Why do conservatives want Paul Ryan to be vice president?

notlocal wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm registered Independent. Now watching this voter ID back and forth, it's only the dems bitching and suing about having laws and photo ID's to eliminate fraud.
Therefore, I conclude they are conducting the majority of it. Id four years so long you don't remember Acorn?
This country needs a change or go off a fiscal cliff. Obama is under experienced and way over his head. Problem is, no one in the democratic party even realizes it. Look at Pelosi. Need I say more?
Michelle Obama isn't even proud of this country.

With Qillard's only experience being limited to one term as governor of Massachusetts where he left office with onl;y a 36% approval rating, it looks like voters this November will be caught between a rock and a hard place.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>With Qillard's only experience being limited to one term as governor of Massachusetts where he left office with onl;y a 36% approval rating, it looks like voters this November will be caught between a rock and a hard place.

got that right, Romney would be my last choice.

notlocal wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm registered Independent.

Sure you are.

notlocal wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm registered Independent. Now watching this voter ID back and forth, it's only the dems bitching and suing about having laws and photo ID's to eliminate fraud.
Therefore, I conclude they are conducting the majority of it. Id four years so long you don't remember Acorn?
This country needs a change or go off a fiscal cliff. Obama is under experienced and way over his head. Problem is, no one in the democratic party even realizes it. Look at Pelosi. Need I say more?
Michelle Obama isn't even proud of this country.

I refuse to belong to either party as well. Neither support my political position.

It is the GOP that is working overtime to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters, perhaps millions. Yes the dems are whining about it, but not doing so much. The GOP wants to spend millions of our dollars, to prevent one or two illegal votes, and prevent thousands of legal votes simply because those who to whom they are removing the vote don't typically vote for republicans. In fact, it has been observed, the lower the number of people who vote, the more republicans get elected.

With that being said, there is practically no voter fraud. The election judges do a good job. However, there is massive election fraud and neither party is doing anything about it. I suspect voter fraud came up to distract from election fraud. The GOP saw a way to even further gain power, by eliminating the illusion of voting for potentially millions of people and they made the grab.

I do remember acorn. They were trying to get out the vote, and some people decided to cheat. When the culprits were found out, by Acorn they were turned in, by acorn. The GOP heard about the cheat and blamed Acorn for it. You can't believe anything the GOP says.(That doesn't mean you can believe the democrats either, all too often they say the same things.)

notlocal wrote:

<quoted text>
...
This country needs a change or go off a fiscal cliff. Obama is under experienced and way over his head. Problem is, no one in the democratic party even realizes it. Look at Pelosi. Need I say more?
Michelle Obama isn't even proud of this country.

Needs a change? Absolutely. bush started this depression and Obama has done precious little to end it. While Obama is not too good as a president, neither was the last one, or the one before that, or the one before that, or the one before that. Actually bush jr and Reagan were unbelievably damaging to our nation and hundreds of millions of people. They broke so many laws they should have gone to prison.

So, yes, we need a change. Neither Romney, nor Obama is willing to make that change.

Brace yourselves, Floridians -- I imagine you're going to see this exchange a quite a lot on your television screens over the next few months. Here we have Obama nonchalantly confirming that his unaffordable and unpopular healthcare transformation relied on hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts. He wasn't slashing $700 Billion out of (current, not future) Medicare to help that program remain solvent, mind you; he was, er, "re-allocating" that money to help construct a brand new entitlement scheme. The purpose of this eye-popping transfer of dollars, he says, was to ensure that Obamacare would not add a dime to the deficit. In the clip, he affirms that he would have vetoed any bill that added to the deficit, and pledged to bend the overall healthcare cost curve down. A few problems:

(1) Obamacare's price tag is almost double what Democrats said it would be over the first full decade of implementation.

(2) Obamacare does add to the deficit, despite the Medicare raid.(Paul Ryan exposed these accounting gimmicks at the healthcare summit)

(3) The national healthcare cost curve has actually been bent up, with costs expanding faster than if Democrats hadn't passed Obamacare at all.

(4) Medicare "as we know it" is still scheduled to become insolvent in 12 years, absent major reforms.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have a bipartisan plan to save and preserve Medicare. Democrats offer nothing except cuts and rationing. Romney and Ryan plan to repeal the budget-busting, cost-hiking, doctor shortage-intensifiying Obamacare law. This president wants to enshrine it forever, shackling the American people with its consequences. Some liberals are now arguing that Republicans (!) are being disingenuous with their Medicare attacks because Ryan's plan would maintain Obama's cuts. First of all, that's quite a departure from their usual "Republicans = cuts" narrative,Bull Sh*t??????????

