romney choses VP....

i swear i corrected the title TWICE... this forum acts so weird, at times!

Well I see this as adding nothing to the ticket. Most VPs don't but who is now going to vote for Romney that wasn't going to vote for him before? May also hurt him with older voters making Florida harder to win. 

Could you make the case that Paul Ryan is almost a higher profile guy than Romney?

Interesting choice.

Credit Romney with not going with the "safe" choice of some boring Republican that no one has ever heard of, like a lot of the people who had been floated as possible veep picks. Paul Ryan comes with concrete and controversial proposals that can actually be debated, as opposed to the Obama vs. anyone but Obama race that this was shaping up to be. This makes things more interesting.

Watch Paul Ryan destroy Obamacare in 6 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs

Imagine the VP debates!  Ryan walks out with heavy artillery. Biden rides in on a tricycle, toting a pop gun. 

 

Paul Davis Ryan is the U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district, serving since 1999. He is a member of the Republican Party, and is often cited for his views on economic policy and especially his proposed changes to Medicare. Wikipedia

Born: January 29, 1970 (age 42),

Office: Representative (R-WI 1st District) since 1999

Education: Miami University

Religion Roman Catholicism

Spouse  Janna Little

Children  Elizabeth

Charles

Samuel

 

Ideological Mentor:  Ayn Rand, Atheist and apostle of the philosophy that Greed is Good.

 

 

So?

I smell a witch hunt. 

Stay tuned. 

Ayn Rand's book The Virtue of Selfishness pointed out that working in one's self interest contributed to the Virtuous Circle generated by capitalism, which benefits all.  Sje never stated greed is good.

As to Paul Ryan's believes vs. Ayn Rand's

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G...Follower-of-Ayn-Rand

Contendah,  there's a rumor Ryan likes to drown kittens. An activity you both share.

Ryan has walked back some previous statements he had made that were more favorable to Ayn Rand. We can take him at his word that he rejects Rand's philosophy now, but congressmen generally don't give books containing philosophy they reject as Christmas presents to their staffers, as Ryan did with Atlas Shrugged. Ryan also gave a speech in 2005 to the Atlas Society, the Washington-based think tank devoted to keeping Rand’s "objectivist" philosophy alive, where he credited her with inspiring his interest in public service, saying, "[T]he reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand." Or take this video, from 2009:

"I think Ayn Rand did the best job of anybody to build a moral case for capitalism."

There's a mountain of evidence showing Paul Ryan's admiration for Ayn Rand. Asking whether his view of Rand has truly changed or whether he's attempting to hide his true views out of political convenience is fair game.

Mein Team's post is typical of the liberals.  Cherry pick a few statements and ignore the totality of actions to press their point.  Its one of the facets of the Big Lie technique.  Here is the entire article  Ryan gave explaining while he incorporated portions of Ayn Rand's beliefs on capitalism with his Christian philisophy:

"There is a mistaken belief on the left that Paul Ryan was somehow programmed by Ayn Rand and that his entire budget plan, his Roadmap For America's Future, is somehow one great Randian, or worse Darwinian, exercise in the survival of the strongest. The left also chides him for later turning his back on Rand and pretending his ideas really aren't driven by what they consider to be Ayn Rand's mean-spirited philosophy.

Neither claim is true.

The whole discussion began in 2005, when Paul Ryan gave a presentation before The Atlas Society, an organization dedicated to the ideas of Ayn Rand. Ryan was quite effusive about Rand's work, for sure. A full audio of the meeting is posted at the Society's website, and on it you can hear Ryan really expressing a great enthusiasm for Rand.

One of the things Ryan said is that he requires his staffers to read Atlas Shrugged.

I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are. It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff. We start with Atlas Shrugged. People tell me I need to start with The Fountainhead then go to Atlas Shrugged [laughter]. There’s a big debate about that. We go to Fountainhead, but then we move on, and we require Mises and Hayek as well.

