls under the welfare clause of the Constitution...It IS an 'entitlement', as they call it. There's no special account with each individual's name on it. That WOULD be Unconstitutional. The government just doesn't go out of it's way to point that out to people. It's a tax in exchange for a 'welfare check'.
I'm sorry to have learned that.

On the old guy, ... who is rightfully po'd,..... It was a private luncheon. A little calmer demeanor would have gone a long way to prevent his being taken out of there like that. One doesn't go into a church on Sunday morning and start screaming "THERE IS NO GOD!", or some such thing. Or he'd surely be removed.

[evilkumquat]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/co...s/301us619.htm
No time to argue today, but according to the SC in 1937 Social Security IS a tax, and falls under the welfare clause of the Constitution...It IS an 'entitlement', as they call it. There's no special account with each individual's name on it. That WOULD be Unconstitutional. The government just doesn't go out of it's way to point that out to people. It's a tax in exchange for a 'welfare check'.
I'm sorry to have learned that.

On the old guy, ... who is rightfully po'd,..... It was a private luncheon. A little calmer demeanor would have gone a long way to prevent his being taken out of there like that. One doesn't go into a church on Sunday morning and start screaming "THERE IS NO GOD!", or some such thing. Or he'd surely be removed.

It's not wrong for them to have taken him out of there.

It's wrong for them to have roughed him up then joke about it afterward.

And regardless of what the Supreme Court might have classified it as, it's clear what the Republicans mean by "entitlement". They use that term to make it sound like people who dip from the Social Security well are lazy and undeserving.

It's as much a code word as "States' Rights".

[Mr Douglas]

It's not wrong for them to have taken him out of there.

It's wrong for them to have roughed him up then joke about it afterward.

And regardless of what the Supreme Court might have classified it as, it's clear what the Republicans mean by "entitlement". They use that term to make it sound like people who dip from the Social Security well are lazy and undeserving.

It's as much a code word as "States' Rights".

I figured their behavior was just a no-brainer conclusion unto itself. I see very little in his attitude toward others.
I also understand the word 'entitlement' is derogatory, but softer than 'welfare', especially to someone who paid into it their whole life.

[evilkumquat]

I figured their behavior was just a no-brainer conclusion unto itself. I see very little in his attitude toward others.
I also understand the word 'entitlement' is derogatory, but softer than 'welfare', especially to someone who paid into it their whole life.

Unfortunately, real citizens (those who understand we live in a society that depends on the contributions and care of ALL of us, not just the privileged 1%) have allowed conservatives to control the message for far too many decades.

Once upon a time, "liberal" and "welfare" weren't dirty words.

[barohar]

Unfortunately, real citizens (those who understand we live in a society that depends on the contributions and care of ALL of us, not just the privileged 1%) have allowed conservatives to control the message for far too many decades.

Once upon a time, "liberal" and "welfare" weren't dirty words.

The confusing thing for me is that the "liberal" are condemning the "conservatives" for forcing their views on everyone, yet the "liberals" in turn are saying that they want to force their views on everyone? Not everyone is right, and not everyone is wrong. Until both sides learn the art of compromise we will stay in this state we are in where no progress is made either way. One side is no more to blame than the other, and both sides have valid points. But even on the FP, you see such a large division and unwillingness to listen to the other side that it's no wonder our country is not moving in either direction. Unfortunately Evil, more times than not, you find nothing from the conservative side that you are willing to listen to, or consider. Now, that may not be fair since I don't read all your posts, and if I am wrong I apologize, but it is my perception of your position. Perhaps a more "liberal" consideration of the points brought up by conservative posters would go a long way to having a more productive discussion by everyone on FP.

[evilkumquat]

The confusing thing for me is that the "liberal" are condemning the "conservatives" for forcing their views on everyone, yet the "liberals" in turn are saying that they want to force their views on everyone? Not everyone is right, and not everyone is wrong. Until both sides learn the art of compromise we will stay in this state we are in where no progress is made either way. One side is no more to blame than the other, and both sides have valid points. But even on the FP, you see such a large division and unwillingness to listen to the other side that it's no wonder our country is not moving in either direction. Unfortunately Evil, more times than not, you find nothing from the conservative side that you are willing to listen to, or consider. Now, that may not be fair since I don't read all your posts, and if I am wrong I apologize, but it is my perception of your position. Perhaps a more "liberal" consideration of the points brought up by conservative posters would go a long way to having a more productive discussion by everyone on FP.

