Ryan Makes 5 Campaign Stops in Virginia In 6 Days - NBC29 WVIR Charlottesville, VA News, Sports a...

Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan wrapped up a full day of campaigning in Virginia Friday, just six days after Mitt Romney introduced Ryan as his running mate in Norfolk. Full Story
First Prev
of 5
Next Last
god fearer

Charlottesville, VA

#1 Aug 18, 2012
PARDON, but

Honorable Mr Ryan, a nominal Roman Catholic, has exuded worshipful praise for Ayn Rand - a prominent radical ANTI-CHRISTIAN - praising her more than any respect he has expressed for any Catholic teaching or any Catholic saint.

Ayn Rand, about whom Mr Ryan expresses worshipful praise has said that 'the weak should not be loved'.

Mr Ryan's plans, indeed, express this value: that the weak should not be loved. Who are the weak: the sick, the elderly, the disabled and impaired, victims of prejudice and oppression, infants and children, etc. Mr Ryan's plans would mangle support systems by while the weak can live.

Like so many, Mr Ryan expresses support to oppose abortion - the unborn are indeed among the weak - BUT his plans mangle support for infants and their families after the unborn are born, exposing his deviant hypocrisy, and the deviance of the Virginia Family Foundation and other such groups. Even TEA Parties, which express an interest in rights of human dignity, appear to care-less about the born after they are born. There is no greater perversion than claiming to respect the rights of human dignity, while contributing to the mangling of human rights. The Creator of our human rights, no doubt, sees these perversions.

Ms Palin warned about 'death panels' hidden in the Affordable Care Act. That was incorrect, by the facts. BUT, the very FACTS of Mr Ryan's plans indicate that the Republicans wish to become a OVERLORD PANELS implementing the ANTI-CHRISTIAN Ayn Rand's rule: THE WEAK SHOULD NOT BE LOVED.

The Republican's bumper sticker this year could be:
THE WEAK SHOULD NOT BE LOVED.

Nothing is more ANTI-CHRISTIAN than that.
dimview

Buffalo, NY

#2 Aug 18, 2012
The G.O.P. is a nasty place when it comes to the religiously extreme end of the party.
it's more bitter and more anti-everyone than anti-christian
hell im an agnostic in that the only honest answer is i don't know
you attack on ryans faith such that it is displays a portion
of whats wrong with the concept of using religion as a political tool
the only outcome is you abusing your faith and making others wonder if your faith is based on politics and cheap shots.
Your concept of faith is really too agressive not to have some of this in it.
Jefferson and Franklin were agnostic and believed in a more private and there for
pure vision of faith in the lives of people.

Ryan in Virginia no brainer

Romney will need to win 4 of the 5 really undecided states...
Virgina, N. Carolina Florida are all up for grabs and in the 'bible' belt
ryan will live in the state untill november
gimmeabreak

Charlottesville, VA

#3 Aug 18, 2012
I would venture to say that anything is better than what we've had for the last 3.5 years. Obama enticed a lot of women and young voters with his age, coolness factor, and his smooth and articulate voice of "hope and change". What a joke! I know that most, if not all, politicians will say what they need to say to get into office, but this man has single-handedly taken the cake. I did not vote for him in 2008 and WILL NOT vote for him this year. I would've voted for Hillary Clinton before I ever voted for him. I just can't believe the people who are still following him, seeing as what he's done to this wonderful country. I've been watching some of the campaign speeches from both sides, and I'm sorry, but it seems Obama/Biden has been dividing this country more than bringing us together. I'm not a racist - wasn't raised one, but the whole idea of him going on national tv and saying "If I had a son, I would imagine he'd look like Trayvon (Martin)". What? How do you know what he'd look like? I couldn't believe my ears. What was he trying to say? Was he saying that because he was an African-American? Was he condemning that travesty because the child was African-American? He should've condemned it because one human being took another human being's life. Unfortunately, there were other circumstances to the shooting death of this teenager, but it is always sad, no matter what the circumstances, when one person takes another's life. There are people killed every day that we never hear about, but this became a huge issue, not to mention a racial issue. It didn't have to. Why do people label one another? We are all human beings, and all Americans.
god fearer