From this the left went off like a dog with a bone imagining that Ryan was claiming to be a full-on Randian.

Then, this year, Paul Ryan gave an interview to National Review, and there he disavowed being a strict devotee of Ayn Rand.

As Ryan told the National Review:

"I, like millions of young people in America, read Rand’s novels when I was young. I enjoyed them,” Ryan says. “They spurred an interest in economics, in the Chicago School and Milton Friedman,” a subject he eventually studied as an undergraduate at Miami University in Ohio. “But it’s a big stretch to suggest that a person is therefore an Objectivist.

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.

This, the left said, proves he is a flip flopper or a liar. But, again, none of it is true.

First of all, Ryan does not disavow being a fan of Ayn Rand's work. He fully admits that as a young man he was influenced by her economic theories and her energetic apologia for capitalism. But he has never, ever said he was enamored of her objectivist ideals. There are no quotes from him accepting Rand's strict philosophy.

Another area where Ryan parts company with Ayn Rand reveals a key difference between them. Rand was a vehement opponent of religion -- all religion -- as well as its moral strictures. But Paul Ryan is a committed Catholic. As he stated in the quote above, Ryan has never signed onto her anti-religious ideals. Ryan's compassionate Catholicism is what makes it impossible for him to be a full-throated Randian.

Still, the left claims that Paul Ryan's budget policies are intended to throw grandma out on the street and that he intends an Ayn Rand-like destruction of the welfare state. But the truth is, his Roadmap For America's Future goes out of its way to save the welfare state by paring it down to an economically sustainable form. Ryan is not proposing any end to the welfare state.

Ayn Rand was not nearly so kind. She called the welfare state an imposition of complete immorality on a polity and opposed its construction. Whatever you think of her philosophy, there is no evidence that Paul Ryan ever signed on to all of her ideas.

So, it just isn't true that Paul Ryan is some wild-eyed "objectivist" ready to tear down grandma's safety net. Paul Ryan is clearly a fan of Ayn Rand in many ways. But he is not a Randian objectivist. And he never was."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G...Follower-of-Ayn-Rand

anyone else find this humorous !?!?

Mitt Romney's presidential campaign requested "several" years of tax returns from potential vice presidential picks, senior adviser Beth Myers, who ran the search, told reporters Saturday.

Where did I ever say that Ryan was a full-blown Randian objectivist? There's plenty of evidence that he's not, so saying he is would be a lie. Or a Big Lie, if you like. I said that in the past he made comments that were more favorable to Ayn Rand than ones he makes now, and that he clearly had an admiration for Rand. The article you just quoted says as much in the last paragraph.

Claiming that Paul Ryan is a full-blown disciple of Ayn Rand is stretching the facts to the point of lying. I'm sure one can find of examples of Democrats and liberal activists doing exactly that, and I'll agree with you that they're lying. But the fact remains that Paul Ryan has notably shown more admiration for the philosophy of Ayn Rand than is typical for a prominent politician, and you can't expect his political opponents not to point that out.

Christians may include Darwin's theories on evolution without becoming an atheist.  Just as they may include Rand and Adam Smith's observations on the way the market works under capitalism, without obviating their beliefs on charity and mercy.  

Ending your last post with the paragraph:

"There's a mountain of evidence showing Paul Ryan's admiration for Ayn Rand. Asking whether his view of Rand has truly changed or whether he's attempting to hide his true views out of political convenience is fair game."

does not re-enforce your last post statements.

There's nothing contradictory about those two posts. The question has always been how strongly Paul Ryan admires Rand, not whether or not he believes in her entire philosophy. You can't get away from the fact that Ayn Rand was a controversial figure with extreme views, and you can't help but notice and ask questions when a vice presidential candidate has repeatedly expressed admiration for such a person.

Fine, then expect campaign ads showing Jeremiah Wright ranting GD America! GD America! and worse.  Then, fade to Obama, Michelle and the kids, Obama is smiling and nodding his approval.  Amen, brother will be dubbed in!  