The conservative position is traditionally the one foisting its positions on others.

The liberal position is traditionally KEEPING the conservatives from foisting its positions on others.

To conservatives, being kept from infringing on the rights of others is an infringement on their rights.

Look at any number of the classic major debates between conservatism and liberalism:

1) Abortion: Conservatives want to tell women what they can do with their bodies; liberals want that decision kept with the woman. Certainly there is merit to the idea that in extremely rare late-term abortions, a viable fetus could be terminated, but until they find a way to magically transport the zygote out of the woman's body without doing her any harm, an existing, viable woman's rights trumps the rights of any "possible" child.

2) Homosexuality: Conservatives think it's unnatural and want to tell others who they can sleep with and who they can marry; liberals want to keep government out of our bedrooms.

3) Gun Control: Conservatives want unrestricted access to any number of weaponry, regardless of the practicality of keeping the public safe; liberals want everyone to have the ability to live safe lives away from gun violence.

4) Profanity: Conservatives want the ability to tell people what to say on television and in public because they find dirty words offensive; liberals want little to no restrictions on free speech.

5) War: Conservatives want to bomb other countries with whom they disagree; liberals want everyone to live in peace.

As a liberal, I understand the existence of grey areas in some of the above arguments (especially #3) and am willing to debate the issue. But to try and equate the extremes of both sides of the political ideology (right wing versus left wing) is disingenuous at best. Right wing extremists blow up abortion clinics and murder doctors in churches; left wing extremists trash animal testing labs or logging equipment.

[TLC528]

The conservative position is traditionally the one foisting its positions on others.

The liberal position is traditionally KEEPING the conservatives from foisting its positions on others.

To conservatives, being kept from infringing on the rights of others is an infringement on their rights.

Look at any number of the classic major debates between conservatism and liberalism:

1) Abortion: Conservatives want to tell women what they can do with their bodies; liberals want that decision kept with the woman. Certainly there is merit to the idea that in extremely rare late-term abortions, a viable fetus could be terminated, but until they find a way to magically transport the zygote out of the woman's body without doing her any harm, an existing, viable woman's rights trumps the rights of any "possible" child.

2) Homosexuality: Conservatives think it's unnatural and want to tell others who they can sleep with and who they can marry; liberals want to keep government out of our bedrooms.

3) Gun Control: Conservatives want unrestricted access to any number of weaponry, regardless of the practicality of keeping the public safe; liberals want everyone to have the ability to live safe lives away from gun violence.

4) Profanity: Conservatives want the ability to tell people what to say on television and in public because they find dirty words offensive; liberals want little to no restrictions on free speech.

5) War: Conservatives want to bomb other countries with whom they disagree; liberals want everyone to live in peace.

As a liberal, I understand the existence of grey areas in some of the above arguments (especially #3) and am willing to debate the issue. But to try and equate the extremes of both sides of the political ideology (right wing versus left wing) is disingenuous at best. Right wing extremists blow up abortion clinics and murder doctors in churches; left wing extremists trash animal testing labs or logging equipment.

1) I won’t reply because I think it would hijack the thread due to it being such a personal and emotional choice.
2) Many liberal homosexuals thought it ok to go to Chic-Fil-A and push their opinions with PDA. Why? Because a company leader said he believes in the bible’s traditional marriage. Mind you I have seen no proof of discrimination against homosexuals only a man stating his opinion (see #4 freedom of speech) just because a person doesn’t support or agree with gay lifestyle doesn’t mean they are hateful or discriminatory. I don’t agree with the Rastafarian beliefs and life style yet I don’t hate nor discriminate against them. Believe it or not people can be this way.
3) Just because you believe in the right to bare arms does not mean you want, support or encourage gun violence.
4) No restrictions of free speech unless they disagree with somebody’s opinion (see #2)
5) I’ve never wanted to bomb another country because I disagree with them.
The biggest problem I see, too many people want to push their agenda and expect everybody to agree. This isn’t exclusive to any group and unfortunately the loudest of the groups aren’t open minded and mature enough to realize we are allowed to have different opinions regardless of our affiliation whatever that may be. We are not all extremist.