Charlottesville, VA

#4 Aug 18, 2012
gimmeabreak wrote:
I would venture to say that anything is better than what we've had for the last 3.5 years. Obama enticed a lot of women and young voters with his age, coolness factor, and his smooth and articulate voice of "hope and change". What a joke! I know that most, if not all, politicians will say what they need to say to get into office, but this man has single-handedly taken the cake. I did not vote for him in 2008 and WILL NOT vote for him this year. I would've voted for Hillary Clinton before I ever voted for him. I just can't believe the people who are still following him, seeing as what he's done to this wonderful country. I've been watching some of the campaign speeches from both sides, and I'm sorry, but it seems Obama/Biden has been dividing this country more than bringing us together. I'm not a racist - wasn't raised one, but the whole idea of him going on national tv and saying "If I had a son, I would imagine he'd look like Trayvon (Martin)". What? How do you know what he'd look like? I couldn't believe my ears. What was he trying to say? Was he saying that because he was an African-American? Was he condemning that travesty because the child was African-American? He should've condemned it because one human being took another human being's life. Unfortunately, there were other circumstances to the shooting death of this teenager, but it is always sad, no matter what the circumstances, when one person takes another's life. There are people killed every day that we never hear about, but this became a huge issue, not to mention a racial issue. It didn't have to. Why do people label one another? We are all human beings, and all Americans.
PARDON,
'human beings' who adopt the philosophy of Ayn Rand - that the weak should not be loved - as has Mr Ryan and his followers,
are poor examples of humanity. They are certainly not protectors of human rights (as they may claim). And, they are certainly followers of Jesus, who has said the perfect opposite of 'the weak should not be loved'.

Even in your plea to stop labelling others -'we are all Americans'- you create labels. Are immigrants who have lived here their entire lives 'Americans'? If they are, why can't they vote when legal age? Are poor Americans treated like 'Americans'? In most ways, they are not: they are the expendable in the American economy - a 'wasting asset' in economic language. It gets complicated. Perhaps you prefer the motto 'the weak should not be loved' since it minimizes labels:'the weak','the strong'.

It is ok to say so. Mr Ryan has said so. His party has said so. The Republican slogan has become:'the weak should not be loved'.
heh

Charlottesville, VA

#5 Aug 18, 2012
"Putting the Ryan budget at the center of the 2012 election has the tactical benefit of forcing Republicans to defend an unpopular proposal; more important, it has the long-term strategic benefit of potentially discrediting the Ryan budget as a political document. Prior to Ryan joining the ticket, a Romney loss seemed likely to strengthen the Republican Party’s conservative wing, because the defeat would be blamed on Romney’s moderate past.

Now, if the Romney-Ryan ticket loses, it will vindicate skeptics of the party’s rightward shift, potentially strengthening the party’s moderates.

But if Obama loses, Republicans will have won the presidency with a mandate to enact a deeply conservative agenda. Left to his own devices, Romney might have been a relatively pragmatic and cautious president.

Instead, the Obama administration’s three-year effort to enshrine the Ryan budget at the heart of the Republican Party would prove to have been a crucial push toward enacting that budget into law."

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/08/17/3767372/...
Stop spreading lies

Green Bay, VA

#6 Aug 18, 2012
Jefferson and Franklin were agnostic

Jefferson called himself a Christian, according to his own writings now kept at the Jefferson library close to Monticello.
Stop spreading lies

Green Bay, VA

#7 Aug 18, 2012
'human beings' who adopt the philosophy of Ayn Rand - that the weak should not be loved

The Democrats have long held that bigot Margaret Sanger up as some kind of saint, when she was motivated by eugenics, not compassion for women, and started Planned Parenthood as a way to get rid of poor people, especially poor black people. She wrote some hateful bizarre stuff about black people. I'm shocked that MS is held is such high esteem by the Democrat party.
god fearer

Charlottesville, VA

#8 Aug 18, 2012
Stop spreading lies wrote:
Jefferson and Franklin were agnostic
Jefferson called himself a Christian, according to his own writings now kept at the Jefferson library close to Monticello.
And, of course Mormons call themselves Christian ... despite exceptional variance from historical Christian beliefs and practices under the Nicene Creed. And, plenty of congregations in the Confederacy called themselves Christian, while owning people as slaves - buying and selling children, raping enslaved women and men. And, Roman Catholics called themselves Christians while waging centuries of brutal Inquisition - murdering countless women as 'witches' or 'free thinkers'- burning Jews alive in pogroms, and waging war on Protestants (including Anabaptist Protestants who had pledged non-violence as living out the example of Jesus Christ).

So, indeed, Mr Jefferson may call himself Christian.

But, what does that mean?
Gru

United States

#10 Aug 18, 2012
It is truly sad (and a little frightening) to see how many people out there DO NOT think for themselves, and consistently buy what the Liberal media spoons out to them. Sorry to say little suckling babies, but we are trying our hardest to yank that government teat out of your mouths. Time to grow up and do for yourselves.
hondacivic

