Mitt Romney Chooses Paul Ryan As Election Running Mate

[Ulysses G.]

The point is that the Ryan budget simply doesn't work.

More propaganda from a very biased liberal rag. Do you really think that anyone believes anything about a Republican that comes from Slate? Please post a link from a reputable hard news organization at least once in a while.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

All this talk from the Ryan supporters of the need to cut spending.

We are well on our way to going broke. Of course we need to reduce spending.

[geriatrickid]

All this talk from the Ryan supporters of the need to cut spending.

We are well on our way to going broke. Of course we need to reduce spending.

Fine, then start with the most expensive items such as the elimination of programs the Pentagon says should be cut.

Case in point;

• An Army proposal to stop work on the M1 Abrams tank to save $3 billion, has been blocked by the members of four key congressional committees.Those lawmakers have received $5.3 million since 2001 from employees of the tank’s manufacturer, General Dynamics, and its political action committee.The lawmakers have also been heavily lobbied by former committee staff members on the company’s payroll.
  
• The company’s campaign donations spiked at key legislative milestones for the Pentagon’s budget bills last year and this year.
  

Edited August 16, 2012 by geriatrickid

[Ulysses G.]

A budget for the whole country is a very complicated thing and it needs both sides to examine it and work out all the kinks. There is nothing unusual about that. The democrats refuse to help and have not passed a budget for most of Obama's term even though they are required to do it each and every year. Demonizing the Republicans for trying to come up with a workable solution is a lot easier if they don't suggest a credible budget themselves. The election is a lot more important to them than trying to lessen the countries huge debt.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[BuckarooBanzai]

WASHINGTON --- The tea party didn't get its man in Mitt Romney. But the movement got one of its ideological heroes in the Republican presidential ticket's No. 2 slot. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/13/paul-ryan-tea-party_n_1772290.html

"In his first week on the stump, Ryan has been called many things. High-minded and substantive, by Mitt Romney. The author of a draconian plan to slash Medicare, by President Obama."

"But he's also something else: a darling of the Tea Party."

"Don't take it from me. Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips told the Boston Herald that many in the movement are "very happy" with Ryan's selection, and prominent movement leaders like Sen. Jim Demint (R-SC) and Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) hailed the choice as well. And why not? Ryan, with his credo that "our rights come from nature and God, and not from government" and his aggressive plans to shrink federal retirement security programs, is a symbol of much of what the Tea Party stands for."

http://www.nydailyne...o-the-tea-party

"Paul Ryan, Triumph Of The Tea Party - A national poll done for NBC News and the Wall Street Journal showed 25 percent of Americans support the Tea Party while 65 percent disapprove. The poll, done jointly by a Democratic and Republican pollster, was conducted on July 18-22, 2012." http://www.wbur.org/...-ryan-tea-party

Be sure and catch this weeks program of "The Newsroom on HBO". On today in fact. A very interesting show and suprisingly supportive of the Republican Party while focusing on the extremely ill effects that the Tea Pary has on it. The Wall Street Journal poll indicates that this "The Newsroom" presentation is perhaps an unbiased account of 65% of the US population. Most know where the bias of the WSJ lie which should add credence to the poll.

[Ulysses G.]

The Tea Party want to cut silly, frivolous spending and cut the deficit. Of course they like Ryan. I am not a Tea Party supporter, but I agree with them on that.

As far as The Newsroom on HBO. The director is a well-known ultra-liberal and the reviews that I have read say that he is even more obviously biased toward the left in The Newsroom than he was in The West Wing. However, I loved The West Wing and am looking forward to The Newsroom as I have no problem with different points of view when they are presented in a rational way and especially when they are as entertaining as The West Wing.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[BuckarooBanzai]

The Tea Party want to cut silly, frivolous spending and cut the deficit. Of course they like Ryan. I am not a Tea Party supporter, but I agree with them on that.