Another ad will show a young Obama approaching a hot dog vendor asking for the special.  The vendor, wearing a Karl Marx T shirt, will hand over a hotdog with all the fixing -- nickel bag of Maui Wowie and a couple of hits of coke.  And, I don't mean Coca Cola.  Both ads will emphasize these two men influenced Obama's development for years.

Obama successfully deflected Rev. Wright attacks before, so I can't really see them working the second time around, especially now that he's an incumbent president and not a first-time contender who people didn't know much about yet. People would just roll their eyes because they've heard it all before, and it would make Romney look desperate more than it would hurt Obama.

It's not a bad analogy to this Ayn Rand situation, though. Both are a case of a politician being a little too close to something controversial and having to back off and dissociate from them once they became national figures. If Ryan and the Romney team have any political skill at all, they'll be able to deflect the questions about Ayn Rand and make Democrats start to look bad if they keep harping on about it.

After all, while the question of how much of Ayn Rand's philosophy Paul Ryan believes is like catnip to the political media, we don't actually need to guess at his political ideology and vision for America. Conveniently, he wrote it all out for us in his "Path to Prosperity" budget plan that all but four House Republicans voted for and that stands in stark contrast to President Obama and the Democrats' plan. His selection for VP just made the election primarily about that contrast.

Sorry, but Obama did not successfully deflect Rev. Wright. Republicans decided not to pursue the matter further.  Earlier in the campaign the Democrats went ape shait over a Obama/Farrakan superpac ad.  The ad didn't exist, except as a rough script.  Superpacs would run the ads, giving Romney plausible deniability.  

Another ad, stating it was the sixties and left wing communists groups resorted to acts of terrorism. Then, simply show the bombings perpetrated by the Weathermen, ending with the Greenwich Village bomb that wiped out several of the worst Weathermen, with the tie stating that the bomb was meant for a party at the NCO club at Ft. Dix.  Point out Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn as the leaders behind the Weathermen.  Fade to the present, show Obama's statement that he had only a passing acquaintance with Ayers.  Then, point out his real and frequent contacts with Ayers.

My point is that the Democrats have gotten nasty, with the Republicans backing off the really bad stuff.  That does not have to continue.  

As to the Ryan plan, the Republicans merely have to point out they have a plan -- one based on past successes by JFK, Reagan and Bush (and Coolidge, for that matter).  Whereas, the Dems had nearly four years and achieved nothing but a prolongation of the misery.  

Past success of Bush? You can't be serious. If you want Romney to win this election you should probably not bring Bush into it as an example of what Romney/Ryan will do.

I grew up during the Reagan years, as a farm kid I remember it being some of the bleakest years of our lives.

and 10 years of "bush policies" sure haven't helped americans.

i still haven't seen evidence of those "job makers" producing much, even with all those tax breaks.

Then, you have a defective memory, or your family was one of the few that didn't prosper.  Reagan significantly lowered the unemployment rate from the Carter years and ended stagflation that haunted the economy from Nixon's administration,  All the while generally lowering taxes (he raised some), while collecting significant more revenue and ending the murderous regime that haunted the world for five generations. 

During the first six years of the Bush administration, unemployment was lowered from the dotbomb recession of Clinton, 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina.  Bush certainly didn't cause the recession.  That was begun under Clinton, although actions of both parties in Congress exacerbated the problem.  

The Reagan Recession which began in 1982 gave me the only six months of unemployment In my adult life, and seriously damaged the Shoals economy. It was a contribuying factor in the loss of the Ford Plant, Union Carbide, and much of the local music industry. It wasn't until near the end of the first term of the Clinton administration that the area really began to recover.

Senior, 

Coffee is an aid to the prevention of ALZ.  Unfortunately, you must not have drunk enough.  The recession begin 1980 under Carter and continued to 1982.  The Reagan adminstration ended the recession, they didn't cause it.  

