Romney chooses Ryan

[Yup!]

Fair enough (although Johnson was the only candidate to have the nuts to say this after the Colorado shooting "“If we’re going to ban weapons, the people that will have weapons will be criminals,” the former New Mexico governor added. “It’s not legal to have tear gas, and this guy had tear gas. So laws don’t prevent criminals from conducting their activity. It’s law-abiding citizens that in this case, if just someone would have been armed in that theater, perhaps they could have brought this tragedy to an end or made it less of a tragedy than it was.”).

Based on your stated positions, Johnson probably isn't the candidate for you. I have the utmost respect for your position because you are voting based on your beliefs and values, not just because "he's electable and the lesser of two evils".

That being said, I myself don't see much changing if he gets elected to office, and I don't see a stop on the assault of the Constitution either.

And I can honestly say, that if the tables were turned, and Johnson were more electable than Romney, based on what I read on his site, I do not know that I could bring myself to vote for him. This is the position that you and others here hold. I respect that, and I understand that.

If this were the case, I'd rather have Pres. Obama than Johnson, and would likely abstain if those were my only choices. I see that what I'm asking you to do is not something you could ever agree to. I get that, I truly do.

 

[hacksawfg]

And I can honestly say, that if the tables were turned, and Johnson were more electable than Romney, based on what I read on his site, I do not know that I could bring myself to vote for him. This is the position that you and others here hold. I respect that, and I understand that.

If this were the case, I'd rather have Pres. Obama than Johnson, and would likely abstain if those were my only choices. I see that what I'm asking you to do is not something you could ever agree to. I get that, I truly do.

Wait a minute... civil disagreement on the internet?! In a POLITICAL FORUM?!

<Checks newspaper to see if his beloved Vikings have finally won a Super Bowl which was unexpectedly held in August>

Damn.

 

[Yup!]

Wait a minute... civil disagreement on the internet?! In a POLITICAL FORUM?!

<Checks newspaper to see if his beloved Vikings have finally won a Super Bowl which was unexpectedly held in August>

Damn.

So your a Vikings fan? If you need the Packers to beat the bears so that the Vikings can make the playoffs, do you root for the packers (Romney), or do you simply just watch the game and see how it goes (johnson/abstain)

 

[GBuck]

So your a Vikings fan? If you need the Packers to beat the bears so that the Vikings can make the playoffs, do you root for the packers (Romney), or do you simply just watch the game and see how it goes (johnson/abstain)

Oh snap. That's actually quite brilliant.

 

[hacksawfg]

So your a Vikings fan? If you need the Packers to beat the bears so that the Vikings can make the playoffs, do you root for the packers (Romney), or do you simply just watch the game and see how it goes (johnson/abstain)

Actually, being a Vikings fan, I've come to expect the fact that despite my loyalty to the team, it doesn't really matter if they make the playoffs because they're probably going to choke anyway (and no comments about '99, that one still hurts). Leslie Frazier is a HORRIBLE head coach.

Of course, even if I did cheer for the Packers (which I would never publicly admit to), it's rooting for the opposition in football, which you would have to admit is a hell of lot different than picking the person to govern the United States. Of course, if that's the weight you assign to it... (I'm sensing maybe you were not being civil after all in your earlier post, maybe more condescending. Correct me if I'm wrong).

 

[Yup!]

Actually, being a Vikings fan, I've come to expect the fact that despite my loyalty to the team, it doesn't really matter if they make the playoffs because they're going to choke anyway (and no comments about '99, that one still hurts).

Of course, even if I did cheer for the Packers (which I would never publicly admit to), it's rooting for the opposition in football, which you would have to admit is a hell of lot different than picking the person to govern the United States. Of course, if that's the weight you assign to it... (I'm sensing maybe you were not being civil after all in your earlier post, maybe more condescending. Correct me if I'm wrong).

Im very civil actually. Not condescending at all. I love a debate so I can learn opposing views, it makes me more well rounded, and you've actually changed my mind a bIt here.

Agreed football and picking a president are not really related. However, conceptually is strikingly similar. To get what you want in the long term (Vikings win a Superbowl) - you are willing to compromise your values, temporarily and wear a Rodgers Jersey to BWW. You know the Packers suck, but you need them. You know BWW is anti-gun, but you can't see the game otherwise. So off you go selfishly in hopes that the Vikings can pull it off and you want to watch it unfold Live.

