Paul Ryan

[BPTactical]

Well Mittens made his choice, Paul Ryan from Wisconsin.
Discuss in a civil matter.

[Bailey Guns]

Outstanding choice. Our economy thanks him for choosing Ryan.

[SuperiorDG]

Got some reading to do. Don't know anything about him.

[Pancho Villa]

Meh.

His "radical plan" to balance the budget is to grow it a little less fast for a decade and hope no one notices. Also to hope the US economy bounces back - hard.

Hardly radical, though it's convenient for both sides to say it was. I guess Mitt is feeling his lack of chops on the economic side, though. Wisconsin isn't a swing state, is it?

[Bailey Guns]

In this day any proposal to reduce or limit the size of gov't growth is radical.

[Pancho Villa]

In this day any proposal to reduce or limit the size of gov't growth is radical.

I understand. There are political realities. But I really do believe we're nearing the point where we either make a genuinely radical change or reality will force that radical change on us.

[BPTactical]

Wisconsin is a swing state.
I need to do some homework on him as well. I know he and BHO have clashed and he is a thorn in the side to the first degree to the Dems.
Hopefully energizes the conservative base.

[Bailey Guns]

I understand. There are political realities. But I really do believe we're nearing the point where we either make a genuinely radical change or reality will force that radical change on us.

Ummm...I think that already happened in Nov 2008.

[jackthewall81]

Good pick, will be voting for Mittens now.

[JohnTRourke]

I understand. There are political realities. But I really do believe we're nearing the point where we either make a genuinely radical change or reality will force that radical change on us.


ayep. continuing down teh same road still runs over the cliff.

and no one, and i mean NO ONE wants to face facts.

Ryan isn't a bad choice, but he's not exciting. He is however, serious, which is a big improvement over biden.

[Bailey Guns]

Got some reading to do. Don't know anything about him.

This may be the best VP pick in my lifetime:

The following is a brief biography of Rep. Paul Ryan, selected to be Mitt Romney's running mate.
Political
* Currently serving seventh term as a member of Congress.
* Ryan was little known outside Janesville when he ran for
Congress in 1998 at age 28. He captured 57 percent of the vote.
* Ryan's first budget plan, which he called "Roadmap for
America's Future," was released in 2010.
* Early in his career as a representative to Congress, Ryan
held office hours in an old truck he converted into an office.
* Ryan was the legislative director for Sen. Sam Brownback
of Kansas, 1995-1997.


Personal
* Born and raised in the community of Janesville; Ryan is a
fifth-generation Wisconsin native.
* Ryan moonlighted on Capitol Hill as a waiter at the Tortilla Coast
restaurant and as a fitness trainer at Washington Sport and Health
Club.
* One of Ryan's summer jobs in college was as an Oscar Mayer
salesman in Minnesota, peddling turkey bacon and a new line
called "Lunchables" to supermarkets.
* Ryan worked as a marketing consultant for his family's construction business before being elected to Congress. The company -- Ryan Incorporated Central -- began as an earthmoving business created by his great-grandfather in 1884.
* Ryan's hobbies include hunting and fishing. He is a bowhunter and belongs to his hometown's archery association - the Janesville Bowmen.
* For fun, Ryan noodles catfish, catching them barehanded with a fist down their throats.
* Ryan listens to Rage Against the Machine and Led Zeppelin



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/11/biography-rep-paul-ryan/#ixzz23FUdwcgb

[yankeefan98121]

Not in love with the pick, but I still stand with my "anybody but cuntlips (berry)" vote regardless

[bogie]

He's pretty sharp and at least he's got more gonads than some of those other jokers. Mitt could have done worse.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U1l-7FjTWbo/TqHHHVKRJdI/AAAAAAAADgA/-Mqs0QRhXc8/s1600/ryan-obama.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oZrjoSXIaDg/TZus5aBc28I/AAAAAAAAA5Y/huoyl02IFkM/s1600/paulryan.jpg

[wctriumph]

No changes here, same old Repub/Dumbocrat BS. Military will get it budget, no programs will be cut, money will continue to be wasted and borrowing from other countries will not lessen.

TEA

is the only chance to start turning things around.

[Scanker19]

I don't trust people with two first names.


Edit: How did this post get ahead of the two post after it that I read before posting this one 6mins after it says it did?

[4gunfun]

Dang, I wanted John McCain [ROFL1][ROFL2][ROFL3] Great pick! Ryan can actually write a budget unlike BHO.

[stevelkinevil]

as others have said "meh"

[bryjcom]

Meh.... he won't change a thing...

[Bailey Guns]

Meh.

His "radical plan" to balance the budget is to grow it a little less fast for a decade and hope no one notices. Also to hope the US economy bounces back - hard.

Hardly radical, though it's convenient for both sides to say it was. I guess Mitt is feeling his lack of chops on the economic side, though. Wisconsin isn't a swing state, is it?

Forgot to mention...

The plan calls for cutting gov't spending by $5 Trillion over the next 10 years. I don't care how you slice it, that's a pretty significant amount. It also calls for reducing the corporate tax rate by 10 percentage points to 25% and for instituting two individual tax brackets...10% and 25%.

Those are some pretty radical steps. Probably more necessary at this point than radical.


Meh.... he won't change a thing...

Yeah...move along. Nothing to see in a $5 Trillion spending cut.

[kanekutter05]

I'm excited about the pick if for no other reason than Ryan pisses off the unions and dems as much (if not more than) Palin did. I like pissing dems off [Coffee]

[sniper7]

Excellent choice!

[yankeefan98121]

Yeah...move along. Nothing to see in a $5 Trillion spending cut.

Yeah it's only a third of the deficit hahaha that's not a lot of money

[Scanker19]

I like pissing dems off [Coffee]

That might be the reason why our country is so jacked up. Rather than working towards a common goal, it's us vs them. Which party can one up the other. Whose cojonees are bigger.

[kanekutter05]

I guess Mitt is feeling his lack of chops on the economic side, though.

Actually don't you think he picked someone like Ryan to stack the deck in the GOP's favor since the economy is far and away the biggest issue of the election?

Pick two economic minded guys...that to me says we're serious about fixing the economy and that will be the focus from day 1.

Oh man...cannot WAIT to see Biden try and debate Ryan. That's going to be classic!

[Pancho Villa]

Forgot to mention...

The plan calls for cutting gov't spending by $5 Trillion over the next 10 years. I don't care how you slice it, that's a pretty significant amount.

You forget how it works.

What he's calling for is the government to grow by $5 trillion less than it's projected to grow. There are no actual cuts in the budget.

If I spend $100,000 this year, and plan to spend $120,000 next, but then spend $115,000, I have not made a $5,000 "cut in spending," I grew my spending by $15,000. That is Paul Ryan's plan in a nutshell, and both sides are happy to continue the fiction that they are genuine cuts. The Dems, to scare their base, and the GOP to pretend they are serious about balancing the budget.


It also calls for reducing the corporate tax rate by 10 percentage points to 25% and for instituting two individual tax brackets...10% and 25%.

That would be nice, if he can get it passed.

[Bailey Guns]

I didn't forget how it works. I said "cut gov't spending" by 5 trillion. That's exactly what his plan calls for. I didn't say reduce the size of the current gov't by that amount.

Would you rather the spending cuts not take place or would you rather know the gov't is spending 5 trillion less over the next 10 years?

[JohnTRourke]

Forgot to mention...

The plan calls for cutting gov't spending by $5 Trillion over the next 10 years. I don't care how you slice it, that's a pretty significant amount. It also calls for reducing the corporate tax rate by 10 percentage points to 25% and for instituting two individual tax brackets...10% and 25%.

Those are some pretty radical steps. Probably more necessary at this point than radical.



Yeah...move along. Nothing to see in a $5 Trillion spending cut.

5 trillion over 10 years is 500 billion

our deficit (without counting medicare/medicaid/ss) is over 1.3 trillion a year.

and of course, since it's over 10 years, there will be nothing the first 3 or 4 years and all backloaded, which will never happen.

it's a nice plan, but not only will it not pass, it's not even close to being enough.

the word you are looking for is doomed.

[Bailey Guns]

That might be the reason why our country is so jacked up. Rather than working towards a common goal, it's us vs them. Which party can one up the other. Whose cojonees are bigger.

I don't have anything in common with the democratic platform and don't want republicans working towards any common goals with liberals. I want them pushing the conservative agenda hard and walking all over the liberal agenda.

You may feel differently.

[Goodburbon]

I see Pancho is picking up my slack here.

Carry on.

[Pancho Villa]

I didn't forget how it works. I said "cut gov't spending" by 5 trillion. That's exactly what his plan calls for. I didn't say reduce the size of the current gov't by that amount.

Would you rather the spending cuts not take place or would you rather know the gov't is spending 5 trillion less over the next 10 years?

I would rather genuine cuts take place than the nothing that is this promise.

I don't believe anything a politician says that he doesn't immediately do, and "I promise we'll grow it a little less fast over 10 years" is complete and utter bullshit. It's not happening, it's just a nice little fantasy to wave at fiscal conservatives.

We're driving off a cliff either way, reducing the speed by 5mph doesn't materially change where we're going. Get back to me when a serious politician pops up instead of someone playing at being fiscally responsible.

[bryjcom]

Yeah...move along. Nothing to see in a $5 Trillion spending cut.


$5 trillion in spending cuts??? Don't you mean $5 trillion in cuts to proposed spending increases??

His plan wouldn't balance the budget until 2040.


Wake up man..... all we have to do is go back to 2005 federal budget to balance the budget. Its a effing sham....

[Pancho Villa]

While I'm not really anti-war, this infographic is informative:

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/347/31190143095733029053316.jpg

[kanekutter05]

I don't have anything in common with the democratic platform and don't want republicans working towards any common goals with liberals. I want them pushing the conservative agenda hard and walking all over the liberal agenda.

You may feel differently.

Bailey...I double apologize from before because you in fact kick ass pretty hardcore.

[flan7211]

He might have a few issues but overall decent choice. He'll embarrass Joe Biden. Combined with the WI special election, he might bring the cheese state in the red column.

[cebeu]

I'm no stranger to Ryan, his philosophy and his record and I consider this a reasonable decision. The comment shared prior; "serious," I find that to be an accurate characterization of the selection.

While initially I’m reluctant to believe this specific choice will be a game-changer at the polls nationally, it does magnify the fact that a healthy focus on Fiscal Policy will be a cornerstone of any future Romney Administration, a stark distinction from the Socialist regime now in-place.

