Paul Ryan VP. Still want to debate the Walker Recall?

[truth on hold]

I never said I disliked the Ryan pick for Romney. Far from it, it was the pick he had to make to have a chance given his slide in the polls and base starting to turn on him. But by shoring up the base and inheriting ryans plan the middle has been ceded to Obama. Romney must convince enough voters of the merit of his plan rather than modify it to suit voter preferences. Odds are he won't pull it off (I agree with camp BOs assessment), but at least with this pick he has a chance.

[dayman]

I never said I disliked the Ryan pick for Romney. Far from it, it was the pick he had to make to have a chance given his slide in the polls and base starting to turn on him. But by shoring up the base and inheriting ryans plan the middle has been ceded to Obama. Romney must convince enough voters of the merit of his plan rather than modify it to suit voter preferences. Odds are he won't pull it off (I agree with camp BOs assessment), but at least with this pick he has a chance.

 

Ryan is articulate, smart, and likable if you watch him speak. Obama can crush him on it by highlighting the downfalls and actually establishing a more gradual balanced approach w/ some concrete details. If he doesn't, Ryan WILL sell his plan as the only plan. Hence, this is a win for the country not just Romney. IT's made the election somewhat real.

[OCinBuffalo]

Obamas comments on the Ryan pick were telling. He praised him for being a decent family man and articulate politician. But that they have fundamental differences on the budget and economy. Obamas folks must be confident the majority will reject the Ryan plan and he wants to box them into that position. By not really having a defined philosophy BO has an advantage: he can be flexible whereas comprise from romney and Ryan will be seen as abandoning their ideology and base.

Flexible? As in spending all the money and time to put Simpson Bowles together...and then not doing any of it? Why did that happen? Oh I dunno...perhaps a call from liberal deep pocket donors who labor under the delusion that we don't have to IMMEDIATELY fix entitlements? So much for..."flexibility". In contrast, which Republican extremist wants to get into a running battle with Romney/Ryan? Therefore, who has the real "flexibility"?

 

Dude. Don't respond right away. Instead, go get some good sleep and then tomorrow, ask yourself: is Obama's lack of a budget plan, or the fact that he is the first President in history to not pass a single budget during his entire term....really...an advantage? First analyze that politically, then practically, then think about what is truly good for the country. In what possible, rational, way is this a "good thing" for Obama, or for anybody?

 

Jesus. I knew it was bad...but I didn't think it was this bad. You guys really don't know what to think...do you?

 

I suggest reading up on what Carville has to say. He's trying to save the party. So is Clinton. The best way to do that? Stay home on election day, reorganize, and come back in 2016...because this? This is just going to be painful. I want a reasonable Democratic party to keep Republicans in line. This, is not that.

[dayman]

OC you are a terrible contributor to this board just leave. It's ridiculous. And nobody is a supporter of a simpson/bowles approach more than I and everyone that knows 1 thing and 1 thing only about the last 2 years in Washington knows exactly why it didn't get adopted by anyone. B/c it never could have been. Plain and simple. Simpson himself said in multiple interviews if Obama adopted it, it would be rejected unanimously by Repubs and he knew that as fact. That said I still wish he would have done it anyway...but the bottom line is now is the time for this debate. Sadly the country's approach is that we can only do this once every 4 years now...but that's better than never.

Edited August 13, 2012 by TheNewBills

[OCinBuffalo]

Sitll butt hurt over your "reading comprehension"? Jesus...it's no big deal.

 

Here's the thing: I was here in 2005, and I will be here long after you run away like the rest of the liberals who either can't hang...or who are proven wrong by events as they unfold. Just ask the "surge won't work people". Long gone. The passage of time killed them, therefore...all I need is time. Time is on my side, and you can cry all you want, but when you get done...I will still be here, giggling, as your willful ignorance of the material continues to put you on the wrong side of history. Just ask the "generals" who knew nothing about military...anything...yet "knew" what would happen with The Surge.

 

Objectively, did you not see that, after the way the first 2 years of Obama's term went..(ahem, back of the bus) the Republicans, seeing the damage he was doing to the country and himself, in every facet of the job, would NOT correctly see Obama himself as problem #1 for the country? And political liability #1 for the next election? We can't fix the debt, entitlements, or anything as long as we have incomepetence, never mind poorly considered ideology, in positions of power.