So if you we're completely and utterly disgusted with Pres. Obama, you'd don your Romney Jersey and get your wings Hot. I'm sensing that your partially ok, with Pres. Obama. I'm not saying you'd vote for him, but I suggest that you'd rather have him than Romney if that's the only option. No?

 

[Prometheus]

No substance. His stance on the 2A is summed up in just a couple of sentences. While they are great words, he really should take some time to type up a little more.

As opposed to the guy who banned 'assault' weapons? lol, you're a trip.

He wants to cut military spending by 43%, Can't agree with that at all. I've been in the military for the past 20years, while you could call me biased, I can tell you that we literally are cutting cost daily, and the impact on our mission is being affected.

No cow is sacred. If you really think we can't trim some fat and close some bases overseas, you don't know history.

He wants to legalize Marijuana. I don't agree there either. Just because we can't get a handle on it, doesn't mean we need to legalize it.

The war on drugs is used as the reason for most of the violations of peoples rights on a daily basis. From no knock warrants, to allowing animals to trump the fourth amendment.

Even if prohibition worked, or could work, only a fascist would think it's ok to tell a consenting adult what they can do in their home.

Even if he was a contender, his values and mine do not align enough to get more than 10 minutes into researching him.

Obviously not. Obama and Romney are your guys. Big government, big taxes and fighting wars half way around the world that do nothing to make or keep this country safe.

Enjoy your health care (or lack there of) and gun bans, that's what you'll get under your two guys.

 

[Yup!]

As opposed to the guy who banned 'assault' weapons? lol, you're a trip.


No cow is sacred. If you really think we can't trim some fat and close some bases overseas, you don't know history.



The war on drugs is used as the reason for most of the violations of peoples rights on a daily basis. From no knock warrants, to allowing animals to trump the fourth amendment.

Even if prohibition worked, or could work, only a fascist would think it's ok to tell a consenting adult what they can do in their home.



Obviously not. Obama and Romney are your guys. Big government, big taxes and fighting wars half way around the world that do nothing to make or keep this country safe.

Enjoy your health care (or lack there of) and gun bans, that's what you'll get under your two guys.

I'm ok with an assault weapon ban, to some extent. The extent being I don't own any, nor do I plan to, so it doesn't personally effect me. If left to me, no I wouldn't ban them, but if someone else does, well, it's not a battle I care enough about to engage in.

Absolutely there is fat to be trimmed in the DOD budget, but how does he come up with the specific number of 43% - I sense he's just making that number up, again playing into my notion of him being primarily talk, and not educated enough to put real numbers on the table.

If you want to smoke pot in your own home, fine. But the problem is it extends beyond the walls in various forms. If it were truly a private matter I'd not care, but it does have an effect on society.

 

[hacksawfg]

Im very civil actually. Not condescending at all. I love a debate so I can learn opposing views, it makes me more well rounded, and you've actually changed my mind a bIt here.

Agreed football and picking a president are not really related. However, conceptually is strikingly similar. To get what you want in the long term (Vikings win a Superbowl) - you are willing to compromise your values, temporarily and wear a Rodgers Jersey to BWW. You know the Packers suck, but you need them. You know BWW is anti-gun, but you can't see the game otherwise. So off you go selfishly in hopes that the Vikings can pull it off and you want to watch it unfold Live.

So if you we're completely and utterly disgusted with Pres. Obama, you'd don't your Romney Jersey and get your wings Hot. I'm sensing that your partially ok, with Pres. Obama. I'm not saying you'd vote for him, but I suggest that you'd rather have him than Romney if that's the only option. No?

Definitely not OK with Obama. Romney talks a good talk, and he certainly acts like a good Republican (now, anyway). In reality, I don't think its going to matter who wins, because I don't think they're that different. They may have different philosophies, and different ways of doing things, but the end result for the average middle-class American will be the same. Obama will take good care of his growing family of citizens dependent on government for survival, because the DNC needs their votes to get elected. Romney will take care of his 1% buddies because he needs their money to get elected (and they've already given him a lot anyway).

