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

[OCinBuffalo]

I was thinking about "topic tags" for this one.

 

Perhaps:

Recall

Wisconsin

Morons

Unions

Overreach

Reality

Budgetary Discipline

Monetary Policy

Medicare Reform

 

 

Anyway, I am of course quite pleased with this selection. I think Ryan is an example of what qualified government looks like. Big or small, we need qualified government.

 

On a smaller note: I now have something to look forward to in politics: Ryan Vs. Biden debate. Nothing like a good public humiliation for us to laugh at. Biden's people: all faces in palms, trying to remember which folder their resume is in.

 

On an even smaller note: CMS is also considering stopping by the liquor store tonight.

Edited August 11, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[drnykterstein]

About all I know about the guy : Paul Ryan charged people $15 bucks to ask him a question at town hall meetings.

 

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F0E997EA-EC57-4E4B-B174-D857948A0787

[OCinBuffalo]

About all I know about the guy : Paul Ryan charged people $15 bucks to ask him a question at town hall meetings.

 

http://dyn.politico....74-D857948A0787

Speaking of public humiliation....conner is here.

 

Edit: Alright, I'll take you seriously, and read your link. But much will depend on its content, and what I can find out on my own.

 

Edit 2: Done. Now you, again, are an unmitigated moron. That author is a blatant hack...especially using a quote that blames Ryan for the bond downgrade?

 

One guy has to be removed....and that means Ryan was criticized by "many" constituents?

 

The place he held his event is the one doing the charging of the $15...but we don't find that out until halfway down the page? It only happens at this one place...but what is the headline? If you want to talk to Ryan you have to pay $15...(all the time)...or..."during the recess"...actually one time during the recess, but why bother with accuracy, right conner?

 

Something Ryan has nothing to do with...makes him afraid to defend his policy? If Graeme Zielinski was worth Ryan's time....I am certain Ryan would slice and dice this lightweight, and easily defend his policy, any time, any place.

:lol:

 

Paul Ryan knows more about policy than you, the unmitigated moron that wrote this article, and Democratic Party of Wisconsin Spokesman(yeah...there's a great place to get a newsworthy comment) will ever know.

 

Edit #3: Upon further review, I am sitting here, asking myself "why the F did you bother? You know better. How many times do you need to touch the oven?" I should have just stayed with:

 

Speaking of public humiliation....conner is here.

Edited August 11, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[IDBillzFan]

About all I know about the guy : Paul Ryan charged people $15 bucks to ask him a question at town hall meetings.

 

http://dyn.politico....74-D857948A0787

 

And he pushes grandmothers off cliffs.

 

I happen to be a very big Paul Ryan fan, and suffice it to say that if Romney and Ryan come out on the same page, swinging hard, this election will be simply this: We fix things now or we continue to kick the can down the road while spending like a drunken Obama. It's line in the sand time. Period.

 

Oh, and if it IS Ryan, the sound you hear in the background is Obama trying convince Hillary to take Biden's spot because a Ryan/Biden debate will end with Ryan standing next to a couple of hair plugs smoldering on a podium.

[OCinBuffalo]

And he pushes grandmothers off cliffs.

 

I happen to be a very big Paul Ryan fan, and suffice it to say that if Romney and Ryan come out on the same page, swinging hard, this election will be simply this: We fix things now or we continue to kick the can down the road while spending like a drunken Obama. It's line in the sand time. Period.

 

Oh, and if it IS Ryan, the sound you hear in the background is Obama trying convince Hillary to take Biden's spot because a Ryan/Biden debate will end with Ryan standing next to a couple of hair plugs smoldering on a podium.

Oh don't worry, this time I was the one who wasted their time on a conner link. Somebody else's turn next time.

 

The best is, I doubt conner can make the connection between:

1. Paul Ryan is from Wisconsin

2. Recall was in Wisconsin

3. Boy that recall was an idiot's move....and now Romney intends to fully exploit that idiocy

 

= Wisconsin is now fully in play, and Obama will have to spend resources he can't afford to lose defending it. Obama will probably still get it, but it will cost them dearly.

 

I'm liking this big time. It proves that Romney has more of a killer instinct than some thought. No "safe"(read: boring) Ohio Senators etc.