 

This isn't about opinion, this is about competence. Hillary would NEVER, EVER have let things get this bad. Many may not agree with her opinion on a range of things...but she is competent. She never would have run things the way those ass clowns did the first 2 years. She knows better, because she is competent.

 

Most importantly, Hillary never would have created Simpson Bowles to being with...why? Because she is competent. Instead, she would have lead the compromise herself. That's because, she is competent, and she's not so concerned with putting herself out there, and risking damaging her self image...that she would allow her failure to lead...to damage her external image. Did I mention she was competent?

 

Hillary would know the calls from the deep pockets liberla donors were coming...so...because she is competent, she would have never allowed herself to put into a position where she had to "pick" or be the arbiter. Instead, she'd do what her husband did: negotiate, deploy a bunch of Republican ideas, declare victory, and then congratulate those liberal donors on beating the Republicans....before they knew what hit them.

 

That's because...she's competent.

Edited August 13, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[dayman]

For 1 I did support the surge enthusiastically, and I supported the war in the first place with most of America b/c I didn't know **** about what was there or the future of the war and all I had was what everybody had.

 

For 2, I voted for Hillary in the primary but that's besides the point.

 

For 3, Simpson-Bowles was a great idea the problem is it should be the end result of of the compromise (or close to it). T the weakness of simpson-bowles as nothing to do with itself and everything to do with Washington politics on both sides.

 

For 4, Hillary would have "led the compromise herself"....lol...pay attention to Washington idiot. There IS no compromise if the Dem President leads a budget debate with the Republicans. That's a one way ticket to to GOP members being ostracized and Dem leaders turning on the President. Furthermore, there is no compromise period. Hence the thing was doomed before it began.

 

The bottom line is you, LABillz and the guy from Alaska are retarded. Every bit as retarded as as the absolute most retarded "liberals" on this board plain and simple. But you will never know that, b/c nobody says "hey, dude, you are retarded" except me. But rest assured, you are. No hard feelings of course perhaps you will obtain an ability to think like a normal human one day and lay down the sword of partisan hackery or at least become someone with an intelligent view on anything.

[OCinBuffalo]

For 1 I did support the surge enthusiastically, and I supported the war in the first place with most of America b/c I didn't know **** about what was there or the future of the war and all I had was what everybody had.

 

For 2, I voted for Hillary in the primary but that's besides the point.

 

For 3, Simpson-Bowles was a great idea the problem is it should be the end result of of the compromise (or close to it). T the weakness of simpson-bowles as nothing to do with itself and everything to do with Washington politics on both sides.

 

For 4, Hillary would have "led the compromise herself"....lol...pay attention to Washington idiot. There IS no compromise if the Dem President leads a budget debate with the Republicans. That's a one way ticket to to GOP members being ostracized and Dem leaders turning on the President. Furthermore, there is no compromise period. Hence the thing was doomed before it began.

 

The bottom line is you, LABillz and the guy from Alaska are retarded. Every bit as retarded as as the absolute most retarded "liberals" on this board plain and simple. But you will never know that, b/c nobody says "hey, dude, you are retarded" except me. But rest assured, you are. No hard feelings of course perhaps you will obtain an ability to think like a normal human one day and lay down the sword of partisan hackery or at least become someone with an intelligent view on anything.

Except for the one Bill Clinton negotiated...and then out-negotiated Newt Gingrich on...right? Yeah...the one that actually got "raising taxes on the rich" accomplished, with a Republican House? The one that raised taxes to 39%? The one that didn't happen exactly the way I said?

 

You don't even know why you win, when you do. All you know is that you win once in a long while, and mostly lose. No introspection whatsoever.

 

See? It's as I said: it's always just a matter of time until you liberals say something completely batty, you are broken and scattered, and all I have to do is ride you down.

 

Retarded? How retarded do you have to be to not know WHY Bill Clinton is so good for your party? And, why Hillary would have been so good? The Republicans have to get elected too...and they would have been happy to work with a 60 pt approval rating Obama(or Hillary). Hell, if he had handled it right, he would have had Republicans pushing each other out of the way to be standing next to him on any legislation, no matter how small.

 

But he didn't handle it right, did he? No, he listened to idiots...who are all now back at their college campuses. He didn't take a strong interest...in his own Presidency , and treated it like an intellectual discussion that he was merely moderating. Or...facilitating? He hasn't even met with his own members of Congress for years. If he isn't talking to them....what the F is he doing with the Republicans?