I want to know why more liberals don't support Johnson. I mean, here we have a guy who says gay marriage should be legal (liberal position, check). He would legalize and regulate marijuana (HIPPIE liberal position, check). He has stated he would get our troops out of Afghanistan (dovish liberal position, check).

The reason I'm guessing is that liberals really, really hate it when people succeed without the all powerful government. Of course, I'm also guessing the current crop of Republicans running for office really, really hate it when someone makes them look like they're not really the party of liberty of freedom that they say they are. I was a diehard lifelong Republican until it became clear to me that money and power was more important to them than freedom and liberty.

Side note to help you understand my frame of reference - I'm a licensed PE. I got my MBA, busted my ass at work, and was laid off in 2009. It took me two and a half years of looking to find work ("overqualified", or "you don't meet every <preferred> skill we listed", etc.), while I was a stay-at-home dad and my wife went back to work to help make some money so we could keep our house. I will never forget what the "Tea Party" said about those of us who were out of work purely due to economic conditions at that time. And lest you think that makes Obama more attractive, the first thing I look at when examining candidates is whether or not they FULLY trust the American people enough to let them bear arms. If you don't support it or have been against it in the past, end of discussion. That's why I voted Ellsworth instead of Coats. I'm no Democrat, but he was leaps and bounds better than Coats on 2A.

In my opinion Johnson is just a guy who gets what the Constitution is about, and will run the country that way. There's nothing in the Constitution that defines marriage. If a state wants to allow marijuana sales, it is their right to do so as a power not given to the Federal government by the Constitution. I know I would rather fill jails and prisons with rapists and murderers than marijuana users. I'm betting if we limited our role as world policeman, pulled troops out of Afghanistan and let them live here in the states and just protect our borders, you probably could cut military spending by 43% by reducing the amount of logistics it takes to operate the military all over the world. Can't say for sure if he'll be able to do it, but I think based on his track record if nothing else he would at least veto most of the BS earmarks Congress throws to the President now.

 

[Prometheus]

I'm ok with an assault weapon ban, to some extent. The extent being I don't own any, nor do I plan to, so it doesn't personally effect me. If left to me, no I wouldn't ban them, but if someone else does, well, it's not a battle I care enough about to engage in.

Wow... just wow. Then why should I care when they ban your double barrel and wheel gun?

If you want to smoke pot in your own home, fine. But the problem is it extends beyond the walls in various forms. If it were truly a private matter I'd not care, but it does have an effect on society.

Prove it. What effect? Aside from the crime that the prohibition laws create, what is the effect?

That's the same nonsense spewed by those who argued to continue prohibition.

It's a lie.

 

[jamil]

Reagan
Bush Sr.
Dole
Bush Jr.
McCain
Romney

When do they start get more conservative instead of less?

Looks more like you cherrypicked that list.

How about going back a bit further ?

Here's the list of Republican nominees since WW2

Dewey (1944/48)
Eisenhower (1952/56)
Nixon (1960)
Goldwater (1964)
Nixon (1968/72)
Ford (1976)
Reagan (1980/84)
Bush1 (1988/92)
Dole (1996)
Bush2 (2000/2004)
McCain (2008)
Romney (2012)

Rather than getting less conservative, I'd say that conservatives are just a few blips along the way, although we haven't had a blip in 5 elections.

What happened in 2010 with the Tea Party doesn't necessarily indicate a trend in itself, but I think people see what's happening in Europe, and the see that we're headed in the same direction. I think a trend towards liberty is more likely now than in years past.

I joke about you anarchist types wearing tinfoil hats and all, but even though you guys come off as a bit out there, there's enough that's spot on. You guys just take it farther than I think reality can bare and you make unrealistic accusations about people who aren't willing to take anarchism as far as you do.

 

[jamil]

<Checks newspaper to see if his beloved Vikings have finally won a Super Bowl which was unexpectedly held in August>

Damn.

If only.