[truth on hold]

IMO he had to make this choice in an attempt to diminish the "old white conservative looking" guys ticket. America doesn't want that exclusively in the White House any more. Without being able to find an acceptable female or minority, he had to go with the youngest acceptable white guy. Fine with me, because Ryan appears the most sincere budget/deficit cutter of the lot ... more so than Mitt, that's for sure. The problem is that his detailed plan calls for a reduction on the highest tax rates from 35% to 25%, and an elimination of capital gains tax. This will reinforce the negative tax image of Romney that BO camp branded on his forehead this summer, and I have a sense the majority of the country is not buying into trickle down tax theory. They also have to explain how they will manage Mitt's super-hawk policy (and even Ryan is sponsoring legislation committing to Israel's defense), while at the same time seriously cutting the budget. Real fiscal responsbility will require major across the board REDUCTIONS, not just slowing of rate increases, the moment politicians start making carve outs for pet projects and their most beholden special interests, it's history. Perhaps its my own bias showing thru, but if they can come across as sincere, unbiased budget cutting deficit eliminators, they have a chance to bring all the Ron Paul/Tea Partyists back into the fold, hopefully not lose too much of the base (the Israel and defense lovers may revolt, but go where?), and independants and even some Democrats who realize that kind of approach is the only way we get off the fiscal cliff we're looking at. Long shot given our current state of politics, but here's hoping it's possible

Edited August 11, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[meazza]

LOL you like talking about Israel dip ****

[drnykterstein]

Edit 2: Done. Now you, again, are an unmitigated moron. That author is a blatant hack...especially using a quote that blames Ryan for the bond downgrade?

 

One guy has to be removed....and that means Ryan was criticized by "many" constituents?

 

The place he held his event is the one doing the charging of the $15...but we don't find that out until halfway down the page? It only happens at this one place...but what is the headline? If you want to talk to Ryan you have to pay $15...(all the time)...or..."during the recess"...actually one time during the recess, but why bother with accuracy, right conner?

 

Rationalize much? Try hard enough and you can rationalize anything away. You and I both know he had the power to control that fee, and he did not get rid of it.

 

 

And he pushes grandmothers off cliffs.

 

I have never seen any accusations or evidence that this is even close to true. Paul Ryan does not push anyone off cliffs, grandmothers included.

Edited August 11, 2012 by conner

[truth on hold]

LOL you like talking about Israel dip ****

LOL you idiot, it was Romney and the Republicans who decided to make it the leading foreign policy wedge issue!

 

"On Sunday, the Romney campaign aired its first foreign policy television ad, which focused on Israel and on Obama’s apparent refusal “to recognize Jerusalem as its capital.”

The final shot in the 30-second spot shows Mitt Romney standing before Jerusalem’s Old City walls during his visit to Israel last week, saying, “It’s a deeply moving experience to be in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-elections-shine-a-light-on-jerusalem/

[WorldTraveller]

He was who I was hoping for. I've got a lot of faith in paul Ryan. He will help make this an election about big things

[OCinBuffalo]

IMO he had to make this choice in an attempt to diminish the "old white conservative looking" guys ticket. America doesn't want that exclusively in the White House any more. Without being able to find an acceptable female or minority, he had to go with the youngest acceptable white guy. Fine with me, because Ryan appears the most sincere budget/deficit cutter of the lot ... more so than Mitt, that's for sure. The problem is that his detailed plan calls for a reduction on the highest tax rates from 35% to 25%, and an elimination of capital gains tax. This will reinforce the negative tax image of Romney that BO camp branded on his forehead this summer, and I have a sense the majority of the country is not buying into trickle down tax theory. They also have to explain how they will manage Mitt's super-hawk policy (and even Ryan is sponsoring legislation committing to Israel's defense), while at the same time seriously cutting the budget. Real fiscal responsbility will require major across the board REDUCTIONS, not just slowing of rate increases, the moment politicians start making carve outs for pet projects and their most beholden special interests, it's history.

Hey, at least you didn't link to a hack's work, and did some of your own instead. That's positive.

 

Historically, we have proof that you can't spend/regulate your way to prosperity. From FDR to today, it just doesn't work. This is not opinion, this is fact. The problem that I acknowledge....is that you can't feed a child tonight with economic/historical fact. I get it. Really.

 

However, this level of government spending is killing our currency, which means the method we choose tonight means it's going to cost more to feed that child tomorrow night, regardless of who pays for it. And, the big problem for you is: even if we could spend our way out of the mess....what chance is there that the people we have employed in the Federal government right now, today, could be trusted to use that money properly?

 

We both KNOW that chance is rapidly approaching 0. Even the DOD, who used to have a great reputation for doing more with less...is no longer getting that done...but, with 2 wars, WTF did you expect them to do? As it is they took crap for not having reinforced vehicles, body armor, etc. All of that costs the money...you say you don't want to spend.

 

We have to choose: do we want to be a super-power or don't we? Actually, it's a fools choice: how many more times to we need to learn the lesson that "Hooray! 'The War' is over, now we can go back home and nobody will ever start another war again. We win!", is as naive as you can be?.

 

Even if we choose to spend less now, that just means we will have to spend a lot more, later, to ramp up for whatever the next military commitment is going to be, regardless of who is in power.

 

Rationalize much? Try hard enough and you can rationalize anything away. You and I both know he had the power to control that fee, and he did not get rid of it.