What you present is how the grass roots Tea Party started out and in fact if that was it's current primary focus we would all be members or at least all be strongly supportive of their goals - depending on ones definition of frivolous. As with so many different groups with noble intentions though, the movement has been hi-jacked, in this case by the ultra wealthy extreme right wing for its own purposes. I believe the 65% of the public who disapprove of the Tea Party make this connection.

Regardless of how biased Aaron Sorkin may be I fully agree that he puts out great entertainment with contents which contain strong elements of truth.

Edited August 16, 2012 by BuckarooBanzai

[KKvampire]

Another opinion piece from a writer in the tank for Obama and willing to lie about Romney's positions just like most of the democrat party. Why even bother posting such nonsensical, biased nonsense?

Nothing compared to the Lies and hypocrisy from the Teabagging hijacked republican party . they wanna get down in the gutter where they come from then bring it on.

[chuckd]

Another opinion piece from a writer in the tank for Obama and willing to lie about Romney's positions just like most of the democrat party. Why even bother posting such nonsensical, biased nonsense?

Nothing compared to the Lies and hypocrisy from the Teabagging hijacked republican party . they wanna get down in the gutter where they come from then bring it on.

Are you a member of a local union somewhere?

[koheesti]

He did a lot of menial jobs in his youth and worked his way through college. He was not some spoiled rich kid.

Let's be realistic. I too worked when I was in university. While many of my friends traveled the world during the summer or took spring break vacations in sunny places, I was working. Many of them came from families of modest means and were carrying student loans. Some would also work part time jobs during the shool year to pay for school and their travels. They had to work.

I was fortunate to have a father that paid my tuition and gave me an allowance. It wasn't a luxurious life, but I didn't have the stress of debt like them and I didn't have financial worries. When I wanted to come home at christmas, my travel expenses were paid.

My friends had more fun doing what young people should do, while I slowly built up my bank account. Some of them carried their student debt for a decade while they took on additional debt paying for a car or a home. I didn't have debt and still do not have debt. I don't know how people can live with debt. Mr. Ryan doesn't carry debt and I suspect he is alot like me in his dislike of debt.

I had to work because my father made me. It was work or take on the expenses of school. However, the fact is that I had it alot easier than 90% of the students in the USA. Mr. Ryan's student days are more like mine, except he had it easier than 99% of the students in the USA because he had a big fat trust fund. He worked at jobs he selected and could leave anytime. Most students have to settle for what they can get. I don't think Mr. Ryan led a playboy lifestyle, but his family circumstances were such they he had no money worries.

It is alot easier to be a slash and cut republican when you don't have to worry about feeding the kids or paying the rent due at the end of the month.

Ryan didn't have to work but he did.

Obama didn't have to work and he chose to smoke weed and hang out with Marxists.

Sorry, the choice is obvious.

[me personally, I worked full-time year around & drank]

Edited August 16, 2012 by koheesti

[Ulysses G.]

The Tea Party want to cut silly, frivolous spending and cut the deficit. Of course they like Ryan. I am not a Tea Party supporter, but I agree with them on that.

What you present is how the grass roots Tea Party started out and in fact if that was it's current primary focus we would all be members or at least all be strongly supportive of their goals

Paul Ryan is not a member of the Tea Party, but, the fact that many members of the law abiding Tea Party support Paul Ryan's policies even though he is not one of them is really a compliment to his sincerity. They recognize that he is sincere about reducing wasteful government spending and balancing the budget. On the other hand, members of the Occupy Wall Street movement have committed numerous sex crimes, acts of violence and anarchy and they have been embraced by the present administration. Now that is something to be concerned about.

[BuckarooBanzai]

The Tea Party want to cut silly, frivolous spending and cut the deficit. Of course they like Ryan. I am not a Tea Party supporter, but I agree with them on that.