 

[jamil]

So your a Vikings fan? If you need the Packers to beat the bears so that the Vikings can make the playoffs, do you root for the packers (Romney), or do you simply just watch the game and see how it goes (johnson/abstain)

I'm a Vikings fan too. And while this is a very good point, I could never personally root for the Packers, even if it meant that it would help my team because I hate them. But that's an emotional thing. If I took the emotional part out of the process I would follow reason and support the best outcome for my team. A lot of the posts from the anarchists seem pretty emotional to me.

 

[WebHobbit]

Libertarian here. Something I realized a few years ago. Before that I always voted Republican. Last POTUS election I started voting Libertarian. I know I know - I "wasted" my vote. I just can't bring my self to vote for the lessor of two cowards. Obama is a coward because he is too scared of losing a second term to try for any anti-gun BS laws. When we ALL know he is DEEPLY anti-gun. That's a coward - and in this case it works to our advantage. Romney on the other hand is the John Kerry of the Republican party. He flips he flops and he bobs and he weaves. What's amazing is he does all that in the oddest most robotic fashion ever! Look up "Souless White Man" and I'm betting his picture will pop up. The dude has NO CONVICTIONS other than making money. Not that there is anything wrong with that but some ethics and honesty would be good too. And isn't it true that he joined the NRA TWO WEEKS before he first filed paper work to run for POTUS?

LAME.

I can't vote for him and I certainly can't vote for Obama. That means Libertarian for me.....whoever the hell that ends up being.

 

[megalomaniac]

IMHO Ryan was the best choice. It shows the conservative base he really is, well, conservative.

 

[WebHobbit]

Except he really....ISNT. He did this for the votes.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Libertarian here. Something I realized a few years ago. Before that I always voted Republican. Last POTUS election I started voting Libertarian. I know I know - I "wasted" my vote. I just can't bring my self to vote for the lessor of two cowards. Obama is a coward because he is too scared of losing a second term to try for any anti-gun BS laws. When we ALL know he is DEEPLY anti-gun. That's a coward - and in this case it works to our advantage. Romney on the other hand is the John Kerry of the Republican party. He flips he flops and he bobs and he weaves. What's amazing is he does all that in the oddest most robotic fashion ever! Look up "Souless White Man" and I'm betting his picture will pop up. The dude has NO CONVICTIONS other than making money. Not that there is anything wrong with that but some ethics and honesty would be good too. And isn't it true that he joined the NRA TWO WEEKS before he first filed paper work to run for POTUS?

LAME.

I can't vote for him and I certainly can't vote for Obama. That means Libertarian for me.....whoever the hell that ends up being.

 

[IndyGal65]

Paul Ryan on the Issues

I'm not. There are some positives but they are greatly outweighed by the negatives.

^^This. He's all about gun rights, which is great. However, he's pretty much against the poor, kids, women, gays, animals, medicinal advances, and the environment.

 

[IndyGal65]

OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting

The two candidates have raised 450 million dollars for this election! On the one hand, you have a socialist in office who is beholden to big labor, is against personal liberty and the Second Amendment (actually, I'm pretty sure he doesn't really respect any of them), and thinks it's the governments job to force people to buy healthcare, provide welfare, etc.

On the other hand, you have a "Republican" who also has ideas for government mandated healthcare, who SAYS he's for personal liberty but wants to let the government have a say in what I can watch in the privacy of my house, who can get married, etc. He has changed his positions several times to gain "electability".

So yeah, I'm voting for Gary Johnson, because I KNOW what it can leave us with, and it doesn't matter. It doesn't make a bit of difference which one of these two clowns in office, nothing is going to change if people don't make a stand and vote for liberty and freedom instead of the lesser of two evils. Besides, it's not an election anymore, it's an auction.

+1

 

[mrjarrell]

So, what's Ryan's record say about him? It says he's just another big government lover. Sean Shepard has a few facts for the fans.

Paul Ryan voted YES on all of the following:

• No Child Left Behind (2001)
• Yes on authorizing invasion of Iraq (2002)
• Expansion of Medicare/prescription drug benefit (2003)
• $70 million Section 8 housing vouchers (2006)
• Head Start Act (2007)
• Extending unemployment benefits from 39 to 59 weeks (2008)
• TARP (2008)
• Economic Stimulus [HR 5140] (2009)
• $15 Billion bailout for GM and Chrysler (2008)
• $192 Billion in additional "stimulus" spending (2009)