[onebadfx4]

I think anything but BHO is ok at this point. This country cannot afford the deficit to double again if he gets another 4 years in office. We also cant afford the rediculous gun laws he will try to pass as well.

Our government has gotten much bigger than it was designed to be. The ONLY way for the budget to be fixed is to overhaul the welfare and unemployment programs. 60% of our national spending is to social programs. There are to many free loaders mooching off hard working Americans. Until the countries leadership finds a way to fix that, we will always have these problems.

[Scanker19]

I don't have anything in common with the democratic platform and don't want republicans working towards any common goals with liberals. I want them pushing the conservative agenda hard and walking all over the liberal agenda.

You may feel differently.

My way or the high way. That's the liberal mindset isn't it?

[Singlestack]

* For fun, Ryan noodles catfish, catching them barehanded with a fist down their throats.

In the political sense, this could read:

For fun, Ryan noodles Democrats, catching them barehanded with a fist down their throats

Ryan seems fine to me, but I really think the VP choice is overrated. Heck, even Beeho got elected choosing one of the stupidest idiots of all time.

Singlestack

[clark]

I gotta say I would take the frikin shoe off of my foot and vote for it before I ever placed a vote for the current idiot in charge, My dog would make a better potus than BHO. I am tired of being lied to every time he opens his mouth. I am willing to trust someone unproven over this idiot that has already proven himself. I guess you can tell which way I am voting regardless of who is VP or not.

[buffalobo]

5 trillion over 10 years is 500 billion

our deficit (without counting medicare/medicaid/ss) is over 1.3 trillion a year.

and of course, since it's over 10 years, there will be nothing the first 3 or 4 years and all backloaded, which will never happen.

it's a nice plan, but not only will it not pass, it's not even close to being enough.

the word you are looking for is doomed.


^This^ and a meh, little chance of happening even with repub majority in congress.

[Bailey Guns]

My way or the high way. That's the liberal mindset isn't it?

Maybe. But do you think liberals want to compromise on anything they want?

[roberth]

Outstanding choice. Our economy thanks him for choosing Ryan.

Agreed.

[Sharpienads]

^This^ and a meh, little chance of happening even with repub majority in congress.

So what's the alternative? You say that Ryan's plan has little chance to pass even with Reps, and in the same breath say its not enough. At least its a step in the right direction. I would love to see government spending slashed and most departments disbanded. But its not gonna happen overnight. We have to start somewhere.

[Sharpienads]

It would have been better if he had chosen Jack Ryan. Just sayin [Coffee]

[ROFL1] awesome.

[Danimal]

I think that it is a great choice. I think that he is smart, capable, and if given the right senate and house the two of them can really do some good for the country. I am not crazy about Mitt, but if he surrounds himself with the right people I think that this election cycle could be a bigger swing than the last midterm election. We will have to hope and pray that they can manage to get elected and actually do some good for the country. I don't expect a lot, but if they get in there and do as much as they can and take action to implement sound economic policy, the results will speak for themselves.

I think that Paul Ryan was the best choice that he could have made.

[Danimal]

While I'm not really anti-war, this infographic is informative:

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/347/31190143095733029053316.jpg

I need to do a little research, but I would not doubt that that graphic is completely false propaganda. There are at least three things on there that I have seen him adamantly oppose in debates. All I am saying is that you might fact check that one before you believe it any more than your average Obummer speech...


It would have been better if he had chosen Jack Ryan. Just sayin [Coffee]

Well obviously.

[cstone]

It would have been better if he had chosen Jack Ryan. Just sayin [Coffee]

[hatidua]

We're driving off a cliff either way, reducing the speed by 5mph doesn't materially change where we're going.

I hope you're wrong, but fear you're right.

[BPTactical]

One of the indicators of a good Manager/Leader is placing capable persons in the correct positions.
Obama has failed miserably at this essential managerial skill.

I think that this is one area Romney will shine, and is off to a good start with this choice.

[Bailey Guns]

We've also got some good Tea Party candidates coming up on the ballot in the US senate and house. Ted Cruz from TX comes to mind.

And it is a start. A few strong Tea Party candidates this year, a few more 2 years from now...next thing you know the Tea Party might be that viable, strong, constitutionally minded 3rd party many of us want.

But, it has to happen within the current system and it's gonna take some time.

It's a start.

[stevelkinevil]

We've also got some good Tea Party candidates coming up on the ballot in the US senate and house. Ted Cruz from TX comes to mind.

And it is a start. A few strong Tea Party candidates this year, a few more 2 years from now...next thing you know the Tea Party might be that viable, strong, constitutionally minded 3rd party many of us want.

But, it has to happen within the current system and it's gonna take some time.

It's a start.

Wow I cant believe I am saying this, but Bailey, well said and I agree. I honestly think it will be way to long a road and that the rep establishment will fight it tooth and nail especially since the rep standard has been drifting left for several years. [Beer]

[bryjcom]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/527184_507896695902878_1215434337_n.jpg

[Bailey Guns]

Wow I cant believe I am saying this, but Bailey, well said and I agree. I honestly think it will be way to long a road and that the rep establishment will fight it tooth and nail especially since the rep standard has been drifting left for several years. [Beer]

Thanks. I'm sure they will fight it. But if it works and it's what the people want eventually they're gonna lose that fight. They lost in TX and a few other states already.

It won't be long until the Tea Part IS the Republican Party.

But it's up to the people to vote for them. The real battle really won't be changing the republican side...though that'll be a fight, for sure. The real battle will be defeating the liberal mentality that's so deeply ingrained in about 40% of the electorate. Hell...you need look no further than to some on this forum to know that's true.

[Bailey Guns]

If a republican claims to be tea party, He's a wolf claiming to be in sheep's clothing until he proves otherwise.

How do you figure that? Considering the "Tea Party" isn't an official party it's pretty hard to get on the ballot as a Tea Party candidate. Almost all Tea Party candidates run as republicans.

[Goodburbon]

If a republican claims to be tea party, He's a wolf claiming to be in sheep's clothing until he proves otherwise.

[roberth]

We've also got some good Tea Party candidates coming up on the ballot in the US senate and house. Ted Cruz from TX comes to mind.

And it is a start. A few strong Tea Party candidates this year, a few more 2 years from now...next thing you know the Tea Party might be that viable, strong, constitutionally minded 3rd party many of us want.

But, it has to happen within the current system and it's gonna take some time.

It's a start.

You're taking words right off my keyboard.

[Sharpienads]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/527184_507896695902878_1215434337_n.jpg

Clever. [Shake]

[JoeT]

Admittedly, I dont know much about him. But I'm all for his idea of privatizing Medicare/caid and social security

[Pancho Villa]

I need to do a little research, but I would not doubt that that graphic is completely false propaganda. There are at least three things on there that I have seen him adamantly oppose in debates. All I am saying is that you might fact check that one before you believe it any more than your average Obummer speech...

And Mitt opposes the AWB now, doesn't he?

I don't trust a man who shifts his opinions for political reasons. Ryan's voting record is there and with a little research you will find that the infographic is correct.

Any jerk can talk a good game. It's your voting record that shows your true colors.

[Zundfolge]

It would have been better if he had chosen Jack Ryan. Just sayin [Coffee]
Give the Iranians time and it may yet come to that (I doubt we have to worry about the Japanese). [ROFL1]

[HoneyBadger]

We've also got some good Tea Party candidates coming up on the ballot in the US senate and house. Ted Cruz from TX comes to mind.

And it is a start. A few strong Tea Party candidates this year, a few more 2 years from now...next thing you know the Tea Party might be that viable, strong, constitutionally minded 3rd party many of us want.

But, it has to happen within the current system and it's gonna take some time.

It's a start.

I think this is the most I've ever agreed with you. Well said.

[Sharpienads]

Well geez, these discussions are boring when we all agree [Beer]

[Irving]

Why do so many people disagree with Bailey all the time? Well, not openly ever. It only shows up when out of left field people start saying, "For once I agree with you."

[SAnd]

And Mitt opposes the AWB now, doesn't he?

I don't trust a man who shifts his opinions for political reasons. Ryan's voting record is there and with a little research you will find that the infographic is correct.

Any jerk can talk a good game. It's your voting record that shows your true colors.

I've always based my votes on the candidates actions. Too many times their words are completely opposite of their votes or other actions. Nowadays with the internet it is so easy to get voting records. There is no excuse for not knowing any candidates record. There is a lot of other history on people that is normally available also.

I never, or very rarely, listen to what any politician says.

I once saw a dictionary entry that said politician was slang for lier.

[stevelkinevil]

Why do so many people disagree with Bailey all the time? Well, not openly ever. It only shows up when out of left field people start saying, "For once I agree with you."

actually we have disagreed openly a number of times. However when a man has a point you have to concede said point to him. Not sure if its ever gone the other way in this case but a man to proud to admit when someone else has a legit point of view is no man IMO.

[HoneyBadger]

actually we have disagreed openly a number of times. However when a man has a point you have to concede said point to him. Not sure if its ever gone the other way in this case but a man too proud to admit when someone else has a legit point of view is no man IMO.

[Beer]

I think Irving tends to avoid the legislation and politics sub-forum. If intentional, I can understand why. Sometimes I've just had enough of all the garbage.

[Irving]

[Beer]

I think Irving tends to avoid the legislation and politics sub-forum. If intentional, I can understand why.

This is a joke right?

[Pancho Villa]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/five-issues-where-mitt-romney-and-paul-ryan-differ/2012/08/12/8000db2e-e49e-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_blog.html

Didn't know Ryan went to crazytown to pick up his abortion opinions. If anything will let Obama make the election about stuff other than the economy, Ryan's "no abortion including in cases of rape or incest" is going to help out quite a bit.

I'm also super thrilled that he is confirmed for supporting the auto bailout. That's what we need more of - the government stepping into the economy to save politically connected companies.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I some people holding out for "genuine cuts" that flat out will NOT happen in 2012 or 2013 when halving the Obama deficit growth over the next 10 years is a potential reality. I'd rather cut the size of government down to 1972 levels too but I'll take the reduced growth rate now as a downpayment rather than watch the deficit spiral as fast as it has the past 3 years.

[DOC]

Ever since that commercial where BHO threw his grandma off the cliff before she could spill the beans about where he was born. (And they tried to say it was Paul Ryan) I have liked him.

[Sparky]

Anybody going to the Lakewood rally Tuesday?

[Bailey Guns]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/five-issues-where-mitt-romney-and-paul-ryan-differ/2012/08/12/8000db2e-e49e-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_blog.html

Didn't know Ryan went to crazytown to pick up his abortion opinions. If anything will let Obama make the election about stuff other than the economy, Ryan's "no abortion including in cases of rape or incest" is going to help out quite a bit.