Razors Edge wrote:

Brace yourselves, Floridians -- I imagine you're going to see this exchange a quite a lot on your television screens over the next few months. Here we have Obama nonchalantly confirming that his unaffordable and unpopular healthcare transformation relied on hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts. He wasn't slashing $700 Billion out of (current, not future) Medicare to help that program remain solvent, mind you; he was, er, "re-allocating" that money to help construct a brand new entitlement scheme. The purpose of this eye-popping transfer of dollars, he says, was to ensure that Obamacare would not add a dime to the deficit. In the clip, he affirms that he would have vetoed any bill that added to the deficit, and pledged to bend the overall healthcare cost curve down. A few problems:
(1) Obamacare's price tag is almost double what Democrats said it would be over the first full decade of implementation.
(2) Obamacare does add to the deficit, despite the Medicare raid.(Paul Ryan exposed these accounting gimmicks at the healthcare summit)
(3) The national healthcare cost curve has actually been bent up, with costs expanding faster than if Democrats hadn't passed Obamacare at all.
(4) Medicare "as we know it" is still scheduled to become insolvent in 12 years, absent major reforms.
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have a bipartisan plan to save and preserve Medicare. Democrats offer nothing except cuts and rationing. Romney and Ryan plan to repeal the budget-busting, cost-hiking, doctor shortage-intensifiying Obamacare law. This president wants to enshrine it forever, shackling the American people with its consequences. Some liberals are now arguing that Republicans (!) are being disingenuous with their Medicare attacks because Ryan's plan would maintain Obama's cuts. First of all, that's quite a departure from their usual "Republicans = cuts" narrative,Bull Sh*t??????????

Obamacare=Romneycare.

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>Obamacare=Romneycare.

One would imagine "Acorn" And its minions
would be "Persona Non Grata" at the WH??
Instead a Representative,Gaspard has been
Blessed with a Political Appointment from
Obama,The Creator of the Agency,Convicted
of Fraud??? Sadly with our Massiv,and dumbed
down,Great unwashed,We are closing in fast
on being a tragic version of a Banana Republic
those very same we Mocked,and Scorned for their
Stinking,Corrupt Political systems??????

Razors Edge wrote:

<quoted text>
One would imagine "Acorn" And its minions
would be "Persona Non Grata" at the WH??
Instead a Representative,Gaspard has been
Blessed with a Political Appointment from
Obama,The Creator of the Agency,Convicted
of Fraud??? Sadly with our Massiv,and dumbed
down,Great unwashed,We are closing in fast
on being a tragic version of a Banana Republic
those very same we Mocked,and Scorned for their
Stinking,Corrupt Political systems??????

I know your right, when you say "We are closing in fast on being a tragic version of Banana Republic those very same we Mocked,and Scorned for their Stinking,Corrupt Political systems"

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>I know your right, when you say "We are closing in fast on being a tragic version of Banana Republic those very same we Mocked,and Scorned for their Stinking,Corrupt Political systems"

Thanks,

Thought I would back up my post..

The linkages between President Obama, ACORN, the New Party and Working Families Party are too close and longstanding to be a coincidence. Democratic progressive activists may claim that unearthing such links constitutes "smears" and "McCarthyism." But aside from being wrong on their face, such accusations miss the larger context. All political alliances, Left or Right, are "conspiracies" of a small minority designed to attract support from a large majority - in other words, networks. And within the current administration, the common denominator of this network, aside from Obama himself, is Patrick Gaspard. National Review Online columnist Stanley Kurtz notes, "We are talking about a persistent and shared political alliance between President Obama and the complex of community, labor, and party organizations controlled by ACORN." That may be another way of saying that if ACORN is a criminal operation, then crime pays politically as well as economically.

Related:

Kurtz.

Razors Edge wrote:

(4) Medicare "as we know it" is still scheduled to become insolvent in 12 years, absent major reforms.

Medicare is already insolvent; that Ponzi scheme's expenditures have exceeded receipts since 2008, and the difference is papered over by the fiction that a fund exists. Absent Obama's fascistic price controls, which will be even more disastrous than Nixon's and Carter's were, even the fiction would end as early as 2016, when the "fund" runs out.

Romney's advertising has maintained the socialists' fiction in order to score political points, trying to tap into the false sense that any money is owed to those who contributed in past years. It'd be hard to appeal to people on the basis of the truth, which is that they've allowed themselves to become dependent on receiving welfare, in the forms of Social Security and Medicare, in their old age. Both were always welfare programs, not insurance programs.

TDavidHudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Medicare is already insolvent; that Ponzi scheme's expenditures have exceeded receipts since 2008, and the difference is papered over by the fiction that a fund exists. Absent Obama's fascistic price controls, which will be even more disastrous than Nixon's and Carter's were, even the fiction would end as early as 2016, when the "fund" runs out.
Romney's advertising has maintained the socialists' fiction in order to score political points, trying to tap into the false sense that any money is owed to those who contributed in past years. It'd be hard to appeal to people on the basis of the truth, which is that they've allowed themselves to become dependent on receiving welfare, in the forms of Social Security and Medicare, in their old age. Both were always welfare programs, not insurance programs.