Staunton, VA

#11 Aug 18, 2012
gimmeabreak wrote:
I would venture to say that anything is better than what we've had for the last 3.5 years. Obama enticed a lot of women and young voters with his age, coolness factor, and his smooth and articulate voice of "hope and change". What a joke! I know that most, if not all, politicians will say what they need to say to get into office, but this man has single-handedly taken the cake. I did not vote for him in 2008 and WILL NOT vote for him this year. I would've voted for Hillary Clinton before I ever voted for him. I just can't believe the people who are still following him, seeing as what he's done to this wonderful country. I've been watching some of the campaign speeches from both sides, and I'm sorry, but it seems Obama/Biden has been dividing this country more than bringing us together. I'm not a racist - wasn't raised one, but the whole idea of him going on national tv and saying "If I had a son, I would imagine he'd look like Trayvon (Martin)". What? How do you know what he'd look like? I couldn't believe my ears. What was he trying to say? Was he saying that because he was an African-American? Was he condemning that travesty because the child was African-American? He should've condemned it because one human being took another human being's life. Unfortunately, there were other circumstances to the shooting death of this teenager, but it is always sad, no matter what the circumstances, when one person takes another's life. There are people killed every day that we never hear about, but this became a huge issue, not to mention a racial issue. It didn't have to. Why do people label one another? We are all human beings, and all Americans.
Obviously you haven't been paying attention. Romney is the one who will say whatever it takes to get into office. He changes his position on everything depending on what his crowd is. It is also the republicans who have been determined not to bring the country together. Their goal from the day of Obama's inauguration has been to oppose everything in the attempt to make sure Obama is a one term President. The dinner on the night of inauguration with Newt, Cantor, Ryan, etc the republican party plan was placed. Their goal was never to work with him. The amount of filibusters is proof of their goal. You can say that Obama is dividing the country, but don't turn a blind eye to where the blame lies.

For the comment on Treyvon Martin made by Obama, it is what any rational parent would make. "What if that was my child?" For people to insist that this is some type of racial comment is totally false.
Rush MAddow

Hillsville, VA

#12 Aug 18, 2012
> Not FOX News
> Must be liberal media

Get back in the pen, sheep.
thinkingfree

Charlottesville, VA

#13 Aug 18, 2012
Anyone, that means anyone, who actually listens to these politicians and takes anything they have to say seriously is a complete fool. These guys will say anything to get elected. If you think Obama is bad, let one of these guys rule the roost.
god fearer

Charlottesville, VA

#14 Aug 18, 2012
Gru wrote:
It is truly sad (and a little frightening) to see how many people out there DO NOT think for themselves, and consistently buy what the Liberal media spoons out to them. Sorry to say little suckling babies, but we are trying our hardest to yank that government teat out of your mouths. Time to grow up and do for yourselves.
WHAT is this ridiculous imagery all about? No one can understand what you are talking about.

Sounds like you want infants ('suckling babies') to be starved to death.

So, is that what you are talking about?
Habib

Charlottesville, VA

#15 Aug 18, 2012
Romney and Ryan will be the start of a monarchy. The only people that matter to them are the people that can make them more wealthy and powerful.
god fearer

Charlottesville, VA

#16 Aug 18, 2012
Stop spreading lies wrote:
'human beings' who adopt the philosophy of Ayn Rand - that the weak should not be loved
The Democrats have long held that bigot Margaret Sanger up as some kind of saint, when she was motivated by eugenics, not compassion for women, and started Planned Parenthood as a way to get rid of poor people, especially poor black people. She wrote some hateful bizarre stuff about black people. I'm shocked that MS is held is such high esteem by the Democrat party.
Thank you for helping many people understand that they need to investigate contemporary people who triumph eugenics.

Please state the names of any contemporary Democrats who quote Margaret Sanger as someone who shaped their beliefs, policies, and practices. If you can't then stop saying that 'all Democrats' believe something. This is simply a lie. Stop lying.

On the other hand, Mr Ryan is widely quoted giving worshipful praise of Ayn Rand.

Here is transcript of Mr Ryan's worshipful praise of her and appreciate of her profound influence on him:

http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/blog/2012/04/...

And, here is Ayn Rand talking about her beliefs:

&fe ature=related

she says that
- altruism (care for the needs of others) is evil
- she opposes anything that promotes or supports altruism
- self-esteem requires that the weak should not be loved
- there are exceeding few humans who have ever lived who deserve to be loved
- altruism is a form of enslavement
and, while discussing how the American Founders did not believe in coercion,
- she fails to consider at all that many Founders relied on slave labor to gain wealth and power [ so after all her talky talk, in which she insists only reason should be entertained in argument, she completely neglects to cite a primary fact of American history: centuries of slavery ]
Civil Discourse

Charlottesville, VA

#17 Aug 18, 2012
Habib wrote:
Romney and Ryan will be the start of a monarchy. The only people that matter to them are the people that can make them more wealthy and powerful.
Agree! There are many die-hard republicans that would like our country to be a one party system, The Republicans. Think of the implications of that. As imperfect as our two party system is, everyone has a fighting chance.