Yeah. Go figure. A conservative Catholic who's against abortion. People that stand up for their religious and conservative political beliefs really piss me off, too.

I didn't like the auto bailout deal either. But it isn't the first time it's happened and it isn't a deal killer for me. That was pure pandering to the UAW by Obama, nothing more.

Here's Ryan's explanation for a few of his votes. Whether you like his explanation or not, he sounds honest to me. Furthermore, if what he says is true and Romney/Ryan win, the country will be much better positioned to fight the economic war on the horizon:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2917667/posts

I asked Ryan about these criticisms during a phone interview this week. Here’s what he had to say:

The DC: As you’re getting more attention, besides the criticism that you’re getting from the Democrats, I’ve also started to see some critical comments of you from the right over your votes for TARP, the auto bailout, and the tax on CEO bonuses. How often do you hear that in your home state, how often do you hear it on the Internet, and what do you tell people when they criticize you on those things?

Ryan: You know I don’t hear it here at home that much. You’ve got to remember Obama won my district. Dukakis and Gore won my district. Clinton won my district. So I don’t come from, you know, a red area. So I think it’s important to keep in mind where I come from. I don’t hear that here.

TARP. I’ll take one at a time. I believe we were on the cusp of a deflationary spiral which would have created a Depression. I think that’s probably pretty likely. If we would have allowed that to happen, I think we would have had a big government agenda sweeping through this country so fast that we wouldn’t have recovered from it. So in order to prevent a Depression and a complete evisceration of the free market system we have, I think it was necessary. It wasn’t a fun vote. You don’t get to choose the kind of votes you want. But I just think as far as the long term objectives that I have — which are restoring the principles of this country — I think it was necessary to prevent those principles from being really kind of wiped out for a generation.

Auto. Really clear. The president’s chief of staff [Josh Bolten] made it extremely clear to me before the vote, which is either the auto companies get the money that was put in the Energy Department for them already — a bill that I voted against because I didn’t want to give them that money, which was only within the $25 billion, money that was already expended but not obligated — or the president was going to give them TARP, with no limit. That’s what they told me. That’s what the president’s chief of staff explained to me. I said, ‘Well, I don’t want them to get TARP. We want to keep TARP on a [inaudible]. We don’t want to expand it. So give them that Energy Department money that at least puts them out of TARP, and is limited.’ Well, where are we now? What I feared would happen did happen. The bill failed, and now they’ve got $87 billion from TARP, money we’re not going to get back. And now TARP, as a precedent established by the Bush administration, whereby the Obama administration now has turned this thing into its latest slush fund. And so I voted for that to prevent precisely what has happened, which I feared would happen.

The whole AIG thing, you know that was — you know I obviously regret that one. I was angry at the time because I was worried that all these companies were jumping into TARP thinking they could use TARP as a way to best their competitors, as a way to get cheaper credit, to get money at cheaper rates, at the expense of their smaller competitors. And so I was seeing TARP as sort of a new tool of crony capitalism, and I thought it’d be a good signal to send to the large banks who were jumping into this thing, who really didn’t need it: ‘Stay away from this, don’t get in bed with the government, even though it might in the short term give you a leg up on your competitors, you’ll be burned. That was what was running through my mind at the time, given the fact that we had about six hours notice on the vote, and our lawyers were telling us that it was not a bill of attainder. Now when a week went by, and our lawyers had a chance to read it more clearly and carefully, they reversed their opinion of the bill and said it was in fact a bill of attainder, which therefore should not have passed …

The other thing that bothered me was the Democrats were in a real political pinch, because Chris Dodd wrote in the exemption for those bonuses in the bill, and they were on the hook for it. And they were trying to get themselves off the hook and Republicans on the hook. And that bothered me too, was just the political cynicism behind it bothered me and I didn’t want to give the Democrats that as well. So those were the thoughts running through my mind when I had to make more or less the snap judgment on that bill.

[Rooskibar03]

Anybody going to the Lakewood rally Tuesday?

I just got 3 tickets for me and the family.

[Rucker61]

I didn't like the auto bailout deal either. But it isn't the first time it's happened and it isn't a deal killer for me. That was pure pandering to the UAW by Obama, nothing more.



Eh?

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11405316/1/george-bush-on-auto-bailouts-id-do-it-again.html

[Bailey Guns]

I didn't like the auto bailout deal either. But it isn't the first time it's happened and it isn't a deal killer for me.

Eh?

Obama's deal was far more involved than Bush's. Obama also changed the bankruptcy rules that favored autoworkers at Chrysler and GM. Bush didn't buy stock in the automaker companies using taxpayer money.

Here's a good article to back up my point: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303768104577462650268680454.html

Here's an excerpt from another:


Pushing against a reluctant Congress, Bush steered $17.4 billion in emergency loans to GM and Chrysler in his final weeks in office, on condition they shrink debt, negotiate wage and benefit cuts with workers and submit plans to achieve "long-term viability, international competitiveness and energy efficiency."

The new Obama administration followed with more than $60 billion in aid, more expansive requirements and hands-on management of the crisis.

With hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake, ideology took a back seat. "Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy," Bush said in a speech this month. "I didn't want there to be 21 percent unemployment."

Steven Rattner, who led Obama's auto task force, credited Bush with giving his team "a little breathing room" to restructure the companies and for providing a framework of "expected sacrifices that paved the way for our demands for give-ups from the stakeholders."

[Bailey Guns]

BTW: When I said it isn't a deal killer to me I really mean that. I have two 2012 GM vehicles sitting in my garage/driveway.

[Pancho Villa]

Yeah. Go figure. A conservative Catholic who's against abortion. People that stand up for their religious and conservative political beliefs really piss me off, too.

Liberals believe the government can fix everything, Catholics believe that abortion is murder. They have exactly the same amount of evidence supporting them.

Your religious convictions ought to be kept private, not brought into political play. If you want to believe whatever, that's none of my business. If you want to start stuffing your magic men down my throat via legislation, we have problems.


I didn't like the auto bailout deal either. But it isn't the first time it's happened and it isn't a deal killer for me. That was pure pandering to the UAW by Obama, nothing more.

And by Ryan, so that's comforting.


Here's Ryan's explanation for a few of his votes. Whether you like his explanation or not, he sounds honest to me. Furthermore, if what he says is true and Romney/Ryan win, the country will be much better positioned to fight the economic war on the horizon:

I'll call it right here, right now - screencap if you want and let's review 6 months after the election.

A Romney/Ryan presidency will:

- Flounder at actually cutting the budget
- Extend the Bush tax cuts but nothing more
- No capital gains tax reforms
- No significant regulation reform
- They will either not repeal Obamacare or "repeal and replace" with something that is functionally the same (ie coverage for preexisting conditions, which is the teeth of Obamacare and will kill the insurance industry and toss us into single-payer by necessity - but which polls well and which Romney has supported.)
- They will not reform the tax code to keep insurance from being connected to your job
- Expect a lot of DEM GAYS and 'BORTION stuff to distract from the economy and keep the social cons happy.

Also I'll give a 50/50 shot at some big expansion of federal welfare ala Medicare Part D from Bush in the first term, to prove how compassionate Romney is. Expect the economy to flounder more.

Again, any jerk can talk a good game. It's what they vote for that reveals to you where they will bend to political pressure or what they are passionate about vs what they find beyond the pale.

[Great-Kazoo]

Liberals believe the government can fix everything, Catholics believe that abortion is murder. They have exactly the same amount of evidence supporting them.

Your religious convictions ought to be kept private, not brought into political play. If you want to believe whatever, that's none of my business. If you want to start stuffing your magic men down my throat via legislation, we have problems.



And by Ryan, so that's comforting.



I'll call it right here, right now - screencap if you want and let's review 6 months after the election.

A Romney/Ryan presidency will:

- Flounder at actually cutting the budget
- Extend the Bush tax cuts but nothing more
- No capital gains tax reforms
- No significant regulation reform
- They will either not repeal Obamacare or "repeal and replace" with something that is functionally the same (ie coverage for preexisting conditions, which is the teeth of Obamacare and will kill the insurance industry and toss us into single-payer by necessity - but which polls well and which Romney has supported.)
- They will not reform the tax code to keep insurance from being connected to your job
- Expect a lot of DEM GAYS and 'BORTION stuff to distract from the economy and keep the social cons happy.

Also I'll give a 50/50 shot at some big expansion of federal welfare ala Medicare Part D from Bush in the first term, to prove how compassionate Romney is. Expect the economy to flounder more.

Again, any jerk can talk a good game. It's what they vote for that reveals to you where they will bend to political pressure or what they are passionate about vs what they find beyond the pale.

If the GOP takes back the white house i don't expect they will do anything different than what's going on now.
NOW if the GOP maintains a slim majority in congress and the WH, then, no still the same shit, just more posturing how things are being done.
O gets 4 more years and the vitriol of "No one is working together" will lead us deeper in to the shit pile we've been in.

I'm still pulling the lever for the GOP because every vote does count.

[ronaldrwl]

I love the choice. Paul Ryan seems to always be on the right side of the issues. At least I think so.

[ghettodub]

Fiscally, I like Paul Ryan. But I think this pretty much guaranteed Obama's victory.

[kanekutter05]

Fiscally, I like Paul Ryan. But I think this pretty much guaranteed Obama's victory.

What makes you say that?

[Ronin13]

Liberals believe the government can fix everything, Catholics believe that abortion is murder. They have exactly the same amount of evidence supporting them.

Your religious convictions ought to be kept private, not brought into political play. If you want to believe whatever, that's none of my business. If you want to start stuffing your magic men down my throat via legislation, we have problems.
This!



I'll call it right here, right now - screencap if you want and let's review 6 months after the election.

A Romney/Ryan presidency will:

- Flounder at actually cutting the budget
- Extend the Bush tax cuts but nothing more
- No capital gains tax reforms
- No significant regulation reform
- They will either not repeal Obamacare or "repeal and replace" with something that is functionally the same (ie coverage for preexisting conditions, which is the teeth of Obamacare and will kill the insurance industry and toss us into single-payer by necessity - but which polls well and which Romney has supported.)
- They will not reform the tax code to keep insurance from being connected to your job
- Expect a lot of DEM GAYS and 'BORTION stuff to distract from the economy and keep the social cons happy.

Also I'll give a 50/50 shot at some big expansion of federal welfare ala Medicare Part D from Bush in the first term, to prove how compassionate Romney is. Expect the economy to flounder more.