There is nothing approaching veracity in your link.

 

Notice, I am That's cause I don't take it seriously. It's not even worth the energy that contempt requires.

 

Rationalize? More like scoff.

 

That's correct. I am scoffing, at you, the author, and the silly Wisconsin lightweight. But mostly....most of all? I am laughing at Joe Biden's communication officer tonight. Actually, we should all chip in at PPP and buy that guy a bar tab somewhere. Oh wait, he's a Democrat...then perhaps a gift certificate to a spa or something?

[truth on hold]

Hey, at least you didn't link to a hack's work, and did some of your own instead. That's positive.

 

Historically, we have proof that you can't spend/regulate your way to prosperity. From FDR to today, it just doesn't work. This is not opinion, this is fact. The problem that I acknowledge....is that you can't feed a child tonight with economic/historical fact. I get it. Really.

 

However, this level of government spending is killing our currency, which means the method we choose tonight means it's going to cost more to feed that child tomorrow night, regardless of who pays for it. And, the big problem for you is: even if we could spend our way out of the mess....what chance is there that the people we have employed in the Federal government right now, today, could be trusted to use that money properly?

 

We both KNOW that chance is rapidly approaching 0. Even the DOD, who used to have a great reputation for doing more with less...is no longer getting that done...but, with 2 wars, WTF did you expect them to do? As it is they took crap for not having reinforced vehicles, body armor, etc. All of that costs the money...you say you don't want to spend.

 

We have to choose: do we want to be a super-power or don't we? Actually, it's a fools choice: how many more times to we need to learn the lesson that "Hooray! 'The War' is over, now we can go back home and nobody will ever start another war again. We win!", is as naive as you can be?.

 

Even if we choose to spend less now, that just means we will have to spend a lot more, later, to ramp up for whatever the next military commitment is going to be, regardless of who is in power.

I don't even have to bother challenging your "keep ramping up defense, slash everything else" plan (that's what I think you''re saying), even though I find it GROTESQUELY flawed. My post is about realpolitics and Romney's election chances in light of the VP pick. Platform highlighting: lower taxes for the rich, send medicaire/cade packing to the private sector, keep ramping up defense for the next "great war" ... IS NOT GOING TO FLY WITH THE MAJORITY. No way, no how. Wouldn't even reach McCain's 46% popular vote total. Seriously do you want your guy to win, or just to run a doomed platform and hand the election to a guy you personally cannot stand?

[drnykterstein]

I have never seen any accusations or evidence that this is even close to true. Paul Ryan does not push anyone off cliffs, grandmothers included.

 

SCRATCH THAT! Sean Hannity did accuse Ryan of pushing grandmothers off cliffs!! http://www.thedailys...n-s-murder-plot

 

Also, I'll note that LABillzFan does indeed obey his master and lord Fox News by quoting that channel every chance he gets.

Edited August 11, 2012 by conner

[WorldTraveller]

 

I don't even have to bother challenging your "keep ramping up defense, slash everything else" plan (that's what I think you''re saying), even though I find it GROTESQUELY flawed. My post is about realpolitics and Romney's election chances in light of the VP pick. Platform highlighting: lower taxes for the rich, send medicaire/cade packing to the private sector, keep ramping up defense for the next "great war" ... IS NOT GOING TO FLY WITH THE MAJORITY. No way, no how. Wouldn't even reach McCain's 46% popular vote total. Seriously do you want your guy to win, or just to run a doomed platform and hand the election to a guy you personally cannot stand?

 

That's the liberals version.

 

We'll see who gets their message out best. Ryan's plan is the only serious plan that addresses Medicare and the debt and there is no one more effective at communicating this than Paul Ryan . When Rubio ran for senator, he embraced Ryan's Medicare plan, many people thought he was crazy for doing so. Crist tried demagoguing him, and it didn't work. Why? Because he spoke to them in a straightforward way. People respect you when you are straight with them and as a result Rubio crushed him with senior voters.

 

Will that happen here? I don't know, but like I said, there is no one better at leveling with you than Paul Ryan.

[meazza]

That's the liberals version.

 

We'll see who gets their message out best. Ryan's plan is the only serious plan that addresses Medicare and the debt and there is no one more effective at communicating this than Paul Ryan . When Rubio ran for senator, he embraced Ryan's Medicare plan, many people thought he was crazy for doing so. Crist tried demagoguing him, and it didn't work. Why? Because he spoke to them in a straightforward way. People respect you when you are straight with them and as a result Rubio crushed him with senior voters.

 

Will that happen here? I don't know, but like I said, there is no one better at leveling with you than Paul Ryan.

 

Is there a confirmation that Ryan is the VP? Can't find it anywhere.

[WorldTraveller]

Ap says it's a done deal... You can go to politico or drudge

[truth on hold]

That's the liberals version.

