So, who't this Ryan chap then?
Options
Replies
-
Don't forget making targeted assassinations of American citizens overseas legal. That was a HUGE triumph for this administration.So...what are all of these guys differences on The Patriot Act, indefinate detention, warrantless wire-taps, secret over seas prisons, and non bid contracts for military industrialists? You know, the little stuff.
They all supported it.0 -
Tell me how I am better off?
Sounds like you're not. The question in my mind though is how where you are now compares to where you would be if the Bush policies that caused the crisis were continued by a President McCain. And where you will be in the future if a President Romney returns to the failed policies that gave us a lost decade.
Of course, the way I phrase the questions tells you what I think the answers are!
One could argue that the policies that caused the crisis were Clinton's and then later continued by Bush. There is plenty of blame to go around.0 -
So...what are all of these guys differences on The Patriot Act, indefinate detention, warrantless wire-taps, secret over seas prisons, and non bid contracts for military industrialists? You know, the little stuff.
They all supported it.
While the differences between Obama, Bush, and Romney aren't as great as I would like on the Patriot Act, detention without due process, and warrentless wire-taps, I don't think you can say the Obama supports secret prisons overseas. It's hard to get clear answers on things that no one is willing to talk about, but one of Obama's first actions was an executive order to close CIA "black sites." Whether the military is still running secret prisons in Afghanistan is an open question.
Romney on the other hand famously said that "We ought to double Guantanamo," whatever the heck that means. (Of course, that was in the 2007, which is well past the shelf-life for Romney's statements.)0 -
So...what are all of these guys differences on The Patriot Act, indefinate detention, warrantless wire-taps, secret over seas prisons, and non bid contracts for military industrialists? You know, the little stuff.
They all supported it.
While the differences between Obama, Bush, and Romney aren't as great as I would like on the Patriot Act, detention without due process, and warrentless wire-taps, I don't think you can say the Obama supports secret prisons overseas. It's hard to get clear answers on things that no one is willing to talk about, but one of Obama's first actions was an executive order to close CIA "black sites." Whether the military is still running secret prisons in Afghanistan is an open question.
Romney on the other hand famously said that "We ought to double Guantanamo," whatever the heck that means. (Of course, that was in the 2007, which is well past the shelf-life for Romney's statements.)
Didn't Obama say he would close Guantanamo? How is that working out?0 -
Tell me how I am better off?
Sounds like you're not. The question in my mind though is how where you are now compares to where you would be if the Bush policies that caused the crisis were continued by a President McCain. And where you will be in the future if a President Romney returns to the failed policies that gave us a lost decade.
Of course, the way I phrase the questions tells you what I think the answers are!
One could argue that the policies that caused the crisis were Clinton's and then later continued by Bush. There is plenty of blame to go around.
If I were going to blame Clinton for anything, it was politically weakening himself buy getting blown by a chubby jewish girl. Clinton began launching cruise missles into Afghanistan in 1999 (I believe that was the year) and Republicans claimed he was wagging the dog. Clinton also left a huge intelligence memo to Bush on Bin Laden and the terroists, which was ignored as was the CIA briefing of "Bin Laden Likely to attack targets using airplanes" in august of 2001 by Bush. So, yeah some blame to Clinton, but not a fraction of what I give that fake preaching retard of a president we had from 2000-2008.0 -
Didn't Obama say he would close Guantanamo? How is that working out?
He tried. He was blocked by Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Chalk it up to not living in a dictatorship.0 -
So...what are all of these guys differences on The Patriot Act, indefinate detention, warrantless wire-taps, secret over seas prisons, and non bid contracts for military industrialists? You know, the little stuff.
They all supported it.
While the differences between Obama, Bush, and Romney aren't as great as I would like on the Patriot Act, detention without due process, and warrentless wire-taps, I don't think you can say the Obama supports secret prisons overseas. It's hard to get clear answers on things that no one is willing to talk about, but one of Obama's first actions was an executive order to close CIA "black sites." Whether the military is still running secret prisons in Afghanistan is an open question.
Romney on the other hand famously said that "We ought to double Guantanamo," whatever the heck that means. (Of course, that was in the 2007, which is well past the shelf-life for Romney's statements.)
Didn't Obama say he would close Guantanamo? How is that working out?
I don't think it is.0 -
Don't forget making targeted assassinations of American citizens overseas legal. That was a HUGE triumph for this administration.So...what are all of these guys differences on The Patriot Act, indefinate detention, warrantless wire-taps, secret over seas prisons, and non bid contracts for military industrialists? You know, the little stuff.
They all supported it.
And closing Gitmo.. Ha, nevermind. They renovated it so American citizens can be detained there....0 -
The vast majority of us are NOT independently wealthy, so we are all entrapped in the same economic scheme that now proves to hurt more than it helps. It boggles my mind that many in this position are willing to give over more of their sovereignty, more of their power to the entities that cause the problems in the first place. :grumble: I would like people to see that but if they can't and they continue to vote in the same troublemakes that caused the problem, I can't feel sorry for them when they suffer.
To review Paul Ryan's extensive voting record against what he claims he stands for and claims he believes in, and then support the guy and the ticket that nominated him is absolute lunacy.
-Debra0 -
Tell me how I am better off?
Sounds like you're not. The question in my mind though is how where you are now compares to where you would be if the Bush policies that caused the crisis were continued by a President McCain. And where you will be in the future if a President Romney returns to the failed policies that gave us a lost decade.
Of course, the way I phrase the questions tells you what I think the answers are!
I guess we agree to disagree. It wasn't entirely "Bush policies" that caused the crisis. A lot of it had more to do with the policies enacted by Dodd-Frank and the Community Lending Laws. You know, the ones that encouraged/armtwisted banks to make loans to people that really couldn't afford the terms in the first place and then defaulted. Obviously, I realize that's a gross oversimplication of the issue that caused the mortgage crisis (and it had a great deal to do with greediness of banking execs as well), but it was the Senate and Fed wanting banks to follow the whole "everyone should have a house" mantra that socialists love so much.0 -
I would like people to see that but if they can't and they continue to vote in the same troublemakes that caused the problem, I can't feel sorry for them when they suffer.
To review Paul Ryan's extensive voting record against what he claims he stands for and claims he believes in, and then support the guy and the ticket that nominated him is absolute lunacy.
-Debra
Debra, I dare you to call me a lunatic to my face.
I'm all for a good debate, but the problem I have with your statement is when you take it to a personal level and act like anyone who would even consider supporting a conservative ticket is less intelligent than you.0 -
Dodd-Frank came after the housing bubble and the financial crisis. It's logically impossible for Dodd-Frank to have caused something that happened before it was enacted.
And guess who was the main "socialist" chanting the whole "everyone should have a house" mantra? George W. Bush.President George W. Bush addresses the White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership at The George Washington University
Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2002
THE PRESIDENT: …. I appreciate your attendance to this very important conference. You see, we want everybody in America to own their own home. That's what we want. This is -- an ownership society is a compassionate society.
More and more people own their homes in America today. Two-thirds of all Americans own their homes, yet we have a problem here in America because few than half of the Hispanics and half the African Americans own the home. That's a homeownership gap. It's a -- it's a gap that we've got to work together to close for the good of our country, for the sake of a more hopeful future.
We've got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a homeownership gap. . . .
http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/gw-bush-on-the-housing-boom-oct-2002/0 -
I would like people to see that but if they can't and they continue to vote in the same troublemakes that caused the problem, I can't feel sorry for them when they suffer.
To review Paul Ryan's extensive voting record against what he claims he stands for and claims he believes in, and then support the guy and the ticket that nominated him is absolute lunacy.
-Debra
Debra, I dare you to call me a lunatic to my face.
I'm all for a good debate, but the problem I have with your statement is when you take it to a personal level and act like anyone who would even consider supporting a conservative ticket is less intelligent than you.
Oh, hell no, WildCat. Then I'm a lunatic too! When one has a relatively secure job it is easy to overlook what many others go through and I used to be insensitive that way. My dad and I would debate and debate. When I wrote that above I was actually thinking about my birth state, a whole state of people, not a single person. Sorry for the confusion. These debates do get exciting, don't they? Didn't mean to offend.
I'm just truly curious as to what part of Ryan Paul's ideology and policies seem to be helpful to the vast majority of working class people entrapped in the system of "free for hire and fire" corporate run amucks?
-Debra0 -
The vast majority of us are NOT independently wealthy, so we are all entrapped in the same economic scheme that now proves to hurt more than it helps. It boggles my mind that many in this position are willing to give over more of their sovereignty, more of their power to the entities that cause the problems in the first place. :grumble: I would like people to see that but if they can't and they continue to vote in the same troublemakes that caused the problem, I can't feel sorry for them when they suffer.
The way I see it, the Democrats want my money to give to people who have less or refuse to work for it. The Republicans want my money for special interests and funding wars.
I just want to work, keep MY money and take care of myself.0 -
I would like people to see that but if they can't and they continue to vote in the same troublemakes that caused the problem, I can't feel sorry for them when they suffer.
To review Paul Ryan's extensive voting record against what he claims he stands for and claims he believes in, and then support the guy and the ticket that nominated him is absolute lunacy.
-Debra
Debra, I dare you to call me a lunatic to my face.
I'm all for a good debate, but the problem I have with your statement is when you take it to a personal level and act like anyone who would even consider supporting a conservative ticket is less intelligent than you.
Oh, hell no, WildCat. Then I'm a lunatic too! When one has a relatively secure job it is easy to overlook what many others go through and I used to be insensitive that way. My dad and I would debate and debate. When I wrote that above I was actually thinking about my birth state, a whole state of people, not a single person. Sorry for the confusion. These debates do get exciting, don't they? Didn't mean to offend.
I'm just truly curious as to what part of Ryan Paul's ideology and policies seem to be helpful to the vast majority of working class people entrapped in the system of "free for hire and fire" corporate run amucks?
-Debra
I would not even call my job relatively secure, and I get so tired of hearing the notion that Capitalists are heartless, insensitive, money grubbers who want everyone else to suffer.
Like Mandy, I simply believe that my money is mine to keep and do what I choose to do with it. The vast majority of Libertarians and Republicans I know donate a good deal of their money to organizations that help less fortunate people. We do want to help others...we just want to choose which charities we become part of. I want to donate to children-based organizations, not some effing private arts museum in Oregon.
I wouldn't even say that Ryan's policies excite me, and we are polar opposites when it comes to the big social issues, but his money makes government (which can't run a business to save it's life...just see the USPS' success) smaller and returns revenue to the people who are smart enough to create jobs and business.0 -
I would like people to see that but if they can't and they continue to vote in the same troublemakes that caused the problem, I can't feel sorry for them when they suffer.
To review Paul Ryan's extensive voting record against what he claims he stands for and claims he believes in, and then support the guy and the ticket that nominated him is absolute lunacy.
-Debra
Debra, I dare you to call me a lunatic to my face.
I'm all for a good debate, but the problem I have with your statement is when you take it to a personal level and act like anyone who would even consider supporting a conservative ticket is less intelligent than you.
Oh, hell no, WildCat. Then I'm a lunatic too! When one has a relatively secure job it is easy to overlook what many others go through and I used to be insensitive that way. My dad and I would debate and debate. When I wrote that above I was actually thinking about my birth state, a whole state of people, not a single person. Sorry for the confusion. These debates do get exciting, don't they? Didn't mean to offend.
I'm just truly curious as to what part of Ryan Paul's ideology and policies seem to be helpful to the vast majority of working class people entrapped in the system of "free for hire and fire" corporate run amucks?
-Debra
I would not even call my job relatively secure, and I get so tired of hearing the notion that Capitalists are heartless, insensitive, money grubbers who want everyone else to suffer.
Like Mandy, I simply believe that my money is mine to keep and do what I choose to do with it. The vast majority of Libertarians and Republicans I know donate a good deal of their money to organizations that help less fortunate people. We do want to help others...we just want to choose which charities we become part of. I want to donate to children-based organizations, not some effing private arts museum in Oregon.
I wouldn't even say that Ryan's policies excite me, and we are polar opposites when it comes to the big social issues, but his money makes government (which can't run a business to save it's life...just see the USPS' success) smaller and returns revenue to the people who are smart enough to create jobs and business.