So you're voting for Obama?

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

I think Romney pretty much guaranteed Obama a victory.

[ghettodub]

What makes you say that?

Because picking Ryan is going to for sure drive a lot of the independents further away from Romney because of social issues.

[Sharpienads]

Liberals believe the government can fix everything, Catholics believe that abortion is murder. They have exactly the same amount of evidence supporting them.

Your religious convictions ought to be kept private, not brought into political play. If you want to believe whatever, that's none of my business. If you want to start stuffing your magic men down my throat via legislation, we have problems.

There are a lot of people that believe abortion is murder. You can make arguements against abortion without even bringing up religion.

Yep, keep your religious beliefs private. They should be supressed and only spoken of in private. It's not like the first amendment applies to elected officials, too or anything. As long as his religious beliefs don't cause him to do anything unconstitutional, who cares what he believes?

[Rucker61]

Because picking Ryan is going to for sure drive a lot of the independents further away from Romney because of social issues.

Exactly. Republicans and Democrats can generally count on 40% of the voters, the ones one the outside of the Bell curve. You have to capture most of the middle indepedent voters to win the election. I don't see Ryan helping to capture that middle.

[Pancho Villa]

So you're voting for Obama?

I may toss my vote to Gary Johnson; but at this point it's Johnson or abstain for me.


There are a lot of people that believe abortion is murder. You can make arguements against abortion without even bringing up religion.

And they're all ridiculous covers for religious people who believe what they do for religious reasons.


Yep, keep your religious beliefs private. They should be supressed and only spoken of in private. It's not like the first amendment applies to elected officials, too or anything. As long as his religious beliefs don't cause him to do anything unconstitutional, who cares what he believes?

Right. Also, Obamacare was constitutional, so it's totally okay to be for it, since it's not unconstitutional [Bang]

You can talk about your religion all you want, too. Just don't try to force your religious beliefs on me via legislation, which is what Ryan is very much for.

[ronaldrwl]

I'm tired of playing that game. Quit trying to figure out how you are going to be received by the independents... Stand for something and stick with it. Some of you may not be old enough to remember how Ronald Reagan stood tall on what he believed in. And how the media said he was a far right nut job. As Reagan said, “We don't need to grow the tent. We need to bring more people into our tent.” And you do that by standing on principles.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I love how so many people talk about independents as if they were one huge collective mind. Pancho's idea of what brings in independents likely conflicts with half a dozen other peoples' ideas. Newsflash: This independent is reassured and reinforced by Romney's selection of a budget hawk rather than catering to some self-described "minority" or special interest wing -- and it looks like other independents are of similar mind: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/13/ryan-has-high-favorability-among-seniors-independents/

[Ronin13]

I may toss my vote to Gary Johnson; but at this point it's Johnson or abstain for me.

So... you're voting for Obama then.

[Ridge]

Because picking Ryan is going to for sure drive a lot of the independents further away from Romney because of social issues.

Most independents are libertarian, and the ayn rand fandom might give them a common thread.

[ronaldrwl]

If you don't vote for Romney then you're voting for:


http://cdn.epicski.com/1/1d/323x500px-LL-1d426355_hillary-15956066103.jpeg

[10mm-man]

So... you're voting for Obama then.

^^^^ This. Funny i had this discussion earlier w/ someone. You vote for anyone but Romney/Ryan your given your vote to Obama.....[Bang]

[jhood001]

So... you're voting for Obama then.

Repeating this 'you're either with us or against us' simplistic view-point is beneath you, Ronin. You can often agree with idiots, but you don't have to be one yourself.

[10mm-man]

If you don't voit for Romeny then you're voiting for:
http://cdn.epicski.com/1/1d/323x500px-LL-1d426355_hillary-15956066103.jpeg

Did you hit that? Is that how you go the pic?[ROFL1]

[10mm-man]

Stand for something and stick with it.
And you do that by standing on principles.

Dude I can't agree more, i think people would rather see that then someone who flip flops to wherever he will get votes...... Romney flip flopped on gun rights and in my eyes him and Obama are the same......

Can I trust Romney is recovered???

[Ronin13]

^^^^ This. Funny i had this discussion earlier w/ someone. You vote for anyone but Romney/Ryan your given your vote to Obama.....[Bang]
Pretty much.


Repeating this 'you're either with us or against us' simplistic view-point is beneath you, Ronin. You can often agree with idiots, but you don't have to be one yourself.
See what 10mm-man said... I'm not on the whole with us or against us, it's just the reality of the situation. Spare me the cliche "I'm voting with my conscience" and "You're part of the problem" BS... it's the real world, Gary Johnson/Ron Paul/Other Candidate stands 0.00000000000000000001% of getting elected. That's just the way it is. We need to be united against Obama, and the only way to really do that is to vote for Romney/Ryan. If you fail to see that your vote that should go to the one best suited to defeat Obama is wasted if it goes to someone who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning then clearly the term idiot is especially reserved for this behavior.

[10mm-man]

Pretty much.


See what 10mm-man said... I'm not on the whole with us or against us, it's just the reality of the situation. Spare me the cliche "I'm voting with my conscience" and "You're part of the problem" BS... it's the real world, Gary Johnson/Ron Paul/Other Candidate stands 0.00000000000000000001% of getting elected. That's just the way it is. We need to be united against Obama, and the only way to really do that is to vote for Romney/Ryan. If you fail to see that your vote that should go to the one best suited to defeat Obama is wasted if it goes to someone who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning then clearly the term idiot is especially reserved for this behavior.

I have to agree! I am for Ron Paul 100% but he has no chance of beating Obama in any way shape or form. I can't 100% agree w/ Romney the flip flopper( on gun rights).

So if i give my vote to Paul it goes to Obama as well because it didn't go to Romney. Now I pray Romney is reformed and a recovered anti, because he said he believed in reinstating an AWB. Ryan is 100% A+ 2A, so i hope he can influence Romney to stay 100% 2a as well...

[Ronin13]

I have to agree! I am for Ron Paul 100% but he has no chance of beating Obama in any way shape or form. I can't 100% agree w/ Romney the flip flopper( on gun rights).

So if i give my vote to Paul it goes to Obama as well because it didn't go to Romney. Now I pray Romney is reformed and a recovered anti, because he said he believed in reinstating an AWB. Ryan is 100% A+ 2A, so i hope he can influence Romney to be 100% 2a as well...

Wayne LaParrier (sp?) stated that the NRA will back Romney as long as he doesn't approve any anti-2A legislation. If they stop supporting him at any time he is guaranteed a lot of votes lost.

[Sparky]

If you don't vote for Romney then you're voting for:


http://cdn.epicski.com/1/1d/323x500px-LL-1d426355_hillary-15956066103.jpeg

Dear God. I thought mine was bad.

[mevshooter]

If you don't vote for Romney then you're voting for:


http://cdn.epicski.com/1/1d/323x500px-LL-1d426355_hillary-15956066103.jpeg

If Hillary even came close to looking that "good" (good being relative to what she actually looks like) I might consider a vote...

[jhood001]

I'm not on the whole with us or against us

I'll take your word for it then. At least until you start repeating the broken-record mantra you've dropped twice in this thread already.



Spare me the cliche "I'm voting with my conscience" and "You're part of the problem" BS... it's the real world, Gary Johnson/Ron Paul/Other Candidate stands 0.00000000000000000001% of getting elected. That's just the way it is. We need to be united against Obama, and the only way to really do that is to vote for Romney/Ryan. If you fail to see that your vote that should go to the one best suited to defeat Obama is wasted if it goes to someone who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning then clearly the term idiot is especially reserved for this behavior.

No, the term 'idiot' is reserved for a person that believes not putting a rock in one of two buckets some how magically deducts or adds a rock to one of those two buckets.

If I walk into a restaurant and I see goat shit and horse shit as the only two menu options, I walk back out of that restaurant. I do not choose horse shit simply because The Horse Shit Eaters Of America Coalition is standing there telling me to eat horse shit so that it isn't pulled from the future menu.

Now, it can definitely be argued that this comparison isn't valid because in voting, you're going to be forced to eat one type of shit or another when it is all said and done. And that is true to a degree -

But I personally will wait until I am dragged back to the restaurant kicking and screaming and forced to eat one kind of shit or another. I will not belly up to the bar with my shit eating grin and down a plate of horse shit right now just because YOU tell me that choosing neither is a vote for goat shit.

I vote for for who and what I want and ignore what everyone else is doing. Contrary to what many would like you to believe, politics is not a team sport.

[Ridge]

Wayne LaParrier (sp?) stated that the NRA will back Romney as long as he doesn't approve any anti-2A legislation. If they stop supporting him at any time he is guaranteed a lot of votes lost.

And that is why I cancelled my NRA membership. They aren't about the Second amendment anymore.

Even if they were riders on other bills, Obama has done more to help gun owners than Romney has.

[10mm-man]

And that is why I cancelled my NRA membership. They aren't about the Second amendment anymore.

Even if they were riders on other bills, Obama has done more to help gun owners than Romney has.

Funny you say this; 1st time I joined them.... Explain how Obama did more for gun owners??

[Ronin13]

I'll take your word for it then. At least until you start repeating the broken-record mantra you've dropped twice in this thread already.



No, the term 'idiot' is reserved for a person that believes not putting a rock in one of two buckets some how magically deducts or adds a rock to one of those two buckets.

If I walk into a restaurant and I see goat shit and horse shit as the only two menu options, I walk back out of that restaurant. I do not choose horse shit simply because The Horse Shit Eaters Of America Coalition is standing there telling me to eat horse shit so that it isn't pulled from the future menu.

Now, it can definitely be argued that this comparison isn't valid because in voting, you're going to be forced to eat one type of shit or another when it is all said and done. And that is true to a degree -

But I personally will wait until I am dragged back to the restaurant kicking and screaming and forced to eat one kind of shit or another. I will not belly up to the bar with my shit eating grin and down a plate of horse shit right now just because YOU tell me that choosing neither is a vote for goat shit.

I vote for for who and what I want and ignore what everyone else is doing. Contrary to what many would like you to believe, politics is not a team sport.

See the problem is that people like you just won't listen to reason. I get that you don't want to vote for either for whatever reason. Great. And you're free to do so. But those of us who know the reality of the situation are asking that you understand that if you don't vote for Romney/Ryan you, in fact, are pretty much taking a vote away from them, thus you're voting for Obama/Biden, although not directly.

[Ridge]

Funny you say this; 1st time I joined them.... Explain how Obama did more for gun owners??

