Romney chooses Ryan

[hacksawfg]

Black and white, all or nothing huh? Enjoy more of nothing in November, and beating your head against the wall over people who don't see things quite the same as you.

This "logic" or lack there of astounds me. Say you're starving and someone offers you a cracker. To follow your logic you would say HELL no, steak and baked potato or I want nothing, AND then calling the one who offered you the cracker a fool. Kind of basackwards isn't it?

OK, lets go with this analogy. Say YOU'RE starving and a Democrat offers you a sh-- sandwich. Then a Republican comes along and offers you a sh-- sandwich. Do you eat one of the sh-- sandwich because you're hungry and want to eat now or do you do what you can to find actual food, even if you may have to go out of the way to find it? If the GOP says, "you know what, I'll come back tomorrow with a sh-- sandwich that looks JUST LIKE STEAK", do you eat that just because it may look like food and you can maybe imagine it is a little easier?

In my opinion, Romney and Obama are both sh--wiches. Romney may look like a steak sandwich, but that just goes to show you than in desperate times, the GOP can polish a turd.

 

[firehawk1]

OK, lets go with this analogy. Say YOU'RE starving and a Democrat offers you a sh-- sandwich. Then a Republican comes along and offers you a sh-- sandwich. Do you eat one of the sh-- sandwich because you're hungry and want to eat now or do you do what you can to find actual food, even if you may have to go out of the way to find it? If the GOP says, "you know what, I'll come back tomorrow with a sh-- sandwich that looks JUST LIKE STEAK", do you eat that just because it may look like food and you can maybe imagine it is a little easier?

In my opinion, Romney and Obama are both sh--wiches. Romney may look like a steak sandwich, but that just goes to show you than in desperate times, the GOP can polish a turd.

First of all one must get past the entirely false premise that there is no difference between Obama and Romney. THEN and only THEN can an intelligent meaningful dialog/debate take place. Short of that happening it is simply a pointless pissing match.

Carry on....

 

[Yup!]

Carry on....

Open or Concealed?

 

[firehawk1]

Open or Concealed?

CC for me.

 

[Bapak2ja]

First of all one must get past the entirely false premise that there is no difference between Obama and Romney. THEN and only THEN can an intelligent meaningful dialog/debate take place. Short of that happening it is simply a pointless pissing match.

Carry on....

 

[Lex Concord]

Oh my, now the rhetoric is deep.

And rather pungent, wouldn't you say?

 

[Lex Concord]

No because they could not defeat the journalists. The left would mount an attack so great that they would be forced to allow legislation to go through. The press is that powerful.

So, your review of Ron Paul's record and rhetoric leads you to conclude he gives a damn about what the press or anyone else thinks of his actions?

Interesting...please expound.

 

[hacksawfg]

First of all one must get past the entirely false premise that there is no difference between Obama and Romney. THEN and only THEN can an intelligent meaningful dialog/debate can take place. Short of that happening it is simply a pointless pissing match.

Carry on....

Similarities

Supports Patriot Act - Romney, Obama
Supports indefinite detention of gov't defined "terrorists" - Romney, Obama
Supports gun control - Obama, Romney (you can take this off if you believe him)
Supported TARP - Obama, Romney
Supports government mandated healthcare - Obama, Romney
Thinks the war on drugs is winnable and a good place to spend taxpayer money (you know, instead of education or roads and stuff) - Romney, Obama
Will change positions, say anything to get votes - Romney, Obama

Differences

Democrat - Obama
Republican - Romney

Tell me what will change if Romney is elected, excluding there will be a different Democrat in 2016? Will a third party candidate suddenly become a viable alternative? Is the economy going to suddenly get better because there's a Republican in office, and he is perceived by businesses to be more friendly?

I think everybody can say that from the economic standpoint we're deluding ourselves if we think that a different president makes a bit of difference. People aren't going to decide to go spend money if they're afraid, and the latest Republican and Democrat run governments with the partisan rhetoric and blame game haven't done a lot to install confidence. It's really easy to say "he won't get anything done, he's not a Republican OR a Democrat, nobody will want to work with him." IT IS UP TO US. We have to innovate, we have to bust our butts, tax cuts, free money, none of that will help as much as elbow grease.

"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life." Teddy Roosevelt


I would love to see someone in office who would veto all the BS that comes through the door. I want to see someone who makes Congress actually work to either put something together that had better be Constitutional or so universal that Congress would actually have to vote together to put a veto-proof majority on it. Pipe dream? Maybe, but it will continue to be just that as long as we don't actually DO anything about it.

NEWFLASH: NOBODY WANTS TO WORK TOGETHER NOW, AND THOSE WHO DO GET VOTED OUT OF OFFICE FOR BEING "RINO's" OR "DINO's".