What you present is how the grass roots Tea Party started out and in fact if that was it's current primary focus we would all be members or at least all be strongly supportive of their goals

On the other hand, members of the Occupy Wall Street movement have committed numerous sex crimes, acts of violence and anarchy and they have been embraced by the present administration. Now that is something to be concerned about.

I do not believe anyone supports those who commit sex crimes, acts of violence and anarchy except some very sick individuals and there are certainly none of these individuals that I know of in current positions of government. The legitimate OWS crowd are demonstrating, for the most part legally and within their rights, to point out what they consider inequalities in the US (perhaps international) "system" which has been widening the gap between the middle class income and the mega rich's income for a couple of decades. (power base meaning the ability to promote change can be freely substituted for the word income in the preceding sentence.)

The major difference between the two groups is that one, OWS, is demonstrating to point out conceived inequalities in a system and the other group is trying to take over the government. The two groups represent opposite sides of the same debate, the middle class vs. the elites. There are certainly identifiable wackos in each camp but I think that does not detract from the major issues that each group represents.

It is certainly possible that the OWS movement will or has been hi-jacked as it appears has already taken place with the Tea Party but that certainly would not seem to benefit the middle class. I think most can agree the middle class as a cumulative group is in the worst financial pit they have been in for a long long time. Belittling their cause with "sex crimes, acts of violence and anarchy" would seem to be self defeating.

[koheesti]

The legitimate OWS crowd are demonstrating, for the most part legally and within their rights, to point out what they consider inequalities in the US (perhaps international) "system" which has been widening the gap between the middle class income and the mega rich's income for a couple of decades. (power base meaning the ability to promote change can be freely substituted for the word income in the preceding sentence.)

The major difference between the two groups is that one, OWS, is demonstrating to point out conceived inequalities in a system and the other group is trying to take over the government. The two groups represent opposite sides of the same debate, the middle class vs. the elites. There are certainly identifiable wackos in each camp but I think that does not detract from the major issues that each group represents.

It is certainly possible that the OWS movement will or has been hi-jacked as it appears has already taken place with the Tea Party but that certainly would not seem to benefit the middle class.

The OWS movement was long ago completely taken over by the Marxists over at International A.N.S.W.E.R.. Read for yourself. Look at the http://occupywallst.org/ website. All about Bradley Manning and anti-war messages. I have friends posting things from OWS on Facebook all the time and maybe 1% is about Wall Street.

Edited August 16, 2012 by koheesti

[KKvampire]

Another opinion piece from a writer in the tank for Obama and willing to lie about Romney's positions just like most of the democrat party. Why even bother posting such nonsensical, biased nonsense?

Nothing compared to the Lies and hypocrisy from the Teabagging hijacked republican party . they wanna get down in the gutter where they come from then bring it on.

Are you a member of a local union somewhere?

Local Union In Bangkok ? hahaha. No I am here and steering clear of right wing ,pain in the ass Americans

[chuckd]

Are you a member of a local union somewhere?

Local Union In Bangkok ? hahaha. No I am here and steering clear of right wing ,pain in the ass Americans

I would think that is a blessing for all concerned.

[Ulysses G.]

The major difference between the two groups is that one, OWS, is demonstrating to point out conceived inequalities in a system and the other group is trying to take over the government.

Actually the main difference between the two groups is that Occupy Wall Street have been involved in illegal acts on a regular basis and the Tea Party have followed the law scrupulously. Of course, media coverage has been totally biased against the conservative group and supportive of the out of control left-wing anarchism.

In the media's coverage of the Wall Street occupiers and Tea Partiers, a clear tale of two different protests is seen. One that grew out of concern for out-of-control government spending was initially ignored and treated to catcalls of racism and thuggery by ABC, CBS and NBC. The other, a leftist movement screaming for an even more expansive government, that actually resulted in hundreds of arrests, was greeted by the Big Three networks with a tidal wave of coverage full of friendly talking heads.

http://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/tale-two-protests-media-cheer-wall-street-occupiers-jeered-tea-partiers

Edited August 16, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[BuckarooBanzai]

The major difference between the two groups is that one, OWS, is demonstrating to point out conceived inequalities in a system and the other group is trying to take over the government.