 

That is why Obama deserves to lose. The job can be done....but it, again, DEMANDS COMPETENCE.

Edited August 13, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[dayman]

You are 20 years old or don't read newspapers or have no education. Plain and simple. It's sad. I hope nobody you work with or know in real life knows your user nam e on this board I suspect they do not. For someone interested in politics, you don't seem to understand them.

[OCinBuffalo]

I just gave you a series of specifc, factual events that prove that compromise is not only possible....but "winnable". And you respond with this?

 

Who's the awful contributor to the board again? All you have is ad hominem, and name calling.

 

I don't understand? Ok, then tell me specifically what I don't understand about the history of Bill Clinton/Newt Gingrich and the deals they put together.

 

Go ahead, show us how familiar you are with the material. I can't believe I say: "willful ignorance of the material being discussed is the problem that always gets them"....and you respond as you have.

 

Do I neeed to spell it out further?

Edited August 13, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[dayman]

Gingrich actually led strongly against his party at the time when he push started a backlash, behind the scenes he was a straight "traitor". Of course that was abandoned when the stupid sex scandal broke. But that's besides the point. I know you are a fool tea party man who thinks that is what we have been on the GOP side throughout our success and claim Reagan as your hero and look to Gingrich for a claim to fame in the 90s. But the bottom line is it's your own historical interpretation and not reality. And while I do like Clinton, the tech boom and natural market ebbs and flows were a significant part of his success. Nobody will deny that not even Clinton himself.

 

What you don't seem to understand is what made Clinton successful is Gingrich caving. To Boehners credit he probably would have had somewhat of a similar deal had the 2010 elections put him as speaker but not with the same freshman class riding that particular political whim. But that said, he couldn't move. Not that he wouldn't, he couldn't and everybody knows that. As he likes to say you can only keep so many frogs in a barrel. And the failure is on Obama as well no doubt. But the short of it is really quite simple, one is a story of great disagreement, partial sabotage, and eventual humility before self inflicted scandal... the other is a story of great disagreement and complete and utter sabotage as intended. Now you sit here and blame fully Obama for not being Clinton? Clinton...be it Hillary or Bill...would have been stalemated by anyone working with the class of 2010 as Boehner himself was ultimately hampered. Most GOP leaders of the past would not succeed much w/ that lot under the circumstances as even Jeb Bush has said. Had Newt himself been speaker working as he did...he'd have been broiled but that wouldn't have happened b/c he wouldn't have done it in 2010 as Boehner didn't.

 

Of course this is all about Obama blaming others. There's no place to point the finger in the WH unless it's a seemingly Dem House or Senate working against a strong, wise, principled GOP President.

 

The bottom line is yo fail to see things from a neutral standpoint and understand the dynamic of federal government. Understand the politics and how they effect the policy we are able to contemplate. And understand how all that has broken Washington over the past 2 years. You say "Obama sucks." Fair enough. You are the idiot the tea party idiots want. You are the person that the people in Washington w/ no business in Washington depend on.

 

And the worst thing is you don't understand, this doesn't make you a Republican. This makes you an idiot.

 

EDIT: And by the way I'm completely smashed right now and you couldn't be more retarded in general. I'm sorry LA and Alaska boy aren't around to chime in with their valuable contributions to aid your idiocy in not understanding what actually goes on. There are intelligent comments to made on both sides. You make none of them. Plain and simple you are a terrible poster. Of course I don't care about that or anyone else really so I usually don't obsesses over it. But I've cracked my 3rd bottle of wine and don't have to wake up tomorrow so why not. You are an idiot. Some conservatives I've thought were, and still are in many ways...but have said some things that are somewhat legitimate. You and a few others, nope. Not one. Just absolute garbage. Literal conservative (it should be offensive to actual conservatives to hear me characterize it that way and I hope it is) idiot garbage. Go to the reality show trail threads (as if those don't happen every single day) and the culture warrior religion and gay and so on threads. That is where you belong.

Edited August 13, 2012 by TheNewBills

[OCinBuffalo]

Gingrich actually led strongly against his party at the time when he push started a backlash, behind the scenes he was a straight "traitor". Of course that was abandoned when the stupid sex scandal broke. But that's besides the point. I know you are a fool tea party man who thinks that is what we have been on the GOP side throughout our success and claim Reagan as your hero and look to Gingrich for a claim to fame in the 90s. But the bottom line is it's your own historical interpretation and not reality. And while I do like Clinton, the tech boom and natural market ebbs and flows were a significant part of his success. Nobody will deny that not even Clinton himself.