Hell, the UN will have success in Syria before Romney/Obama can get anything meaningful done without blaming the other side.

I don't know for sure if Johnson is the answer, anymore than I know for sure Romney isn't, but I believe in my heart that getting rid of tax breaks and special conditions as a tool for companies to gain competitive advantage over each other instead of innovation only makes things better for us. Spending money on schools and legalizing and taxing marijuana (for those who want to use it), is a better use of money than running a police state to ATTEMPT to stop the flow of marijuana into the country. Personal privacy is important, and the government shouldn't be able to record and store whatever we may say on the phone, write in an email, or buy online.

AP IMPACT: After 40 years, $1 trillion, US War on Drugs has failed to meet any of its goals | Fox News

POSTSCRIPT - INGO addiction strikes again. This has already cutting into my beer/bacon time enough that the hotel kitchen is closed and now I'll be lucky to get beer time. Haven't even had dinner yet because I'm still at the office.

 

[Lex Concord]

Open or Concealed?

Oh boy...this thread needed more contention.

 

[Lex Concord]

First of all one must get past the entirely false premise that there is no difference between Obama and Romney. THEN and only THEN can an intelligent meaningful dialog/debate take place. Short of that happening it is simply a pointless pissing match.

Carry on....

While I haven't made the two sides to the same coin post (this time, anyway ), if you want there to be intelligent conversation rather than a pointless pissing match, stop pissing and moaning and prove someone wrong.

What do you see as the substantive differences between the two?

Why do you see 4-8 years of Romney better than 4 more years of Obama?

If you want to see a difference in the rhetoric, take the first step.

Throwing out a claim of false premises and complaining that people hold them without pointing out their falsehood is just more pissing.

 

[24Carat]

Don't know, Mr. Blart. You'll have to ask one.

OOOOOO! Stooping to a personal slam because you don't have the depth of mind or character to answer to the premise?

My sig line is tongue in cheek Sir. I work armed and exposed daily in one of the highest risk career fields out here.

How very Libtard in practice.

 

[jamil]

OK, lets go with this analogy. Say YOU'RE starving and a Democrat offers you a sh-- sandwich. Then a Republican comes along and offers you a sh-- sandwich. Do you eat one of the sh-- sandwich because you're hungry and want to eat now or do you do what you can to find actual food, even if you may have to go out of the way to find it? If the GOP says, "you know what, I'll come back tomorrow with a sh-- sandwich that looks JUST LIKE STEAK", do you eat that just because it may look like food and you can maybe imagine it is a little easier?

In my opinion, Romney and Obama are both sh--wiches. Romney may look like a steak sandwich, but that just goes to show you than in desperate times, the GOP can polish a turd.

To continue the analogy, what if, because of preconceived notions brought on by the fact that you really want a steak sandwich, you have a difficult time recognizing the difference between the **** sandwich Obama's offering, and the roast beef sandwich Romney/Ryan is offering? You want steak so anything else is ****.

 

[Bapak2ja]

A brilliant Englishman has written a witty summary of the new life brought to the Republican Party by the Tea Party, epitomized by the selection of Paul Ryan. This is worth reading just for the biting humor it contains, but it also contains brilliant insight about the state of the USA.

Panic in the camp of ‘black Jesus’

FWIW, I did not select that title. It is original to the article and the British author.

 

[jamil]

Similarities

Supports Patriot Act - Romney, Obama Unfortunately true. Throwing my vote away on nobody won't change that though.
Supports indefinite detention of gov't defined "terrorists" - Romney, Obama You're really almost saying the same thing twice.
Supports gun control - Obama, Romney (you can take this off if you believe him) Yeah, I'm gonna take this one off because a second Obama term will likely do more damage to 2a.
Supported TARP - Obama, Romney Same as #1
Supports government mandated healthcare - Obama, Romney Notwithstanding MA's Romneycare, if Romney desires every Republican to turn against him, he could turn away from his very vocal opposition of Obamacare.
Thinks the war on drugs is winnable and a good place to spend taxpayer money (you know, instead of education or roads and stuff) - Romney, Obama I've changed my mind on this in recent years. It will only change when a large enough voter block changes it's mind.
Will change positions, say anything to get votes - Romney, Obama This is how elections have been waged and won from the beginning of elections. You're pure as the driven snow candidates, notwithstanding.