Actually the main difference between the two groups is that Occupy Wall Street have been involved in illegal acts on a regular basis and the Tea Party have followed the law scrupulously. Of course, media coverage has been totally biased against the conservative group and supportive of the out of control left-wing anarchism.

In the media's coverage of the Wall Street occupiers and Tea Partiers, a clear tale of two different protests is seen. One that grew out of concern for out-of-control government spending was initially ignored and treated to catcalls of racism and thuggery by ABC, CBS and NBC. The other, a leftist movement screaming for an even more expansive government, that actually resulted in hundreds of arrests, was greeted by the Big Three networks with a tidal wave of coverage full of friendly talking heads.

http://www.mrc.org/m...ed-tea-partiers

I think I have exhibited some openness in my thought process identifying the good I see in each group as the were originally envisioned. But I only sense politically biased posturing as a response.

The name "occupy wall street" does not paint a picture of anything other than the disgust the public had in the bailout of the bankers who got us into this fiscal mess in the first place and the system that, by lack of over site, let the banks run a muck.

Both the Tea Party and the OWS movements now have different agendas from their original focus and have lost credibility. One wonders where all their money originates from. Certainly not nickles and dimes from mom and pop. Someone is paying the bill for some type of desired end result which overall seems to be the furtherance of the tea party and the demise of the public's right to demonstrate.

[geriatrickid]

Wowzies, so now we have gone off into the bash the unions and Marxist conspiracies.

I have never been a member of a union, however, I have directly benefited from union activities that provided better and safer working conditions.

In respect to the OWS movement, I have never been a supporter, but I do understand why the movement was so popular. It was a manifestation of frustration at the out of control financial services sector that gave us the financial crisis. What were the consequences of the greed and inappropriate actions of the financial services sector? How many people went to jail? All I know is that everyone else suffered, while these financial services gluttons pocketed unreasonable bonuses. We're still paying for it while the traders that manipulate and play with markets profit. It is one of the reasons why so many people in the financial services sector were leaking info and indirectly supporting the OWS. I worked for one of these firms and saw first hand how some of the people behave, They don't think the rules apply to them.

All of this happened because the people that claim to be in favour of free markets and upholding the law, did not nothing. Mr. Ryan and his ilk want to gut the regulations that keep the markets from becoming even more of a free for all. He wants to "unchain" the markets. It is a simplistic view that assumes the markets operate in an honest and ethical fashion. They do not. If they did, all those large banks now dealing with the tax evasion and money laundering issues wouldn't be in such a mess. The financial services sector doesn't create wealth, but instead sucks out the money from the system and it's a myth to think that regular people without inside knowledge can ever do well in the "market". This isn't 1975 where the traders were on the floor and trading manually. Today, it's split second trading triggered by software with the potential for an uncontrolled juggernaut of trading that could trigger another collapse if the "fail safe" systems malfunction or are circumvented as they did previously. It is a system open to rogue trading because the people supposed to manage their companies are more focused on profit than on responsible behaviour. Mr. Ryan and Mr. Romney's platform supports more of the same greedy dangerous behaviour.

[Ulysses G.]

Will President Obama come up with a deficit-reduction plan of equal seriousness before Election Day, instead of just demonizing Romney's proposal? Not a chance.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[KeyserSoze01]

http://www.newsmax.c...08/16/id/448753

Poll: Ryan Bump Gives Romney Lead in Swing States Ohio, Fla., Va.

Mitt Romney is leading in three of the four most crucial swing states according to a series of new polls released late Wednesday.

The surveys from Purple Strategies — which covers only so-called “purple” states, those neither strongly red Republican nor blue Democrat — puts the GOP contender up in Ohio, Florida and Virginia, but has President Barack Obama leading in Colorado.