Demonstrable Ignorance of Material #1:

Wait...was Reagan responsible for Clinton's success...or was it us start-up tech guys?

Demonstrable Ignorance of Material #2:

Nowhere did anybody ever call Gingrich a traitor. In fact quite the opposite. Why would Gingrich base his recent campaign for President, on his ability to get things done in Washington, if he was "the traitor". Gingrich got in trouble for hypocrisy on the Lewinsky thing, and corruption. Not because he worked with Clinton.

 

Clinton's sucess has mostly to do with Clinton, followed by a Gingrich's need to deliver something after having finally taken the House after 50 years of Democrat dominance. It's obvious that business conditions helped, but it's just as obvious that the message that was sent in 1994....long before the tech boom, was that it was "safe" to have the tech boom. It's obvious that Reagan's policies helped Clinton....because Reagan made the concept of restructuring government acceptable as a solution.

 

Clinton used that, and his personal popularity to be truly "flexible"...to the point that he used the well-documented "triangulation" strategy...to take credit for deploying Republican ideas, some with modification, some right out of the box.

 

This is the real history of this. What you said above is laughable.

What you don't seem to understand is what made Clinton successful is Gingrich caving. To Boehners credit he probably would have had somewhat of a similar deal had the 2010 elections put him as speaker but not with the same freshman class riding that particular political whim. But that said, he couldn't move. Not that he wouldn't, he couldn't and everybody knows that. As he likes to say you can only keep so many frogs in a barrel. And the failure is on Obama as well no doubt. But the short of it is really quite simple, one is a story of great disagreement, partial sabotage, and eventual humility before self inflicted scandal... the other is a story of great disagreement and complete and utter sabotage as intended. Now you sit here and blame fully Obama for not being Clinton? Clinton...be it Hillary or Bill...would have been stalemated by anyone working with the class of 2010 as Boehner himself was ultimately hampered. Most GOP leaders of the past would not succeed much w/ that lot under the circumstances as even Jeb Bush has said. Had Newt himself been speaker working as he did...he'd have been broiled but that wouldn't have happened b/c he wouldn't have done it in 2010 as Boehner didn't.

The only thing that surpasses my wonder at history repeating itself...is your ability to miss it...twice.

 

Yeah..The Contract with America freshman class of legislators....they weren't like the TEA party people at all. Nah, they lacked partisanship, and couldn't wait to work with Clinton...after having been elected on a platorm of ripping him a new one.

 

The ONLY difference here: how Clinton responded to getting whipped in 1994....vs how Obama responded in 2010 and ALL of this happened BEFORE the Lewinsky scandal. 4-5 years before in fact. So WTF are you talking about?

 

The only person that Obama could have controlled was himself...and he did that poorly. He should have called up Dick Morris, gotten Clinton's gameplan, and run with it...if he was competent, if he was wise enough to see that the country was simply pissed at Bush...but not interested in becoming Europe....he would have been OK. But, instead he either chose to believe the BS...or he just doesn't know any better...because he's incompetent..

Of course this is all about Obama blaming others. There's no place to point the finger in the WH unless it's a seemingly Dem House or Senate working against a strong, wise, principled GOP President.

 

The bottom line is yo fail to see things from a neutral standpoint and understand the dynamic of federal government. Understand the politics and how they effect the policy we are able to contemplate. And understand how all that has broken Washington over the past 2 years. You say "Obama sucks." Fair enough. You are the idiot the tea party idiots want. You are the person that the people in Washington w/ no business in Washington depend on.

 

And the worst thing is you don't understand, this doesn't make you a Republican. This makes you an idiot.

Obama has nobody to blame but himself.

 

All we need do is look at who the Republicans identified at the #1 political liability: Obama. Not nutty members of Congress that Obama supported. Not policy this or that, like health care for Clinton. No. The man himself, and his obvious inability to do the job. Think about it: Obamacare is a MASSIVE liability that Republicans could have chosen...but the man himself is the bigger liability, and Obamacare is now 5th on the list of what Romney talks about?

 

The Republicans know it, I know it, we all know it. It's reality, regardless of whether you want to accept it.