Passed bills that included amendments that allowed carry in national parks, and guns on Amtrak trains. Both of which were previously banned.

[Rucker61]

Passed bills that included amendments that allowed carry in national parks, and guns on Amtrak trains. Both of which were previously banned.

Done a lot for gun and ammunition manufacturers and sellers, too ;)

[jhood001]

See the problem is that people like you just won't listen to reason.

I won't listen to YOUR reason. I'll gladly stick to logic. Not your logic or my logic. Logic.

Logic tells us that X + 0 = X. Y + 0 = Y. No matter how you cook it, voting for Z does not add + 1 to X or Y. Nor does voting for nothing give X or Y my vote.

You're trying to get people to vote for who YOU want them to by saying things like 'Voting for third party is a vote for the other guy'. And not by debating the merits or short-falls of either candidate. The same type of shit you lambaste some of them 'libtards' on Facebook over.

'People like you (me)', by the way, is voting for Mittens. My original comment wasn't for or against voting for anyone. It was AGAINST your use of mental-midgetry.

[Aloha_Shooter]

If I walk into a restaurant and I see goat shit and horse shit as the only two menu options, I walk back out of that restaurant. I do not choose horse shit simply because The Horse Shit Eaters Of America Coalition is standing there telling me to eat horse shit so that it isn't pulled from the future menu.

Now, it can definitely be argued that this comparison isn't valid because in voting, you're going to be forced to eat one type of shit or another when it is all said and done. And that is true to a degree -

But I personally will wait until I am dragged back to the restaurant kicking and screaming and forced to eat one kind of shit or another. I will not belly up to the bar with my shit eating grin and down a plate of horse shit right now just because YOU tell me that choosing neither is a vote for goat shit.

I vote for for who and what I want and ignore what everyone else is doing. Contrary to what many would like you to believe, politics is not a team sport.

The problem here is that we have horse meat and goat shit on the menu and you want a prime beef Porterhouse but you're potentially making the rest of us eat shit because you don't want the horse meat. This is exactly what happened in 1992 and 1996; America had to suffer through the 1994 AWB and some really stupid Supreme Court picks because 5% of the voters "voted their conscience" for Perot.

Bury your head in the sand and rationalize it all you want but if Obama wins, you will be one of the reasons we ALL have to eat shit.

[10mm-man]

Done a lot for gun and ammunition manufacturers and sellers, too ;)

At least until next year (if he is re-elected) and he instates AWB.... Clinton didn't do it until his 2nd term, rest assured Obama will do the same!

[Rooskibar03]

If you don't vote for Romney then you're voting for:
http://cdn.epicski.com/1/1d/323x500px-LL-1d426355_hillary-15956066103.jpeg

DAMIT now I need this.

http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/eyebleach1.png

[Ridge]

At least until next year (if he is re-elected) and he instates AWB.... Clinton didn't do it until his 2nd term, rest assured Obama will do the same!

Congress wrote the bill, Clinton signed it. And most of the people that voted for it lost their seats in the next election. It was political suicide in 1994, and far fewer Americans owned those types of guns than do now.

[10mm-man]

Congress wrote the bill, Clinton signed it. And most of the people that voted for it lost their seats in the next election. It was political suicide in 1994, and far fewer Americans owned those types of guns than do now.

So I am starting to sense- your love for Obama????? Everything will be ok? Obama doesn't want the firearms, his executive orders are no threat?

[Ridge]

So I am starting to sense- your love for Obama????? Everything will be ok? Obama doesn't want the firearms, his executive orders are no threat?

I love this part of the argument, where someone who doesn't move in lock step with the rest is automatically a spy.

I don't like Obama, because of his stance on many social aspects.
I don't like Romney because I have no idea what his stance is. He's a pathological flip flopper. He's the GOP's version of John Kerry.

[Ridge]

Honestly, are you guys going to vote for him because you like him? Or are you voting for him to get Obama out?

[Rucker61]

Honestly, are you guys going to vote for him because you like him? Or are you voting for him in a futile effort to get Obama out?

Fixed it for you.

[10mm-man]

I love this part of the argument, where someone who doesn't move in lock step with the rest is automatically a spy.

I don't like Obama, because of his stance on many social aspects.
I don't like Romney because I have no idea what his stance is. He's a pathological flip flopper. He's the GOP's version of John Kerry.

Lol, just sensing some love man that's all! I am gonna vote for him because I think he has what it takes to get the economy going, Ryan seem to be liked by both sides and it's gonna take someone/team able to cross party lines.

Obama is a flat out liar, cant be trusted and very socialist! Now I will tell you had Paul been able to get there he would have my vote.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Honestly, are you guys going to vote for him because you like him? Or are you voting for him to get Obama out?

To vote Obama out and to get another shitty first termer president. Obama's 2nd term is going to be brutal.

[Ridge]

To vote Obama out and to get another shitty first termer president. Obama's 2nd term is going to be brutal.

Based on....?

[10mm-man]

Based on....?

Obama's 1st term! I think he was saying; if we didn't get the shitty 1st termer out of there now.....

If your asking what Obama's 1st term as shitty was based on; maybe your economy and pocket book are doing fine but mine sucks and yes Obama is 100% to blame....

[kanekutter05]

The problem here is that we have horse meat and goat shit on the menu and you want a prime beef Porterhouse but you're potentially making the rest of us eat shit because you don't want the horse meat. This is exactly what happened in 1992 and 1996; America had to suffer through the 1994 AWB and some really stupid Supreme Court picks because 5% of the voters "voted their conscience" for Perot.

Bury your head in the sand and rationalize it all you want but if Obama wins, you will be one of the reasons we ALL have to eat shit.

+1 and well said Aloha. The fact of the matter is there are only two people who logically have any shot whatsoever in getting elected as POTUS...Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. You can even go a step further...A vote for Obama states that you agree with the policies and direction of the country. A vote for Romney states you disagree with the current policies and direction of the country. A vote for ANYONE ELSE is a vote to keep the current policies in place because nobody else has a shot. You can try and explain that fact away however you want...but that's what it breaks down to. So at that point you have to decide who you like more (or hate less, whatever the case) and vote that way. You can describe it however you want, but if you don't realize that's the way Presidential elections work in this country then you are harming the cause. It's not crazy person logic, it's being a realist. If you really want to make a difference and vote for a 3rd candidate...vote for the 3rd candidate in a congressional race.

Really when you break it down, the POTUS is just a figurehead. Yes he has real power, but of course the actual power to change things comes from Congress. 3rd party candidates actually have a chance of getting elected to Congress where they can do some real work.

[Ridge]

Obama's 1st term! I think he was saying; if we didn't get the shitty 1st termer out of there now.....

If your asking what Obama's 1st term as shitty was based on; maybe your economy and pocket book are doing fine but mine sucks and yes Obama is 100% to blame....

I mean why is it going to suddenly be hell for gun owners.

[jhood001]

A vote for ANYONE ELSE is a vote to keep the current policies in place in essence. You can try and explain that fact away however you want..

Or you (or anyone else) can first start by explaining exactly how that works.

I mean, come'on you guys. If this is so damn cut and dry 'in the real world', and those of us that disagree are some sort of delusional and irrational creatures, then why is it that most of you are explaining your brilliant rationale and then following it up with things like:


But those of us who know the reality of the situation are asking that you understand that if you don't vote for Romney/Ryan you, in fact, are pretty much taking a vote away from them, thus you're voting for Obama/Biden, although not directly.

Following up 'in fact,' with 'are pretty much' is absolutely hilarious.

Or how about -


The problem here is that we have horse meat and goat shit on the menu and you want a prime beef Porterhouse but you're potentially making the rest of us eat shit because you don't want the horse meat.

More -

A vote for ANYONE ELSE is a vote to keep the current policies in place in essence.




You can even go a step further...A vote for Obama states that you agree with the policies and direction of the country.


No, it means they want Obama to be president for the next 4 years.



A vote for Romney states you disagree with the current policies and direction of the country.


No, a vote for Romney means you want Romney to be president for the next 4 to 8 years.



A vote for ANYONE ELSE is a vote to keep the current policies in place because nobody else has a shot.


No, a vote for ANYONE ELSE means you want THEM to be president for the next 4 to 8 years.


I get what YOU guys are saying. You aren't idiots, but don't try to treat someone who isn't voting the way you would like them to as if they are.

[Rucker61]

Obama's 1st term! I think he was saying; if we didn't get the shitty 1st termer out of there now.....

If your asking what Obama's 1st term as shitty was based on; maybe your economy and pocket book are doing fine but mine sucks and yes Obama is 100% to blame....

DJIA, Mar 2009: 6626.94
DJIA, today: 13,169.43

Are you sure you want Obama 100% responsible for the economy?

[10mm-man]

I get what YOU guys are saying. You aren't idiots, but don't try to treat someone who isn't voting the way you would like them to as if they are.

Maybe it's the way you come off like what is being said isn't true? As in a vote for someone other than Romney/Ryan is a vote for Obama?

[Rucker61]

Maybe it's the way you come off like what is being said isn't true? As in a vote for someone other than Romney/Ryan is a vote for Obama?

Maybe we should start using the terms "de facto" and "de jure". We could eliminate this part of the discussion right away.

[10mm-man]

DJIA, Mar 2009: 6626.94
DJIA, today: 13,169.43

Are you sure you want Obama 100% responsible for the economy?


Maybe we should start using the terms "de facto" and "de jure". We could eliminate this part of the discussion right away.

I am a laymen my friend please break it down for me........[Beer]

[Bailey Guns]

DJIA, Mar 2009: 6626.94
DJIA, today: 13,169.43

Are you sure you want Obama 100% responsible for the economy?

National Debt, Mar 09: $10.6 Trillion
National Debt, Today: $16+ Trillion, with an addition $10 Trillion if Obama gets his way

Unemployment, Mar 09: 7.8%
Unemployment, Today: 8.3% in Obama numbers. Probably more like 14 or 15 percent.

The DJIA rose to it's current levels despite Obama's policies...not because of them.

So, yeah. I'll definitely be more than happy to place the responsibility of our current economic situation in Obama's hands. Unfortunately, Obama doesn't want to take any responsibility for it. Why do you suppose he's not on the campaign trail bragging about his national economic accomplishments?

[Ridge]

National Debt, Mar 09: $10.6 Trillion
National Debt, Today: $16+ Trillion, with an addition $10 Trillion if Obama gets his way

Unemployment, Mar 09: 7.8%
Unemployment, Today: 8.3% in Obama numbers. Probably more like 14 or 15 percent.