Romney was down by 4 points in the polls to BO prior to his announcement of Ryan as his running mate. After the announcement the Romney/Ryan ticket has pulled ahead in the polls in the critical swing states. Considering that the majority of voters in Florida are senior citizens and are on Medicare, it appears the Obama campaigns tact of trying to scare the elderly with rhetoric that Romney/Ryan are going to strip they Medicare benefits away is falling on deaf ears. Couple that with the FACT that Obamacare will strip $750 billion from the Medicare program annually is causing the seniors around the country to think twice about voting for the Dems again.

Seems the mass of unemployed folks in Ohio aren't too impressed with the last three years of "change" brought on by the Obama crew either.

Edited August 16, 2012 by KeyserSoze01

[Ulysses G.]

The major difference between the two groups is that one, OWS, is demonstrating to point out conceived inequalities in a system and the other group is trying to take over the government.

Actually the main difference between the two groups is that Occupy Wall Street have been involved in illegal acts on a regular basis and the Tea Party have followed the law scrupulously. Of course, media coverage has been totally biased against the conservative group and supportive of the out of control left-wing anarchism.

In the media's coverage of the Wall Street occupiers and Tea Partiers, a clear tale of two different protests is seen. One that grew out of concern for out-of-control government spending was initially ignored and treated to catcalls of racism and thuggery by ABC, CBS and NBC. The other, a leftist movement screaming for an even more expansive government, that actually resulted in hundreds of arrests, was greeted by the Big Three networks with a tidal wave of coverage full of friendly talking heads.

http://www.mrc.org/m...ed-tea-partiers

I think I have exhibited some openness in my thought process identifying the good I see in each group as the were originally envisioned. But I only sense politically biased posturing as a response.

I do not support either group, but there is no legitimate comparison between them. Occupy Wall Street have little credibilty because they have operated unlawfully on a regular basis. The Tea Party have protested in a legal, admirable manner and been slandered by the media unfairly.

[KeyserSoze01]

70 year old Joe Biden insults and inflames a group from the NAACP during a recent speech on the campaign trail, where Joe tells the crowd that a Romney/Ryan White House will "put you back in chains".

It's time for Ole' Joe to be put out to pasture and he doesn't realize the good ole boys aren't running the show anymore.

[KeyserSoze01]

And to think this guy is a heartbeat away from the nuclear football.

Edited August 16, 2012 by KeyserSoze01

[Ulysses G.]

"Street smart and wiley" Joe Biden strikes again.

[koheesti]

Both the Tea Party and the OWS movements now have different agendas from their original focus and have lost credibility. One wonders where all their money originates from.

There are differences...

OWS started about corrupt Wall Street (hence the name) now they are about miscellaneous Marxist-Socialist agendas. They have a nice website where you can see for yourself. They are violent and destroy property on a regular basis.

Tea Party was about tax & spend issues. Today it is about...tax & spend issues plus...? I haven't found their website. Do they have one? I know there were different Tea Parties around the country, but do they have a national website like OWS? They are non-violent, no arrests made at any Tea Party events.

[koheesti]

Paul Ryan as the VP candidate has upped the stakes. While Ryan can talk intelligently about the finiancial problems the country faces and possible solutions, Joe will just keep putting his foot in his mouth looking like an idiot. Joe Biden will be destroyed in a debate with him. Obama had better take Sarah Palin's advice and dump Joe for Hillary.

Edited August 16, 2012 by koheesti

[metisdead]

Let me re-iterate:

Posts using a derogatory rendition of the political party name meant to provoke (trolling) have been removed. If you don't want your posts removed, refer to the political party correctly.

Another post has been removed.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Both the Tea Party and the OWS movements now have different agendas from their original focus and have lost credibility. One wonders where all their money originates from.

There are differences...

OWS started about corrupt Wall Street (hence the name) now they are about miscellaneous Marxist-Socialist agendas. They have a nice website where you can see for yourself. They are violent and destroy property on a regular basis.