“Don't Drink The Obama Kool-Aid”

Since: Aug 09

You don't need to know, Va.

#18 Aug 18, 2012
Approximately 37 seconds after the announcement that Paul Ryan had been chosen as Mitt Romney’s VP, the media began to murmur — and then shout — about Ryan’s outspoken praise of the novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged.(See, for example, Newsweek’s take on Ryan’s devotion to Rand as revealing a coming “War on the Weak.”)

Is Ryan waging a “war on the weak,” using Ayn Rand as his inspiration?

No, I do not think so at all. But Ryan needs to make clear what he accepts in Rand and very, very clear about what he rejects. Rand was an atheist, a devout enemy of Christianity, and she rooted her entire philosophic affirmation of capitalism in pure selfishness.

So, what could Ryan possibly find attractive in Ayn Rand?

As it turns out, that’s exactly what I asked Paul Ryan about two years ago in a personal interview on Capitol Hill.

Before we get to that, here’s a little important background.

Before the interview, I had just published Ten Books Every Conservative Must Read, Plus Four Not to Miss and One Impostor. The “impostor” was — you guessed it — Ayn Rand. In my chapter on Rand, I tried to be as fair as possible. Before showing why she must ultimately be rejected, I offered an account of what’s good in Rand’s philosophy. That’s important because a whole lot of people — including Paul Ryan — have found Rand’s philosophy (called “objectivism”) very attractive. We need to understand why because her dark side is really dark.

I gave Ryan a complimentary copy of my book. During the interview, I said to him:“Ayn Rand has been a great influence on you, but there’s dark and light in her.”

He replied:“I am by no means an objectivist; I am a Catholic, you know. I am nothing close to an objectivist, but I do think Ayn Rand did a service, did a great job of outlining the morality of capitalism, of making the moral case for freedom, free enterprise and capitalism. You don’t have to buy into all the objectivist stuff to appreciate what she did on that front.”

Ryan went on to affirm the need for a moral basis of free enterprise and to express his great appreciation of other conservative economic thinkers who were much more acceptable to Catholic moral and economic principles (such as Friedrich von Hayek). Several times, Ryan emphasized that our current economic maladies are the result of moral failures on our part and that there will be no economic recovery until there is a moral recovery. He also confirmed his deep appreciation of the Catholic economic principle of subsidiarity (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1883-1885).

What’s my take on Ryan, for whatever that’s worth? I would say that he is not an advocate of an economic system based upon pure selfishness. He certainly doesn’t accept Rand’s atheism. He is not out to wage a “war on the weak.” His affirmation of Rand is qualified. The question is regarding how: How is it qualified?

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-paul...
Meh

Charlottesville, VA

#19 Aug 18, 2012
I'm beginning to forget that Romney is the one who's running for president. Instead of a Pitbull in Lipstick, we now have a PitMitt who's the fighter that Romney isn't. I see trouble brewing, such as Ryanization.
thinkingfree

Charlottesville, VA

#20 Aug 18, 2012
Gru wrote:
It is truly sad (and a little frightening) to see how many people out there DO NOT think for themselves, and consistently buy what the Liberal media spoons out to them. Sorry to say little suckling babies, but we are trying our hardest to yank that government teat out of your mouths. Time to grow up and do for yourselves.
Wait till you get old and grey and a complete stranger has to come and wipe your arse, maybe then you'll get off your high horse.
Dude

Bumpass, VA

#21 Aug 18, 2012
Stop spreading lies wrote:
Jefferson and Franklin were agnostic
Jefferson called himself a Christian, according to his own writings now kept at the Jefferson library close to Monticello.
Sarcastically, in effect saying that no one is a Christian. What you're referring to is what David Barton wrote; even Christian scholars have thrown Barton's credibility into question. Even his own publishers have pulled his book out due to lack of credibility, and before then it was considered, "the least credible history book in print."
.

.
The above link is from a Christian film company and has been researched by Christian scholars. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, skip forward to 02:03:00 which addresses David Barton's claims. Skip to 02:14:00 if you want what Jefferson meant by saying that he was a "Christian."
.
You're going to believe what you're going to believe, but remember, just because you want something to be so, doesn't make it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Romney Leads Scattered 2016 GOP Field, Clinton ... 6 min Black Rhino 54
Why They Hate Obama (Aug '13) 3 hr EasyEed 12,318
Who is the worst president since WWII ? 6 hr VN Vet 935
Bob McDonnell: Mitt Romney will win Virginia (Apr '12) 18 hr swedenforever 9
On third endorsement, Cain backs Romney (May '12) Mon Bee Eff Dee 24
Cain says he won't drop out of GOP race (Nov '11) Mon Bee Eff Dee 266
Romney Has Zero Percent Support From African Am... (Aug '12) Mon Swedenforever 827

Mitt Romney People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE