It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Paul Ryan's position on economic issues

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
All I needed was to read the first couple sentences....if you are a true Republican why would you have voted for an obvious Marxist fabian socialist who talks about "spreading the wealth"? Perhaps you have a different idea on what Republicanism is, but Marxist socialist it aint no way no how.


Well, my brother, over the past 4 years, said I didn't listen well. I have accepted that he is right. No, I know exactly what the foundation of Republicanism is. My brain wasn't working well 4 years ago. That's my defense. I wanted change and I heard words that convinced me of change. I didn't want Palin and that McCain could burn his first VERY important decision on a dim-wit like her was enough for me to know I couldn't vote for him.

Don't question my own statement of what my political views are. You don't even know me.
edit on 8-11-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)


Ok I can accept that, and I like Ryan too. Obama seems to have fooled more than one Repub with his unifying rhetoric so I give you that.




posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Yeah, just put it down as a mark in the "bad decisions" column of my life. I have more than one of them.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Yeah, just put it down as a mark in the "bad decisions" column of my life. I have more than one of them.


Possibly frustration with the Republican party too it seems. I went Libertarian in 04 till I realized there were Greenish socialist types there too....so I abandoned that. I was mad at Bush for taking us to war and the whole PATRIOT ACT thing. It bothers me that Democrats almost all voted for the first PATRIOT ACT then turned around and tried to make it all look like a Republican ruse. What a bunch of opportunistic fakes.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 



Okay, we're in violent agreement then. LOL! Yes. And I will admit that I also voted against Bush in 2004. But not like I said "I like Kerry". I actually prayed and flipped a coin. And I'm dead serious. I ALWAYS vote, but in 2004 I was so disgusted with what Bush was doing to the country that I could not reasonably claim that I was casting a good vote to vote for him. I have never ever ever voted party line. I've always voted by policy and platform of the individual running. Now, up until 2004 that meant every vote was cast Republican. But after the first 4 years of Bush losing his mind at the helm, I could no longer do that.

In 2008 I was for McCain (though there were a few issues I had with him) until he absolutely screwed the pooch and showed his reasoning was in an alternate reality. At that point I guess Palin's nonsense deafened me to some of the things Obama was saying. All I knew was....we've got to have change. I did not see change in a McCain/Palin ticket. I saw more of the same with two-hands worth of moron mixed in.

Cheney recently, apparently, caved in and kissed Palin's ass after he was honest and stated she was not competent to run as vice-president. Well, Palin's handlers and the Republican party's handlers can't get to me. SHE lost the election for McCain (well, he lost it when he picked her) as far as I'm concerned. At least as far as my vote is concerned.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Valhall
 


Only a self deluded moron can not see that Ryan's plan amounts to eliminating the federal government, and replacing it with corporatocracy.

Do you have any idea what percentage of fed gov revenue goes to interest on the debt?

Who cares, right? Let future generations pay it!

What we need to do is what the WW II gen was smart enough to do, raise taxes on the super rich, and make them pay back what they stole. It worked then, it will work now.


Listen, I won't be responding to you after this, so listen. You're trying to derail this thread and you're trying to get me mad. You're over the top and ridiculous. If you believe this, I hope you get help. In the form of listening skills first, reading skills second, and some type of medication.

I really am not going to engage you in a conversation because you've said nothing intelligent enough to debate.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


When you called me a liar, you proved you have no interest in an honest debate.

I am not derailing the thread, I'm proving the premise to be patently false. Obviously it can't stand up to criticism.

My point remains that Ryan ignores the pink elephant herd in the room, the Huge debt created by free market scams.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Any further name calling or insults, no matter how veiled they may be, and some may find their posting privileges suspended..

Enough already

Semper



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
That repubs can continue to call for tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy, after Wall Street scams trashed our economy, leading to a fed bailout to prevent total collapse, that has put our nation deeply into debt, is completely irresponsible.

Is this how the boomers want to go out? Dumping this huge debt on future generations?

How is that right?



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Let me say what I did in another Ryan thread: Talk is cheap. Talking ain't worth squat unless you act on it. It can be fairly said that Ryan is a hypocrite. He's been a congressman for 14 years. He's had ample time to prove his chops in terms of fiscal discipline. he has failed miserably.

- Voted for both unfunded wars -- both fiscally irresponsible and warmongering
- Voted for TARP under Bush -- a champion of too big to fail
- Voted for the Bush tax cuts -- still today the single greatest ongoing contributor to the growth of the deficit
- Voted for the Patriot Act every time its come up -- hardly respects freedom and civil liberties
- Voted for the unfunded Medicare Part D under Bush -- another ongoing major budget buster
- Voted AGAINST his on jointly crafted plan as a leading member of the Deficit Commission, even as the plan had 10 dollars in cuts for every 1 dollar increase in revenue (he is a captive of Norquist)

The media is fawning over him, saying he is a deficit hawk and because he a photogenic nice guy. He talks a big game, but votes completely opposite his words.

Oh, and he claims to be a big Ayn Rand champion. Well, he got his education at a public (aka "government") university that he paid for with his Social Security survivor benefits following the death of his father when he was nearing completion of high school. He has lived in Washington for two decades, and has been a congressman since he was 28. His own insurance is paid for for life by the government. He will get a tasty government pension for life.

Small government acolyte my butt. He is as big government as anyone and would be just another joe were it not government assistance and high profile government employment.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
This guy is sincere and he's got what it takes. I think choosing him may have just won the election:

www.cnn.com...#/video/us/2012/08/11/ihow-paul-ryan.cnn

And apparently CNN is already desperate to try to mitigate the damage this guy poses to their failed ticket:

www.cnn.com...

So they went and found someone in WISCONSIN to write an OP/ED piece that basically says....he never served at the state level and he has fiscally conservative values.

Ooooohhhhh noooooes!

lmao



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly
Let me say what I did in another Ryan thread: Talk is cheap. Talking ain't worth squat unless you act on it. It can be fairly said that Ryan is a hypocrite. He's been a congressman for 14 years. He's had ample time to prove his chops in terms of fiscal discipline. he has failed miserably.


Funny, that's how I feel about the past 4 years when I look at Obama.
edit on 8-11-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
All I needed was to read the first couple sentences....if you are a true Republican why would you have voted for an obvious Marxist fabian socialist who talks about "spreading the wealth"? Perhaps you have a different idea on what Republicanism is, but Marxist socialist it aint no way no how.


What is republicanism?



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
This guy is sincere and he's got what it takes. I think choosing him may have just won the election:

www.cnn.com...#/video/us/2012/08/11/ihow-paul-ryan.cnn

And apparently CNN is already desperate to try to mitigate the damage this guy poses to their failed ticket:

www.cnn.com...

So they went and found someone in WISCONSIN to write an OP/ED piece that basically says....he never served at the state level and he has fiscally conservative values.

Ooooohhhhh noooooes!

lmao


he is ok,,, but admit that you like him mainly because hes attractive
or at least admit his looks dont hurt



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi


he is ok,,, but admit that you like him mainly because hes attractive
or at least admit his looks dont hurt


No, I'm sorry, I won't be admitting that. Romney isn't bad to look at, but that doesn't mean he earns a vote by himself. I think we're way past the Harding days. Sorry to bust your bubble, but despite the bad hit I have to take on my judgment in the 2008 election, I actually vote based on reasoning, not shallow-Hal attractions.
edit on 8-11-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


And Clinton was repeated warned about the threat from Osama, that he was panning attacks on US soil and that something needed to be done and he ignored it.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


And Clinton was repeated warned about the threat from Osama, that he was panning attacks on US soil and that something needed to be done and he ignored it.


In all fairness, no he didn't ignore it. He took it serious.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


And Clinton was repeated warned about the threat from Osama, that he was panning attacks on US soil and that something needed to be done and he ignored it.


but its all fine,,, bush took care of it when it was his problem,,,
i understand it was still clintons fault and probably obamas too,,,
and the only reason obama got osama was probably because of bush,,
edit on 11-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Clinton raised taxes on the rich and Eliminated the deficit.

Nuff said.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Clinton put the first needed curtailments on welfare recipients, to use the program as a stop-gap assistance program until you could find a job, instead of how it has been abused as a way of life.

'nuff said.
edit on 8-11-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join