 

You haven't understood most of what I said here: I am pointing out bad CHOICES that Obama made...over and over, when he already had a recent example, in Clinton, of what making the right choices could have gotten him.

 

He sucks....because he made these bad choices, not because he is "evil" He's a good guy, and I can see him being effective in a lot of jobs. See..I'm not a Bush-deranged Democrat.

 

Obama has simply shown that he's not the right guy for this job. Even if Obama wins....it will be by such a close margin..and by such a goofy coalition....that it won't matter. He will be the least-powerful President since Ford, and that will be dangerous for the world.

[IDBillzFan]

By not really having a defined philosophy BO has an advantage: he can be flexible

Only a liberal can look at the complete lack of leadership from Barack Obama and try to convince people that having no idea what he's doing is actually an advantage because he can change his mind all the time to suit the narrative.

[Jauronimo]

Only a liberal can look at the complete lack of leadership from Barack Obama and try to convince people that having no idea what he's doing is actually an advantage because he can change his mind all the time to suit the narrative.

Having a vaguely defined position is a positive due to the ease of flip flopping later on? His most glaring flaws are now his biggest strengths. Clearly, Obama has no weaknesses.

[Gary M]

Ryan is articulate, smart, and likable if you watch him speak. Obama can crush him on it by highlighting the downfalls and actually establishing a more gradual balanced approach w/ some concrete details. If he doesn't, Ryan WILL sell his plan as the only plan. Hence, this is a win for the country not just Romney. IT's made the election somewhat real.

 

Team Obama has no details: No budget for three years,"pass it to see what's in it" and hope and change.

 

Ryan's plan is the only plan.

[IDBillzFan]

Team Obama has no details: No budget for three years,"pass it to see what's in it" and hope and change.

 

Ryan's plan is the only plan.

 

Obama has a plan. It's called "Criticize the Ryan plan." It's a David Axelrod specialty.

[Rob's House]

He sucks....because he made these bad choices, not because he is "evil" He's a good guy, and I can see him being effective in a lot of jobs. See..I'm not a Bush-deranged Democrat.

I gag every time I hear someone say they like Obama but not his policies. What is it you like about him? He comes off as a cold, arrogant, condescending prick who will slither into the sleaziest gutter to achieve his ends. What's so damn likeable about that?

 

For the record, I don't like Obama or his policies.

[3rdnlng]

I gag every time I hear someone say they like Obama but not his policies. What is it you like about him? He comes off as a cold, arrogant, condescending prick who will slither into the sleaziest gutter to achieve his ends. What's so damn likeable about that?

 

For the record, I don't like Obama or his policies.

 

He's like one of the characters in the movie Tin Men. He sold 53% of this country on his aluminum siding when we had already advanced to vinyl siding. Every once in awhile I'll be asked a question that brings up people who I have hated in this world. Not speaking about people like Hitler or Stalin, but just people I have personal experience with I could only name three. I have no personal experience with Obama, but he matches the traits in those other three. Just sayin.

[Rob's House]

He's like one of the characters in the movie Tin Men. He sold 53% of this country on his aluminum siding when we had already advanced to vinyl siding. Every once in awhile I'll be asked a question that brings up people who I have hated in this world. Not speaking about people like Hitler or Stalin, but just people I have personal experience with I could only name three. I have no personal experience with Obama, but he matches the traits in those other three. Just sayin.

I'm the same way. Not too many people I have real ill will toward, but I've known some real unsavory characters in my time, been friends with some very talented con-men, and have developed the ability to spot the tells of those character flaws pretty well. I'll just say that the revelation that John Edwards (who was a really nice guy ) was a total scumbag. Somehow I figured that one out.

 

You generally get to know more or less who someone is when you see that much of them. You know who the Clintons are. Bill's the liberal-leaning good-timing pragmatist, Hillary's a true believer - sure they have their flaws, but hardly worthy of contempt. Joe Biden is a bit of a (*^*&%^$^#but seems like he's basically an alright guy. Obama, on the other hand, seems like a con man who doesn't care who gets hurt as long as he gets what he wants. He's not even that good at hiding it, he's just got a really good PR team (the media).

[Oxrock]

Check out this video on YouTube:

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad

 

[IDBillzFan]

Great Onion Article: Paul Ryan: Admit it, I Scare The Ever-Living Schitt Out Of You, Don't I?

 

http://www.theonion....f-you-do,29160/