Exactly, I agree.

Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/i...

http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/01-13-99....

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>Exactly, I agree.

It makes you wonder why two dishonest morons flagged it as spam and clueless, as it was not only accurate, but also responsive both to a specific posting and also to the main thread. Are they from the corrupt MA GOP, or from among the evil Damnedcrats?

TDavidHudson wrote:

<quoted text>
It makes you wonder why two dishonest morons flagged it as spam and clueless, as it was not only accurate, but also responsive both to a specific posting and also to the main thread. Are they from the corrupt MA GOP, or from among the evil Damnedcrats?

that is your todays Conservatives that Flagged it that way, by no means do todays conservatives represent Conservatism from the 1920's and when post they never have links to counter their argument just propaganda but are no more than the Pseudo Liberals from the past besides Conservatism really changed direction after WW2 and it did for the worst here is an article that was published originally in the Winter 1954-55 issue of The Scholar about Pseudo-Conservative.

The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt

http://theamericanscholar.org/the-pseudo-cons...

if you want to read about true Conservatism here is a PDF explains how conservatism changed and with no intentions of returning to true conservatism.

Classical Conservatism

http://www.fundacionburke.org/wp-content/uplo...

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>that is your todays Conservatives that Flagged it that way, by no means do todays conservatives represent Conservatism from the 1920's and when post they never have links to counter their argument just propaganda but are no more than the Pseudo Liberals from the past besides Conservatism really changed direction after WW2 and it did for the worst here is an article that was published originally in the Winter 1954-55 issue of The Scholar about Pseudo-Conservative.
The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt
http://theamericanscholar.org/the-pseudo-cons...
if you want to read about true Conservatism here is a PDF explains how conservatism changed and with no intentions of returning to true conservatism.
Classical Conservatism
http://www.fundacionburke.org/wp-content/uplo...

ARe you familar with Edmund Burke the father of Conservatism?
He stated that a Conservative is nt against change but wants it to be gradual and natural.

californio wrote:

<quoted text> ARe you familar with Edmund Burke the father of Conservatism?
He stated that a Conservative is nt against change but wants it to be gradual and natural.

yeap, todays Conservatism & Conservatives are no where close in his views.

conservative adjective ( AGAINST CHANGE )

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/br...

The Conservative Social and Political Forces in the 1920s

http://www.articlesbase.com/history-articles/...

Edmund Burke: The Father of Conservatism

http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-acti...

TDavidHudson wrote:

<quoted text>
It makes you wonder why two dishonest morons flagged it as spam and clueless, as it was not only accurate, but also responsive both to a specific posting and also to the main thread. Are they from the corrupt MA GOP, or from among the evil Damnedcrats?

Another Liberscarium aka Republiscum who want to 'smoke dope and get laid.'

OregonSUX wrote:

<quoted text>
Another Liberscarium aka Republiscum who want to 'smoke dope and get laid.'

In my personal life I'm no doubt far more moral than you -- and from the libertarians I've known, it's likely that the majority of them are, too.

And for the record, I don't take illegal drugs. I'm just nowhere near mindless or ignorant enough -- as the vast majority of Democrats and probably still a majority of Republicans are nowadays -- to believe that government plays a positive role in most areas.

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>yeap, todays Conservatism & Conservatives are no where close in his views.
conservative adjective ( AGAINST CHANGE )
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/br...
The Conservative Social and Political Forces in the 1920s
http://www.articlesbase.com/history-articles/...
Edmund Burke: The Father of Conservatism
http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-acti...

Read them.
First I am a conservative dresser and always have. I see no reason to pay $100 for a pair of tennis shoes or $200 for a shirt when one a tenth of that price will do the job. Fashion labels are the biggest rip off crooks in the modern world.
AndAnd what conservatives want in the 20's has nothing to do with what I want.
At least move up to the 60's when Barry Goldwater was around as he is one I do admire.
And although I dont agree with all of Edmund Burke position I do admire him and feel he should be studied.

californio wrote:

<quoted text>
Read them.
First I am a conservative dresser and always have. I see no reason to pay $100 for a pair of tennis shoes or $200 for a shirt when one a tenth of that price will do the job. Fashion labels are the biggest rip off crooks in the modern world.
AndAnd what conservatives want in the 20's has nothing to do with what I want.
At least move up to the 60's when Barry Goldwater was around as he is one I do admire.
And although I dont agree with all of Edmund Burke position I do admire him and feel he should be studied.

"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, but against the new and untried?"

Abraham Lincoln's Cooper Institute Address, February 27, 1860

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/linco...

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society