[evilkumquat]

1) I won’t reply because I think it would hijack the thread due to it being such a personal and emotional choice.
2) Many liberal homosexuals thought it ok to go to Chic-Fil-A and push their opinions with PDA. Why? Because a company leader said he believes in the bible’s traditional marriage. Mind you I have seen no proof of discrimination against homosexuals only a man stating his opinion (see #4 freedom of speech) just because a person doesn’t support or agree with gay lifestyle doesn’t mean they are hateful or discriminatory. I don’t agree with the Rastafarian beliefs and life style yet I don’t hate nor discriminate against them. Believe it or not people can be this way.
3) Just because you believe in the right to bare arms does not mean you want, support or encourage gun violence.
4) No restrictions of free speech unless they disagree with somebody’s opinion (see #2)
5) I’ve never wanted to bomb another country because I disagree with them.
The biggest problem I see, too many people want to push their agenda and expect everybody to agree. This isn’t exclusive to any group and unfortunately the loudest of the groups aren’t open minded and mature enough to realize we are allowed to have different opinions regardless of our affiliation whatever that may be. We are not all extremist.

There was NO RESTRICTION on the speech of the bigoted hate-monger who runs Chick-fil-A. No one advocated government to censor him or to take away his rights to do business. Yes, the mayor of Boston said something stupid for which he apologized and was justly harangued by both the right and left wing. Those protesting outside were exercising their freedom as much as the bigot who runs the place. One thing the right loves to do, though, is to scream "violation of free speech!" without acknowledging that Chick-fil-A does MORE than simply express displeasure at homosexuals. They also actively promote and DONATE FUNDS to organizations that actually DO work toward enacting laws to restrict the rights of gays. Money spent at Chick-fil-A is used to attack gays. This is no different than drug money being funneled toward terrorists.

The Second Amendment has been perverted by the fearmongers at the NRA (and many Republicans are in that organization's pockets) to encompass any and all methods used to murder human beings. How likely is it for the founding fathers to agree that average citizens should have unfettered access to assault rifles? Where do we even draw the line? Why not allow access to pipe bombs and nerve gas? After all, the Second Amendment doesn't stipulate "firearms", merely "arms".

[barohar]

I'm glad to see that the FP hasn't changed. You can still get on here to exercise your right to be as abusive as ever. The owner of Chick-fil-A chooses to donate to a political cause with money from a PRIVATE company, or has the nerve to state his opinion about something that is contrary to his beliefs. The same way you can donate to PACs that you want because of your beliefs. You don't agree with his beliefs and what he does with his money so he is wrong, you are of course right because.....it's your beliefs and therefore you must be right. You are no better than the guy at Chick-fil-A. You want to talk about a holier than thou attitude? The Christians have nothing on you at all. Many people are accused of hating all muslims for 911, you hate all people who don't agree with you, especially if they dare to exercise their rights to do so.

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me as long as we can discuss it in a calm and meaningful manner. I have many friends that are on many different sides of many issues, I have never had any discussions with them that would mirror this. We simply agree to disagree. This has gone beyond the point of no return and unfortunately, one of the few times I reply ends up like this. It is no wonder the FP loses so many posters.

[evilkumquat]

I'm glad to see that the FP hasn't changed. You can still get on here to exercise your right to be as abusive as ever. The owner of Chick-fil-A chooses to donate to a political cause with money from a PRIVATE company, or has the nerve to state his opinion about something that is contrary to his beliefs. The same way you can donate to PACs that you want because of your beliefs. You don't agree with his beliefs and what he does with his money so he is wrong, you are of course right because.....it's your beliefs and therefore you must be right. You are no better than the guy at Chick-fil-A. You want to talk about a holier than thou attitude? The Christians have nothing on you at all. Many people are accused of hating all muslims for 911, you hate all people who don't agree with you, especially if they dare to exercise their rights to do so.