The DJIA rose to it's current levels despite Obama's policies...not because of them.

I'll have to agree with this. You can't judge a global market's actions on those of a single nation's leader, regardless of how large it's slice of power is.

[Rooskibar03]

How about 4 potentially horribly Progressive Supreme Court appointments that are likely during the next 4 years. Kiss your 2A rights away if that happens.

Thats the tip of the iceberg. Gas at 6 plus a gallon. Food prices through the roof, energy prices to the point where you can't afford to heat your house.

All in the name of "saving" the middle class from those big bad millionaires.

[10mm-man]

^^^ All of the above!!! thanks for the break down....

[Ridge]

How about 4 potentially horribly Progressive Supreme Court appointments that are likely during the next 4 years. Kiss your 2A rights away if that happens.

Thats the tip of the iceberg. Gas at 6 plus a gallon. Food prices through the roof, energy prices to the point where you can't afford to heat your house.

All in the name of "saving" the middle class from those big bad millionaires.

And all heresay.

Gas rose to it's highest levels while Bush was in office. So did food prices. Energy prices rise year after year, regardless of who is in office.

[Bailey Guns]

Back on the topic of Ryan...

I heard parts of his speech today on the radio from Sat. After listening to him I'm more convinced than ever that he is not only the right man for the job, he's probably one of the best ever.

Part of his speech talked about how he wanted to reinspire the notion that our rights come from God and not government. I haven't heard anyone talk like that since Reagan.

Romney and Ryan will win this election by being champions of conservative values...not by avoiding conservative values. They will win by 5% or more.

[Ridge]

I fell in love with the man (nohomo) during the single broadcasted health care debate. His whole focus was on not passing on extra cost to the citizens.

But the man was also in favor of NDAA, before it was amended so that American citizens couldn't be whisked away for disagreeing with the government.

[10mm-man]

I mean why is it going to suddenly be hell for gun owners.

I believe because he has nothing to lose... Liberals have always gone after guns whenever they could and can.

[Bailey Guns]

I think the Ryan poses real problems for democrats. He's going to force a debate on the issues...not on the made-up boogey men that democrats are prone to use to instill fear.

[Ridge]

I believe because he has nothing to lose... Liberals have always gone after guns whenever they could and can.

The last time it happened on a federal level, Congress got their ass kicked for it.

The last time it happened on a state level, Romney was the one doing it.

[10mm-man]

Back on the topic of Ryan...

I heard parts of his speech today on the radio from Sat. After listening to him I'm more convinced than ever that he is not only the right man for the job, he's probably one of the best ever.

Part of his speech talked about how he wanted to reinspire the notion that our rights come from God and not government. I haven't heard anyone talk like that since Reagan.

Romney and Ryan will win this election by being champions of conservative values...not by avoiding conservative values. They will win by 5% or more.

You know Ryan does seem like a good guy.... not sure Ryan can carry Romney though. Flip flop, flip flop Romney is the one we are voting for to be POTUS not Ryan......

Watching an interview of the two was boring as shit and didn't convince me of their ability. better get some zing in the campaign and start attacking the "chosen one" right away!!

[Bailey Guns]

The last time it happened on a federal level, Congress got their ass kicked for it.

The last time it happened on a state level, Romney was the one doing it.

The last time a law was enacted on a federal level, maybe. But there are numerous anti-gun bills, all sponsored by democrats, pending in congress right now.

Also, numerous state-level anti-gun bills have been passed in various states since Romney signed the MA AWB into law.

[10mm-man]

The last time it happened on a federal level, Congress got their ass kicked for it.

The last time it happened on a state level, Romney was the one doing it.

Romney is recovered says the NRA![ROFL1][Beer]

I am starting to feel your love slime rub off on me, i don't want to be contaminated with Obama love. Discussion over! [ROFL1][ROFL2][ROFL3]

[Rucker61]

National Debt, Mar 09: $10.6 Trillion
National Debt, Today: $16+ Trillion, with an addition $10 Trillion if Obama gets his way

Unemployment, Mar 09: 7.8%
Unemployment, Today: 8.3% in Obama numbers. Probably more like 14 or 15 percent.

The DJIA rose to it's current levels despite Obama's policies...not because of them.

So, yeah. I'll definitely be more than happy to place the responsibility of our current economic situation in Obama's hands. Unfortunately, Obama doesn't want to take any responsibility for it. Why do you suppose he's not on the campaign trail bragging about his national economic accomplishments?

Maybe because he's NOT directly and solely responsible for the economy? He doesn't sole credit or blame for the good or the bad, at least no by anyone with a basic understanding of macro-economics. Sure, you can play political blame game all you want, but if it's only politics at work to anyone, then one only displays one's lack of education.

[Rucker61]

I am a laymen my friend please break it down for me........
DJIA = Dow Jones Industrial Average, the most commonly used method to gauge the health of the economy, based on a select subset of stocks.

From Wikipedia:

[B]De jure (in Classical Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Latin) de iure) is an expression that means "concerning law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law)", as contrasted with de facto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto), which means "concerning fact".
De jure = 'Legally', De facto = 'In fact'.
The terms de jure and de facto are used instead of "in law" and "in practice", respectively, when one is describing political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics) or legal situations.
In a legal context, de jure is also translated as "concerning law". A practice may exist de facto, where for example the people obey a contract as though there were a law enforcing it, yet there is no such law. A process known as "desuetude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desuetude)" may allow de facto practices to replace obsolete de jure laws. On the other hand, practices may exist de jure and not be obeyed or observed by the people.

An example here would be that a vote for Johnson would not de jure be a vote for Obama, but given that it takes a vote away from Romney could de facto be considered a vote for Obama.

[10mm-man]

DJIA = Dow Jones Industrial Average, the most commonly used method to gauge the health of the economy, based on a select subset of stocks.

From Wikipedia:

De jure (in Classical Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Latin) de iure) is an expression that means "concerning law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law)", as contrasted with de facto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto), which means "concerning fact".
De jure = 'Legally', De facto = 'In fact'.
The terms de jure and de facto are used instead of "in law" and "in practice", respectively, when one is describing political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics) or legal situations.
In a legal context, de jure is also translated as "concerning law". A practice may exist de facto, where for example the people obey a contract as though there were a law enforcing it, yet there is no such law. A process known as "desuetude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desuetude)" may allow de facto practices to replace obsolete de jure laws. On the other hand, practices may exist de jure and not be obeyed or observed by the people.

An example here would be that a vote for Johnson would not de jure be a vote for Obama, but given that it takes a vote away from Romney could de facto be considered a vote for Obama.

The way you talk, you must be edjumicated. Especially how you talk down to people:


Maybe because he's NOT directly and solely responsible for the economy? He doesn't sole credit or blame for the good or the bad, at least no by anyone with a basic understanding of macro-economics. Sure, you can play political blame game all you want, but if it's only politics at work to anyone, then one only displays one's lack of education.

Thanks for taking the time to explain, it was "complex".....

P.S- not good at inserting : (sarcasm here) or smiles so put were you see fit.... [Beer]

[Rucker61]

The way you talk, you must be edjumicated. Especially how you talk down to people:



You were polite, so I tried to return the favor. Thanks for the response.

[10mm-man]

You were polite, so I tried to return the favor. Thanks for the response.

lol....[Beer]

[Bailey Guns]

Maybe because he's NOT directly and solely responsible for the economy? He doesn't sole credit or blame for the good or the bad, at least no by anyone with a basic understanding of macro-economics. Sure, you can play political blame game all you want, but if it's only politics at work to anyone, then one only displays one's lack of education.

Right. Bush does. He's been Obama's go to for the blame for almost 4 years now.

[Rooskibar03]

And all heresay.

Gas rose to it's highest levels while Bush was in office. So did food prices. Energy prices rise year after year, regardless of who is in office.

FACT: Gas price when Obama took office 01/2009 - $1.84
Gas price today $3.51


Gas prices where up under the Bush years when the economy was good and bottomed out when we hit the recession.

Now why when the rest of the economy is still in the crapper are gas prices nearing the high under bush when things where booming? Because oBama has declared war on the oil and gas energy sector in favor of the green agenda of his largest campaign contributors.

[patrick0685]

i hate election time, and its my job vs my rights either way i lose[Bang][Bang][Bang][Bang][Bang]

[Rucker61]

Right. Bush does. He's been Obama's go to for the blame for almost 4 years now.

I can't help what a politician says, or believes. I do know that it wasn't Bush's fault, but he did start the recovery. I believe the recovery money was and is a necessary risk, as we had no idea what would happen if we let major US industry and banking fail. I blame the banking industry for cheating the system, I blame the unions for forcing much of US manufacturing offshore and I can put some of the blame on the American consumer for demanding cheap, disposable consumer items and ridiculous mortgages. I share some of this last blame, too.

[45XD]

Don't know if these have already been posted or not...

https://p.twimg.com/Az_iFSECIAAR2dx.jpg

https://p.twimg.com/A0B4Q_uCYAI-I5s.jpg

I'm a big fan of this move- one of the first moves by Romney that I can genuinely get behind....

[Rucker61]

FACT: Gas price when Obama took office 01/2009 - $1.84
Gas price today $3.51


Gas prices where up under the Bush years when the economy was good and bottomed out when we hit the recession.

Now why when the rest of the economy is still in the crapper are gas prices nearing the high under bush when things where booming? Because oBama has declared war on the oil and gas energy sector in favor of the green agenda of his largest campaign contributors.

You do realize that oil is a world-wide commodity that one country has little impact on, that gasoline prices aren't set by the government, that the oil is owned by the oil companies who much prefer higher prices and that the US is a net gasoline exporter? Sure, we have a set capacity for gasoline refining, and no new refineries have been built lately, but do you want one in your backyard? There's no guarantee that any gasoline production will even go to the US, anyway; the oil companies ship it where they maximize their profits.

Here's an article on gas prices:

http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/why-more-states-may-see-185135033.html

Corn, among other issues, is seeing a price increase that's resulting in higher gas prices, and if the government subsidy goes away, we may see even higher prices.

There's correllation, and there's cause and effect. They aren't always related. The distance between the continental masses of Europe and North America is growing at the rate of about 1" annually, as is my waistline. High correlation, but I doubt there's cause and effect.

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

i hate election time, and its my job vs my rights either way i lose[Bang][Bang][Bang][Bang][Bang]

Amen brother.

[Ridge]

Don't know if these have already been posted or not...

https://p.twimg.com/Az_iFSECIAAR2dx.jpg

https://p.twimg.com/A0B4Q_uCYAI-I5s.jpg

I'm a big fan of this move- one of the first moves by Romney that I can genuinely get behind....