Tea Party was about tax & spend issues. Today it is about...tax & spend issues plus...? I haven't found their website. Do they have one? I know there were different Tea Parties around the country, but do they have a national website like OWS? They are non-violent, no arrests made at any Tea Party events.

Tea Party Patriots

Official Home of the American Tea Party Movement

http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/

Tea Party Patriots

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/

Teaparty.org

http://www.teaparty.org/

and more if you look a little. If you like spin and glitter please feel free. I for one think you need to look a lot deeper than a website.

Quote:

There’s just one element missing from these snapshots of America’s ostensibly spontaneous and leaderless populist uprising: the sugar daddies who are bankrolling it, and have been doing so since well before the “death panel” warm-up acts of last summer. Three heavy hitters rule. You’ve heard of one of them, Rupert Murdoch. The other two, the brothers David and Charles Koch, are even richer, with a combined wealth exceeded only by that of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett among Americans. But even those carrying the Kochs’ banner may not know who these brothers are.

Their self-interested and at times radical agendas, like Murdoch’s, go well beyond, and sometimes counter to, the interests of those who serve as spear carriers in the political pageants hawked on Fox News. The country will be in for quite a ride should these potentates gain power, and given the recession-battered electorate’s unchecked anger and the Obama White House’s unfocused political strategy, they might.

http://www.nytimes.c...9rich.html?_r=1

Edited August 16, 2012 by BuckarooBanzai

[Steely Dan]

"Street smart and wiley" Joe Biden strikes again.

Wiley indeed.

[chuckd]

Wowzies, so now we have gone off into the bash the unions and Marxist conspiracies.

I have never been a member of a union, however, I have directly benefited from union activities that provided better and safer working conditions.

In respect to the OWS movement, I have never been a supporter, but I do understand why the movement was so popular. It was a manifestation of frustration at the out of control financial services sector that gave us the financial crisis. What were the consequences of the greed and inappropriate actions of the financial services sector? How many people went to jail? All I know is that everyone else suffered, while these financial services gluttons pocketed unreasonable bonuses. We're still paying for it while the traders that manipulate and play with markets profit. It is one of the reasons why so many people in the financial services sector were leaking info and indirectly supporting the OWS. I worked for one of these firms and saw first hand how some of the people behave, They don't think the rules apply to them.

All of this happened because the people that claim to be in favour of free markets and upholding the law, did not nothing. Mr. Ryan and his ilk want to gut the regulations that keep the markets from becoming even more of a free for all. He wants to "unchain" the markets. It is a simplistic view that assumes the markets operate in an honest and ethical fashion. They do not. If they did, all those large banks now dealing with the tax evasion and money laundering issues wouldn't be in such a mess. The financial services sector doesn't create wealth, but instead sucks out the money from the system and it's a myth to think that regular people without inside knowledge can ever do well in the "market". This isn't 1975 where the traders were on the floor and trading manually. Today, it's split second trading triggered by software with the potential for an uncontrolled juggernaut of trading that could trigger another collapse if the "fail safe" systems malfunction or are circumvented as they did previously. It is a system open to rogue trading because the people supposed to manage their companies are more focused on profit than on responsible behaviour. Mr. Ryan and Mr. Romney's platform supports more of the same greedy dangerous behaviour.

Unions did a lot of good at their inception and for the first 50 years. Now, not so much so. They are now the enforcers for the Democratic party and the proud owners of GM and Chrysler, thanks to BHO.

The government caused this recession and, no, it wasn't only the Bush administration. It goes back to the Carter Administration and the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.

Carter started the sub-prime mortgage mess and it was propelled forward by William Jefferson Clinton's Administration when quotas came out from the government that lending institutions must make a certain percentage of their loans to under-qualified borrowers. Bush warned there was going to be a problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but was shouted down by Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd, et al. All of them with a (D) following their names.

Google is your friend. Look it up.