But here is the interesting question, one I find myself facing often in politics. If Ryan is offering you a tax cut, but is opposite of you socially like with gay marriage or a seperation of church and state....are you willing to to trample civil liberties for some cash?0 -
The vast majority of us are NOT independently wealthy, so we are all entrapped in the same economic scheme that now proves to hurt more than it helps. It boggles my mind that many in this position are willing to give over more of their sovereignty, more of their power to the entities that cause the problems in the first place. :grumble: I would like people to see that but if they can't and they continue to vote in the same troublemakes that caused the problem, I can't feel sorry for them when they suffer.
To review Paul Ryan's extensive voting record against what he claims he stands for and claims he believes in, and then support the guy and the ticket that nominated him is absolute lunacy.
-Debra
Lunacy is to want to relect Obama. What has he accomplished?
-GDP growth is declinining. Last qtr was 1.5%
-He has added 5+ trillion dollars to the national debt in 3 years.
-Above 8% unemployment rate for more than 40 consecutive months.
-Failed Trillion dollar stimulus which he said would keep unemployment under 8%.
-Bailed out 2 automotive companies, one of which was then bought by a foreign entity, the other(GM) is floundering with it currently worth almost half of what it was worth during its 2010 IPO.
-3 consecuitive Trillion dollar+ budget deficits
-Hasn't signed a budget in 3+ years.
-Has actively killed jobs in this country with the oil moratorium and refusal to support the building of the Canadian pipeline.
-He has given amnesty to nearly 2 million individuals without congressional approval
-Dropped the work requirement for welfare without congressional approval after being passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by a Democratic President to illustrate the bipartisan nature of the bill.
-Obama is gutting Medicare to pay for Obamacare which was sold to the American public as a lie. The true 10 year cost will surpass 2 $trillion dollars in 10 years, when accounting for 10 years of actual benefits being paid. Obama said he was going to pay for this by taking $500 B out of medicare and putting it towards Obamacare. The other $440B will be collected through taxes, however, he is still short over a trillion dollars to cover the true cost of Obamacare. Where is that money going to come from? Were talking an additional $100B per year. So Obamacare is spending $200B a year to cover 30 million people, a third of which are illegal immigrants.
It is absolute insanity for people to want to vote for such a record. Obama and all the Dems know he has absolutely nothing to run on so all they have left in their arsenal(as usual) is to resort to personal attacks.0 -
Dodd-Frank came after the housing bubble and the financial crisis. It's logically impossible for Dodd-Frank to have caused something that happened before it was enacted.
And guess who was the main "socialist" chanting the whole "everyone should have a house" mantra? George W. Bush.President George W. Bush addresses the White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership at The George Washington University
Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2002
THE PRESIDENT: …. I appreciate your attendance to this very important conference. You see, we want everybody in America to own their own home. That's what we want. This is -- an ownership society is a compassionate society.
More and more people own their homes in America today. Two-thirds of all Americans own their homes, yet we have a problem here in America because few than half of the Hispanics and half the African Americans own the home. That's a homeownership gap. It's a -- it's a gap that we've got to work together to close for the good of our country, for the sake of a more hopeful future.
We've got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a homeownership gap. . . .
http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/gw-bush-on-the-housing-boom-oct-2002/
The Community reinvestment act came way before the housing bubble. This policy along with the repeal of Glass-Steagull is what lead to the housing bubble. Blame should be placed on everyone for this although CRA predates the Glass-Steagull repeal so what came first the chicken or the egg?0 -
But here is the interesting question, one I find myself facing often in politics. If Ryan is offering you a tax cut, but is opposite of you socially like with gay marriage or a seperation of church and state....are you willing to to trample civil liberties for some cash?
Thank you for bringing this up - I'm genuinely interested in responses, especially of fiscal conservatives that may not be so socially conservative.0 -
But here is the interesting question, one I find myself facing often in politics. If Ryan is offering you a tax cut, but is opposite of you socially like with gay marriage or a seperation of church and state....are you willing to to trample civil liberties for some cash?
Thank you for bringing this up - I'm genuinely interested in responses, especially of fiscal conservatives that may not be so socially conservative.
To me they are both taking my liberty. Whether it's my money or my beliefs. In the end I would chose the social issues, as money can be replaced easier than rights and freedom.0