Differences

Democrat - Obama
Republican - Romney

Tell me what will change if Romney is elected, excluding there will be a different Democrat in 2016?
No more silly government-waged class war, no free birth control, Bush tax breaks become permanent, Coal mines get to mine coal again, perhaps we actually get an energy plan, no more legislating by executive order, Ryan's budget more likely to be implemented--*A* budget at least will be implemented, will be led by a proven competent manager rather than an incompetent "community organizer". A lot more to say but I need to get ready for work.
Will a third party candidate suddenly become a viable alternative? No. Is the economy going to suddenly get better because there's a Republican in office, and he is perceived by businesses to be more friendly? No. The economy is going to start growing again because a Romney administration would likely stop much of the silly intrusion into business.

I think everybody can say that from the economic standpoint we're deluding ourselves if we think that a different president makes a bit of difference. People aren't going to decide to go spend money if they're afraid, and the latest Republican and Democrat run governments with the partisan rhetoric and blame game haven't done a lot to install confidence. The important lack of confidence is by business owners. They are afraid to expand because of uncertainty of future tax liabilities and fear of how Obamacare will impact their business. It's really easy to say "he won't get anything done, he's not a Republican OR a Democrat, nobody will want to work with him." IT IS UP TO US. We have to innovate, we have to bust our butts, tax cuts, free money, none of that will help as much as elbow grease. But..but..but, you didn't build that.

"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life." Teddy Roosevelt


I would love to see someone in office who would veto all the BS that comes through the door. I want to see someone who makes Congress actually work to either put something together that had better be Constitutional or so universal that Congress would actually have to vote together to put a veto-proof majority on it. Pipe dream? Maybe, but it will continue to be just that as long as we don't actually DO anything about it.

NEWFLASH: NOBODY WANTS TO WORK TOGETHER NOW, AND THOSE WHO DO GET VOTED OUT OF OFFICE FOR BEING "RINO's" OR "DINO's".
I'm beginning to agree with those who say that we've compromised enough. When the dems want to spend a $trillion on some silliness, compromise means we spend only $500 billion on that silliness.
Hell, the UN will have success in Syria before Romney/Obama can get anything meaningful done without blaming the other side. That remains to be seen.

I don't know for sure if Johnson is the answer, anymore than I know for sure Romney isn't, but I believe in my heart that getting rid of tax breaks and special conditions as a tool for companies to gain competitive advantage over each other instead of innovation only makes things better for us. I don't understand that statement.Spending money on schools and legalizing and taxing marijuana (for those who want to use it), is a better use of money than running a police state to ATTEMPT to stop the flow of marijuana into the country. Agreed. Personal privacy is important, and the government shouldn't be able to record and store whatever we may say on the phone, write in an email, or buy online. Agreed.

All or nothing results in nothing because you'll never get all unless you're the only one.

 

[mrjarrell]

Don't Believe the Hype About Paul Ryan - Reason.com

 

[mrjarrell]

This is the guy you folks are so excited about?

[ame]http://youtu.be/RyJBZYz858M[/ame]

 

[hacksawfg]

All or nothing results in nothing because you'll never get all unless you're the only one.

What it boils down to is this. Personal privacy and freedom are important, as long as we continue to marginalize candidates who truly believe they are important based on an arbitrary measure of "electability," nothing will ever change. I'm ready for a different kind of president, one who has a consistent position, doesn't owe special interest groups, and won't sell out down the road to get re elected.

I do find it interesting that despite you expressing how tired you are of candidates who compromise, you stick with the assertion that's all or nothing results in nothing.

 

[PistolBob]

I'm still going with Romney/Ryan...they have the best chance of getting rid of Obama/Biden...and that is ALL that matters to me right now. Well that and some free cheese.

 

[jamil]

What it boils down to is this. Personal privacy and freedom are important, as long as we continue to marginalize candidates who truly believe they are important based on an arbitrary measure of "electability," nothing will ever change. I'm ready for a different kind of president, one who has a consistent position, doesn't owe special interest groups, and won't sell out down the road to get re elected.

I do find it interesting that despite you expressing how tired you are of candidates who compromise, you stick with the assertion that's all or nothing results in nothing.

Electability isn't all that arbitrary.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

What it boils down to is this. Personal privacy and freedom are important, as long as we continue to marginalize candidates who truly believe they are important based on an arbitrary measure of "electability," nothing will ever change. I'm ready for a different kind of president, one who has a consistent position, doesn't owe special interest groups, and won't sell out down the road to get re elected.

I do find it interesting that despite you expressing how tired you are of candidates who compromise, you stick with the assertion that's all or nothing results in nothing.

The "measure of electability" you call arbitrary, most people call "didn't get enough votes to make a difference to the election". The party you support hasn't made enough inroads with the vast electorate to have any noticeable influence on national elections. That won't change until your message is accepted by a higher percentage of the voting public. Don't blame us Republicans if you can't win enough of us over from even the mediocre candidates that have been foisted off on us in past years; our candidates are still getting more votes than yours - and it's your fault.