He's totally boning that turkey

[DavieD55]

Meh.... he won't change a thing...

+1

[Bailey Guns]

I can't help what a politician says, or believes.

No...but you don't have to agree with them or defend them when they're obviously wrong-headed on many issues.


I do know that it wasn't Bush's fault, but he did start the recovery. I believe the recovery money was and is a necessary risk, as we had no idea what would happen if we let major US industry and banking fail.

Agreed. But Obama took the "let's hand out money like it was free" strategy WAY too far.


I blame the banking industry for cheating the system,

Too much of a blanket statement. I'd narrow it down to say Barney Frank and Co are more to blame for forcing banks/mortgage companies to issue loans to non-qualified people. The evidence is all over the place but it's seems to be invisible to the media. This gets coverage only on places like Rush and Hannity. And it's really indisputable. Just like what Dodd and Frank did to consumer credit card rates under the guise of "protecting consumers". Thanks for the 29% interest rates, dumbasses.


I blame the unions for forcing much of US manufacturing offshore

Strongly agree. Unions are a drain on society and one of the major reasons companies look overseas for sources of labor. However, high corporate tax rates and unnecessary regulations also contribute to the unfriendly business climate in this country.


and I can put some of the blame on the American consumer for demanding cheap, disposable consumer items and ridiculous mortgages. I share some of this last blame, too.

Yes. Although I'm not totally guilt free, if there's one thing I hate it's cheap crap that doesn't last. I'll spend a lot of money for quality items over cheap, disposable junk any day. On anything. I go out of my way to buy US made items, even at a much higher price. Second choice is an item made anywhere other than China.

[Rucker61]

Too much of a blanket statement. I'd narrow it down to say Barney Frank and Co are more to blame for forcing banks/mortgage companies to issue loans to non-qualified people. The evidence is all over the place but it's seems to be invisible to the media.


No one forced people to take the mortgages, and the structure of the industry removed a bit of oversight that could have helped. In any case, I don't think that the financial crisis would have been nearly as severe as it was due to just failed mortgages; it was Wall Street's use of these bundled into CDOs where the risk tied to these securities was deliberately masked in the pricing of such. When the prices of the CDOs plummeted due the bursting of the housing bubble, that's when we saw the world-wide financial crisis hit.

I consider the actions of Wall Street to be deliberate criminal fraud. Whilst we may or may not believe that Barney Frank and Co were trying to do some good for lower income Americans, the bankers that foisted risk-hidden derivatives on the market were acting in pure, selfish greed. I firmly believe that if there was a greater personal ROI to be had by plunging the US into a depression that lasted thirty years, those folks would do it. With a world-wide banking system, they owe no allegiance to the US.

[Pancho Villa]

The last time it happened on a federal level, Congress got their ass kicked for it.

The last time it happened on a state level, Romney was the one doing it.

I just want to reach back and point out that this was a monster burn and Ridge deserves an atomic fist bump for it.

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/4917/maximumbrofistbydefiant.png

[10mm-man]

With a world-wide banking system, they owe no allegiance to the US.

NONE WHAT SO EVER![Beer]

[10mm-man]

He's totally boning that turkey

And happy as shit about it too!!

[Aloha_Shooter]

No one forced people to take the mortgages, and the structure of the industry removed a bit of oversight that could have helped. In any case, I don't think that the financial crisis would have been nearly as severe as it was due to just failed mortgages; it was Wall Street's use of these bundled into CDOs where the risk tied to these securities was deliberately masked in the pricing of such. When the prices of the CDOs plummeted due the bursting of the housing bubble, that's when we saw the world-wide financial crisis hit.

I consider the actions of Wall Street to be deliberate criminal fraud. Whilst we may or may not believe that Barney Frank and Co were trying to do some good for lower income Americans, the bankers that foisted risk-hidden derivatives on the market were acting in pure, selfish greed. I firmly believe that if there was a greater personal ROI to be had by plunging the US into a depression that lasted thirty years, those folks would do it. With a world-wide banking system, they owe no allegiance to the US.

You're right that no one forced people to take the mortgages which is why I'd blame the bankers last. However, Barney Frank & Co were trying to do two things: 1) solidify a base of political support by making the American dream accessible and diverting the cost of that dream onto regular taxpayers, 2) using Enron-style accounting to hide or pay for their Clinton-era expenditures by deliberately creating an artificial housing bubble that falsely spurred economic activity.

The bankers originally created the derivatives as a way to spread the risk from the bad loans the federal government was forcing them to make. Unfortunately, Geithner's "too big to fail" approach just reinforced some bad investing philosophies because the banks involved didn't experience the pain they should have but the root cause of this was the Clinton-era expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act and the way Clinton/Franks/Dodd tried to use it expand their political power.

The Baily Building & Loan model is a fine one but remember George Bailey had to dip into his own honeymoon fund to keep the S&L afloat when there was a cash run. The derivatives were first created to avoid that situation by spreading the pain but then were distorted by traders who were more interested in an academic optimization and near-term self-gratification than in long-term growth and stability for their institutions. "Too big to fail" doesn't force current bankers to suffer personal consequences for taking risk.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I just want to reach back and point out that this was a monster burn and Ridge deserves an atomic fist bump for it.

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/4917/maximumbrofistbydefiant.png

Problem with your idea is that Ridge's post was incomplete and inaccurate. Incomplete in that the last time AWB happened, Congress may have suffered reelection losses but WE THE PEOPLE still suffered 10 years of unconstitutional BS until it expired. Inaccurate because the last time it happened was in California (where Feinstein tried to place M-1 Garands on the list of defined "assault weapons" during the Bush presidency) and it wasn't Romney doing it.

[Ronin13]

You do realize that oil is a world-wide commodity that one country has little impact on, that gasoline prices aren't set by the government, that the oil is owned by the oil companies who much prefer higher prices and that the US is a net gasoline exporter? Sure, we have a set capacity for gasoline refining, and no new refineries have been built lately, but do you want one in your backyard? There's no guarantee that any gasoline production will even go to the US, anyway; the oil companies ship it where they maximize their profits.

You are so right, one country (or 3 in our case) has absolutely nothing to do with gas prices... that's why gas companies are making so very little per liter of fuel because of gas taxes that cut down profits for gas companies (which in turn makes it harder for them to advance), and leads to gross over price. In reality, We are the number 1 petroleum user in the world- by a friggin long shot! But we are a low producer.

At $3.20/gallon almost $.65 of that is tax. So yes, gas prices can be set by government. Also, we're not exporting NEARLY as much as we import. Why would we export anyway? Instead just produce and refine our own oil (little to no import and no export) and we would cut costs significantly.

[Rucker61]

You are so right, one country (or 3 in our case) has absolutely nothing to do with gas prices... that's why gas companies are making so very little per liter of fuel because of gas taxes that cut down profits for gas companies (which in turn makes it harder for them to advance), and leads to gross over price.


Gas companies generally = oil companies. Gasoline isn't the only product in the supply chain that they make their money. In 2011, the five largest oil companies made $117B in profit. The US government also granted a few billion in tax breaks. As far as making it harder, Exxon, for example, had their profits grow by 69% from 2010 to 2011.





In reality, We are the number 1 petroleum user in the world- by a friggin long shot! But we are a low producer.

At $3.20/gallon almost $.65 of that is tax. So yes, gas prices can be set by government.


Federal tax on gasoline is $0.184 per gallon. The rest of the tax is state and local taxes. These are relatively fixed costs. The variability in gas pricing comes from the volatility in production and in oil pricing. Speculators have had more impact in the cost of your gasoline than the feds.



Also, we're not exporting NEARLY as much as we import. Why would we export anyway? Instead just produce and refine our own oil (little to no import and no export) and we would cut costs significantly.

You keep saying "we". It's not "we". It's "they". The oil and gasoline, and the refineries all belong to the oil companies. We don't get to tell them what to do with their business. They export it because it's in their best interests to do so.

[Ronin13]

Federal tax on gasoline is $0.184 per gallon. The rest of the tax is state and local taxes. These are relatively fixed costs. The variability in gas pricing comes from the volatility in production and in oil pricing. Speculators have had more impact in the cost of your gasoline than the feds.
I didn't stutter. Did I specify what kind of tax? No. I simply said TAX. Combined tax averages to .60/3.0.



You keep saying "we". It's not "we". It's "they". The oil and gasoline, and the refineries all belong to the oil companies. We don't get to tell them what to do with their business. They export it because it's in their best interests to do so.
Talking as a country. We as a country, do not count petroleum among our chief exports. [Beer]

[Bailey Guns]

I just want to reach back and point out that this was a monster burn and Ridge deserves an atomic fist bump for it.

Great. If being wrong deserves an "atomic fist bump", knock yourselves out. But neither of his statements are accurate.

Just like his statement that credit Obama with signing the bill that allowed carry in parks. It's been pointed out over and over that he did that basically under duress to get his pet credit card bill passed. Sure...he signed the bill into law. But he sure as hell didn't do it out of love for the 2nd Amendment. He did it because his pet project was doomed if he didn't.

[Bailey Guns]

The oil and gasoline, and the refineries all belong to the oil companies. We don't get to tell them what to do with their business. They export it because it's in their best interests to do so.

By "we", I'm assuming you're talking about the US gov't? If so, that's the funniest thing you've ever posted.

If not...nevermind.

[Rucker61]

By "we", I'm assuming you're talking about the US gov't? If so, that's the funniest thing you've ever posted.

If not...nevermind.

No, I'm talking about us folks. Most folks here seem to favor a laissez-faire business model, one that operates without goverment interference as much as possible. By that philosophy, saying that we should not export oil or gas but keep it all for our own use is contradictory, unless, of course, one has voting stock in an oil company. As a capitalist, I'm saying that we shouldn't get to regulate where they sell their products. However, since they accept tax breaks, the line is kind of blurred with regards to government interference.

[Sharpienads]

Gas companies generally = oil companies. Gasoline isn't the only product in the supply chain that they make their money. In 2011, the five largest oil companies made $117B in profit. The US government also granted a few billion in tax breaks. As far as making it harder, Exxon, for example, had their profits grow by 69% from 2010 to 2011.

$117B sounds like a lot until you unspin the facts. Oil is big business, and their profit margin is only a very small percentage. I can't remember what it is, but it is very low, somewhere between 6% - 9% (I believe, could be wrong on the number). And who cares if they make a lot of money? That means that the average Joe who has stock in the company, and anybody else that has a 401(k) or other retirement plan makes money. Tax breaks on business is a good thing. It helps a company grow and develop and helps keep prices down. 69% increase in profit margins? So if a company's profit margin is 6% and grew by 69%, now their profit margin is 10.14%. Doesn't sound outrageous to me.