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me as long as we can discuss it in a calm and meaningful manner. I have many friends that are on many different sides of many issues, I have never had any discussions with them that would mirror this. We simply agree to disagree. This has gone beyond the point of no return and unfortunately, one of the few times I reply ends up like this. It is no wonder the FP loses so many posters.

Chick-fil-A donated to a cause that HURTS people. They didn't donate to a cancer charity. They didn't donate to an orphanage. They give money to organizations devoted to strip or deny rights of people whose only crime is being born gay and wanting the same rights afforded those born straight.

So let him come out and vent against homosexuals. More power to him. It's his right. But when he spends money to do more than offer an opinion, and when that money is derived through a business, then that business had better expect to see repercussions from decent people sick of bigotry and hate.

Also: how exactly are you being abused? Or is this the "abuse" suffered by the 1%, or a certain religion that claims victimhood while simultaneously holding all the cards?

"My opinion is getting challenged! I'm being bombarded with ideas with which I'm uncomfortable! Help me! I'm a victim!"

This is a heavily-moderated forum. If there's any actual abuse, it will get removed by the moderators. If they don't see it, it's likely you're imagining things.

[barohar]

No Evil, I was not talking about your abuse of me, but more of your abuse and name calling of the owner of the restaurant, who did nothing but exercise his rights in this country. Whether I agree with him or not, I agree with his right to feel the way he does, and also yours. I can see where I have allowed my opinions to take this post off topic, so my apologies for getting off track.

[blue adept]

No Evil, I was not talking about your abuse of me, but more of your abuse and name calling of the owner of the restaurant, who did nothing but exercise his rights in this country. Whether I agree with him or not, I agree with his right to feel the way he does, and also yours. I can see where I have allowed my opinions to take this post off topic, so my apologies for getting off track.

I think you are missing the point.Evil never said that the owner didn't have the right to say what he said, but that if he gives money to programs designed to rob others of their rights, he gets what he deserves. I agree with him, and I didn't see any abuse.

[blue adept]

I'm glad to see that the FP hasn't changed. You can still get on here to exercise your right to be as abusive as ever. The owner of Chick-fil-A chooses to donate to a political cause with money from a PRIVATE company, or has the nerve to state his opinion about something that is contrary to his beliefs. The same way you can donate to PACs that you want because of your beliefs. You don't agree with his beliefs and what he does with his money so he is wrong, you are of course right because.....it's your beliefs and therefore you must be right. You are no better than the guy at Chick-fil-A. You want to talk about a holier than thou attitude? The Christians have nothing on you at all. Many people are accused of hating all muslims for 911, you hate all people who don't agree with you, especially if they dare to exercise their rights to do so.

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me as long as we can discuss it in a calm and meaningful manner. I have many friends that are on many different sides of many issues, I have never had any discussions with them that would mirror this. We simply agree to disagree. This has gone beyond the point of no return and unfortunately, one of the few times I reply ends up like this. It is no wonder the FP loses so many posters.

This kills me, first you accuse Evil of abuse, when in fact he just calls a spade a spade, and then say that these people are just giving their money to political causes, like there is no problem with it. If the political party was a Nazi group you might understand a little better where Evil is coming from. Any political party that advocates the removal of rights of others are just as bad as Nazis. I do not see how you cannot see the problem, but, I do understand the poor martyr stance that some on the FP use to misdirect answers to direct questions. Either you believe in fair play, or you do not.

[barohar]

I was going to continue this but we are way off track. Now, I'm not saying I wouldn't be happy to continue our disagreement but let's let this post get back on track. If you start a new one I would be willing to continue if you choose.

[bigbass]

I was going to continue this but we are way off track. Now, I'm not saying I wouldn't be happy to continue our disagreement but let's let this post get back on track. If you start a new one I would be willing to continue if you choose.

Off track? How do you figure going from Romney Selects Ryan as a VP to, if your not part of Blues political affiliation your a Nazi is off track?

This is a "heavily-moderated forum", there is no way the moderators would let it get off track.

[blue adept]

Off track? How do you figure going from Romney Selects Ryan as a VP to, if your not part of Blues political affiliation your a Nazi is off track?

This is a "heavily-moderated forum", there is no way the moderators would let it get off track.

Talk about spin-doctoring, do you work for a political party?