 

We'll see who gets their message out best. Ryan's plan is the only serious plan that addresses Medicare and the debt and there is no one more effective at communicating this than Paul Ryan . When Rubio ran for senator, he embraced Ryan's Medicare plan, many people thought he was crazy for doing so. Crist tried demagoguing him, and it didn't work. Why? Because he spoke to them in a straightforward way. People respect you when you are straight with them and as a result Rubio crushed him with senior voters.

 

Will that happen here? I don't know, but like I said, there is no one better at leveling with you than Paul Ryan.

Not sure what the "liberals" version comment pertains to (probably dont want to), but the rest of your post I pretty much agree with. Like I said earlier the challenge will be merging Ryan's candor with Romney's negative tax associations and grandiose foreign/defense policy visions. IMO at this time Mitt is a liability to the ticket, wonder if it's too late to switch them!

Edited August 11, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[OCinBuffalo]

I don't even have to bother challenging your "keep ramping up defense, slash everything else" plan (that's what I think you''re saying), even though I find it GROTESQUELY flawed. My post is about realpolitics and Romney's election chances in light of the VP pick. Platform highlighting: lower taxes for the rich, send medicaire/cade packing to the private sector, keep ramping up defense for the next "great war" ... IS NOT GOING TO FLY WITH THE MAJORITY. No way, no how. Wouldn't even reach McCain's 46% popular vote total. Seriously do you want your guy to win, or just to run a doomed platform and hand the election to a guy you personally cannot stand?

Hey, it's not "my" plan. It's not even your plan, or Paul Ryan's plan. It is...the plan.

 

Here's the trouble with DOD:

1. Democrats tend to look at it as another of their jobs programs, no different than HHS, DOE, etc. They also want to send little bits of it all over the world, not solving anything, and often exposing our people to serious risk. See: Somalia. I missed that suck by a whisker. The DOD is not a humanitarian organization. But it's been used that way, way more than it has been used as what it is. So we end up with all kinds of crap that doesn't actually help us win wars, and we end up with all kinds of people drawing paychecks...that don't help us win wars either.

 

2. Republicans want to use it as way to fund extensive industrial research and weapons programs, in the hopes that not only will it be a source of electoral power for them, but that it will be a real source of power and a handy negotiating tool. They also(usually) never want to send it to actually fight anywhere. So...why bother having it? The thinking being straight out of Sun Tzu: the best warrior is one who never has to fight. That's why it has to be so big and bad. Economically, they want the threat, but they don't want actually have to use it, because that means diverting money from Lockheed Martin, and spending it on ammunition instead. We don't learn anything from 7.62 rounds. So the goal is to keep spending more and more on something we never use, and get better and better weapons that will make the ones we have now worth something on the open market. We make a lot of money on weapons....but we also make a lot of money selling the civilian spinoff applications those weapons systems create.

 

In either case, you aren't going to see real reductions in defense spending...and "your guy" is a complete idiot for listening to the far left on this. He's going to be pilloried on this issiue, and no amount of "OLB is dead" is going to fix that. Most of his own people will NOT support him on this: Do you think Chuck Schumer or whatshername is going the let the air base in Niagara Falls go? Think of the jobs that will be lost.

 

You can talk all you want, when you get done...defense spending will still be what it is, because both parties need it, and have plans for it.

[/dev/null]

Wow.

I was expecting Rubio/Portman/McDonnell in an attempt to lock up their respective state

 

The Statists had been trying to paint Ryan as a grandma killer and a Racist© for trying to kick people off the government teet. But then again the Establishment party has been trying to paint Romney as a mix between Cruella DeVille and Snidely Whiplash. Going to be lots of negative ads coming from Obama's Perpetual Motion Presidential Campaign and his friendly PAC

 

From an idealogical standpoint I am impressed.

 

Then VP debate will be amusing for a couple minutes before itl turns into the Globetrotters vs Washington Generals. Of course nobody will pay any attention to the VP debates and the media will spin it as the Elder Statesman vs the Reckless Young Punk

[John Adams]

Pretty good piece in the New Yorker about Paul Ryan. Maybe a couple swipes at him but overall, fair.

 

http://www.newyorker...a?currentPage=1

 

. “If you’re going to criticize, then you should propose,” he told me. A fault line divided the older and more cautious Republican leaders from the younger, more ideological members. Ryan was, and remains, the leader of the attack-and-propose faction.

 

“People like me who are reform-minded ignore the people who say, ‘Just criticize and don’t do anything and let’s win by default.’ That’s ridiculous.” He said he was “moving ahead without them. They don’t want to produce alternatives? That’s not going to stop me from producing an alternative.”

 

Almost a John Adams quote when he was criticizing Thomas Paine.

Edited August 11, 2012 by John Adams