Federal tax on gasoline is $0.184 per gallon. The rest of the tax is state and local taxes. These are relatively fixed costs. The variability in gas pricing comes from the volatility in production and in oil pricing. Speculators have had more impact in the cost of your gasoline than the feds.

Speculation isn't a bad thing. Everybody who invests is a speculator. The major cost of gas is crude oil. Refining, transportation, and taxes make up the rest. Supply and demand is the biggest driving factor for the price of crude. If we encourage production here, gas would be cheap and money could be spent trying to find the next source of energy instead of paying high gas prices and wasting money on "green energy" that the market isn't ready for.

ETA: I found this chart with oil company's profit margins. So far this year, they have been any from -344.8% to 24.84%
http://ycharts.com/rankings/industries/Major%20Integrated%20Oil%20&%20Gas/profit_margin?s=calc&d=desc

Here are some other companies for comparison: http://ycharts.com/rankings/profit_margin?p=1&s=calc&d=asc

But on the original topic, I think Ryan is a good choice.

[ronaldrwl]

DJIA = Dow Jones Industrial Average, the most commonly used method to gauge the health of the economy, based on a select subset of stocks.

This is not true. Not even close. I've been in the market for a long time and dramatic turns in the economy will effect the DOW but so will what's going on in Europe and just about everything else effects the markets. We're in a nearly global economy. One strong factor in 'lifting' the markets now is the belief that obama will be unemployed soon. Just like the market dived 4 years ago when it looked very likely a Dem was going to win the white house. You can love obama all you want but don't think for one minute that business loves him. He hates business people and we hate him.

[Ridge]

Problem with your idea is that Ridge's post was incomplete and inaccurate. Incomplete in that the last time AWB happened, Congress may have suffered reelection losses but WE THE PEOPLE still suffered 10 years of unconstitutional BS until it expired. Inaccurate because the last time it happened was in California (where Feinstein tried to place M-1 Garands on the list of defined "assault weapons" during the Bush presidency) and it wasn't Romney doing it.

And in 2004 Romney signed his state's permanent AWB bill into law.

10 years of that I'm sure sucked (wasn't into firearms at the time). But MA will have theirs forever unless someone passes a law repealing it.

[Ronin13]

And in 2004 Romney signed his state's permanent AWB bill into law.

10 years of that I'm sure sucked (wasn't into firearms at the time). But MA will have theirs forever unless someone passes a law repealing it.

And that's fine. See the great part about constitutionality is state's rights. I would expect most of us to support that here. If one state doesn't want certain things they write laws, that's fine, if they believe that way. It's at the Federal level that I have a problem with it. Less power to the Fed, good... less power to the states, bad.

[Aloha_Shooter]

MA can get rid of their draconian law simply by electing a new slate of legislators and a new governor. Isn't that what we're trying to do now at the federal level (aside from the die hard libtards that will vote for anything under the donkey and the die hards that will vote third party or not vote at all because Romney isn't ______ enough)?

We got the AWB before precisely because Perot and his supporters threw a tantrum -- Bill Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote. You're throwing a fit because Romney did what his constituents in Taxachusetts wanted even though he says he wouldn't do that at the federal level and you KNOW Obama wants to do that and more. That just doesn't make much sense in my book.

In an aside, I disagree with Rucker61 a lot but will have to give him his due in the preceding debate. The US is a net importer of petroleum but net exporter of gasoline and diesel. Distribution of refineries is why Iraq was awash in a sea of oil but couldn't get refined fuel to run their vehicles and generators.

One thing that helps us a little is the fact that most of the world wants diesel more than gasoline so we have had reductions in the price of gas in the past simply because the refineries were ramping up production of diesel to meet world demand and had a temporary surplus in gasoline as a result.

However, Ronin is correct that oil company profits are roughly 5% (or less) of the gross price so the federal government actually makes more per gallon than the oil company does (and the state gets even more!). Overall oil company profits are up in part because they have diversified and raked in huge profits from federal expeditures to promote "alternative" energy.

[Rucker61]

This is not true. Not even close. I've been in the market for a long time and dramatic turns in the economy will effect the DOW but so will what's going on in Europe and just about everything else effects the markets. We're in a nearly global economy. One strong factor in 'lifting' the markets now is the belief that obama will be unemployed soon. Just like the market dived 4 years ago when it looked very likely a Dem was going to win the white house. You can love obama all you want but don't think for one minute that business loves him. He hates business people and we hate him.

The post I responded to blamed him for ruining the economy. I just pointed out that the economy, by one measure, has gotten better. I also pointed out, as you may have noticed, that Obama doesn't get credit for it, as one man really doesn't have that much impact.

I'd like to see some more evidence that the market is lifting in response to the belief that Obama will be leaving office. Most polls still show Obama as the odds on favorite.

I'm curious why you think that the market dived primarily in response to the possibility of a Democrat winning the White House. Most economists would put the blame on the housing bubble burst and credit derivative crash.

Regarding business people vs Obama, you'll find that there are quite a few business people who favor Obama. I can walk around the office here in a Fortune 100 company and see at least a fifty/fifty split in political allegiance, with a slight favor to the Democrat.

[Rucker61]

However, Ronin is correct that oil company profits are roughly 5% (or less) of the gross price so the federal government actually makes more per gallon than the oil company does (and the state gets even more!). Overall oil company profits are up in part because they have diversified and raked in huge profits from federal expeditures to promote "alternative" energy.

I saw a report that in 2011, Exxon reported about an 8% profit world-wide, and much less than that in the US. Small wonder that they like to export. Given that nearly all levels of government are in a budget crunch, it's highly unlikely that the tax on gasoline and diesel will be reduced.

[Scanker19]

And that's fine. See the great part about constitutionality is state's rights. I would expect most of us to support that here. If one state doesn't want certain things they write laws, that's fine, if they believe that way. It's at the Federal level that I have a problem with it. Less power to the Fed, good... less power to the states, bad.

What?

[HoneyBadger]

What?

Ronin is talking about states' rights. It would be much better for a state to decide they want to ban guns than the federal government. If Massachusetts doesn't like scary looking guns, move to a state that DOES like scary looking guns. Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, to name a few.

States should have the power to legislate what is right for THEIR OWN PEOPLE, the same way that local governments should legislate for their own people. Many more people will be happy this way and the entire united States will be a much freer and more prosperous nation without all the nation-wide blanket laws, regulations, and restrictions.

If you think I'm wrong, feel free to verbally abuse me.

[Ronin13]

What?

I'm simply stating that if one state decides to oh say legalize marijuana, then that should be the decision of that state, not the federal government. If they decide in another state that they want to make it harder to purchase a pistol (NY) then that's a state right as long as it doesn't infringe on the constitution. But when the federal government steps in and says "Hey that's a good idea... for everybody" it nullifies state's rights and reduces freedom.

[Sharpienads]

Ronin is talking about states' rights. It would be much better for a state to decide they want to ban guns than the federal government. If Massachusetts doesn't like scary looking guns, move to a state that DOES like scary looking guns. Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, to name a few.

States should have the power to legislate what is right for THEIR OWN PEOPLE, the same way that local governments should legislate for their own people. Many more people will be happy this way and the entire united States will be a much freer and more prosperous nation without all the nation-wide blanket laws, regulations, and restrictions.

If you think I'm wrong, feel free to verbally abuse me.

I think you're right and will not verbally abuse you.

What a person does as governor is not the same as what one will do as president. Or shouldn't be, anyway.

[HoneyBadger]

I'm simply stating that if one state decides to oh say legalize marijuana, then that should be the decision of that state, not the federal government. If they decide in another state that they want to make it harder to purchase a pistol (NY) then that's a state right as long as it doesn't infringe on the constitution. But when the federal government steps in and says "Hey that's a good idea... for everybody" it nullifies state's rights and reduces freedom.

I beat you to it, but I think you said it more eloquently. [Beer]

[Ridge]

Isn't that what we're trying to do now at the federal level (aside from the die hard libtards that will vote for anything under the donkey and the die hards that will vote third party or not vote at all because Romney isn't ______ enough)?

Isn't that exactly what the people on here voting for Romney are doing??

[Ronin13]

I beat you to it, but I think you said it more eloquently. [Beer]

Yes... I should have hit refresh... [Bang][Coffee]

[HoneyBadger]

Isn't that exactly what the people on here voting for Romney are doing??

Oh Snap! Lets not start another "blame the libertarians if Obama gets reelected" bitch fest... [ROFL1]

[Irving]

I think Ridge's point is: "Why would you want to vote someone into Federal Government, when you disagree what they have done at the state level?"

To further that point, Sharpie noted that he felt Romney only did those things to please his constituants. So we need ask ourselves, how comfortable are we that WE will be the constituants that Romney decides to appease, and not everyone else?

[hatidua]

I really can't stand the thought of voting for either of the options in November. I'll vote, but it won't be a choice I'm proud of, regardless of the candidate.

[10mm-man]

I really can't stand the thought of voting for either of the options in November. I'll vote, but it won't be a choice I'm proud of, regardless of the candidate.

As long as it works for getting the Bummer dude out![ROFL1][Beer]

[Singlestack]

It is pretty clear (to me at least) that Beeho will be very bad for the 2nd Amendment if re-elected. We already know he supports the UN "small arms treaty" - and it didn't have the senate support it needed, recently. He has told the Brady bunch that he will get gun control enacted "under the radar". Then there is fast and furious, and some of the justice dept emails that tie the operation to calls for further gun control. He has also said he favors reinstatement of the AWB. So very clear to me what he intends to do. Then add in behavior like telling Medvedev of Russia to tell Putin he will have more flexibility after the election and his unconstitutional executive orders and it seems to me he may possibly go that route, regardless of consequences.

While Romney doesn't have a stellar 2A record as governor, he has explained that as the wish of the voters. Given that Mass has remained a somewhat gun-unfriendly state after he was governor, I'm inclined to accept that. Ryan is a pretty staunch 2A supporter and appears so far to have a consistent record of support.

I think that on balance Romney/Ryan would be more pro-2A than Beeho/Biden.

Singlestack

[bulletproof]

I like Paul Ryan. I've had my eye on him for a while. I remember watching this one round table with the president where he went off on him. You could just see the president snarling under his breath about what Paul was saying. It was great!

Just a little non-partisan data on the unemployment rate over the last 10 years...
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000