As you can see, the recovery was quite good. Too bad, we didn't have a competent person in the Oval Office in 2009.

 www.presidentreagan.info/gdp.cfm   

Wait a minute...you wingnuts want to blame the current economy on the current president, why can't we blame the recession in the 80s on the then current president? You can't have it both ways.

Senior,

Please quote where anyone blamed the present recession on Obama!  We've blamed not coming out of the downturn on him, not him starting it.  We're in the longest recovery since WWII.  Its Obama's incompetence and insistence upon actions that only prolong the downturn, conservatives blame him for.

The current recession begin because of actions begin by Clinton and made worse by Congress and Feddie/Fannie. 

bahahahahaha!

forget the 8 years of bush... and the 10 years of "job creator tax breaks" and the deregulation of banking...

it's all on the democrats!

farther proof the rt. wingnuts have lost their collective minds!

Say what you will, BUT Ryan is the ONLY Washington legislator who has had the guts to say what needs to be done and has been the only one to actually propose any semblence of a plan that would in the long run decrease our deficit and reduce our debt.  He is a young talented and smart individual who will be made into a monster by the Left, a perfect example of why we cannot have any good people in office because the nastiness of the political climate in this country. Nothing he has proposed would take the money out of granny's pockets, but he has been intelligent enough to see that the current AHA proposal will cost us much more than we can ever afford to pay and destroy a large portion of our jobs and security.  Is plan would salvage MEdicare rather than skeletonize it.

For me, it was a step in the right direction and one that shows that Romney is willing to surround himself with people who are not idealists and socialists but intelligent enough and tough enough to make the choices that will benefit us in the long run.

Of course, for the first six years of the Bush administration, the unemployment rate was kept under at or under 6 percent --  well under six percent.  `Because of the dotcom bomb recession that started under Clinton and the 9/11 attack, the unemployment rate at the start of the Bush administration and receded dramatically for the first six years -- mainly due to the two tax cuts.

Unfortunately, not even tax cuts could rescue the economy from a recession caused when both a Democrat president, a Congress controlled by both parties, and Fannie/Freddie.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Rand Paul's plan for medicare, which may not be Romney's plan, allows patients to keep present day medicare, or choose a voucher.  This assumes that private providers will keep cost rises down as they compete for the vouchers.  As will medicare providers as they compete with those providers.  

Obama plans to take $584 billion over ten years from medicare to fund Obamacare -- that's right loot medicare to fund Obamacare.  There is no plan to save medicare -- none.  To account for the $584 billion, Obama stated they will find cost savings from fraud, waste and abuse (another chorus, please).  This would require a savings of about $1 billion per month over 10 years.  Does anyone believe that will happen!  And, why hasn't the medicare Inspector General done this before?  What's keeping him?

For a notion of what facilities providing medicare will look like, I suggest a trip to Karachi, Pakistan.  

Tour the healthcare facitlies that the shop keepers and such are able to afford -- that's what you will get.  A number of the doctors will even come from Pakistan.  

translation... if you don't vote republican.. obama will take jesus and your guns and your medicine.

more of the wingnuts promoting fear and greed...

i guess we'll see, in november, if anyone still believes this crap!

Translated, you can lead a troll to facts, but you can make him comprehend.

rt. wingnut playbook, page number 19....

if the liberals see through your doom and gloom speech... claim they're just not smart enough to know what's happening...

now, i know this, 6 years into bush's presidency... is still clinton's fault. 30 days into obama's presidency.. it's all obama's fault... 3 years into obama's presidency, bush killed bin laden...

excuse me if i don't seen the pattern here. put blame where's it's due. obama can't fix, in a week, what took republicans 8 years to screw up! and don't worry. america survived 8 years of "dubya"... we can survive anything!

Like I said!

you can lead a rt. wingnut to water, but you can't make them think!