Ryan unspun

reply to post by Eurisko2012

Why is the ACLU so quiet?

Don't care.

- National Security trumps Civil Liberties -

When hell freezes over!

Just face reality . Obama did. Why can't you?

Why would I try to think like Obama. You may dig it, but I can think on my own.

All the rest of us has. - You stand alone - Who else here on ATS agrees with you?

No one I guess. It feels nice to stand on principle even when no one agrees.

I'll still take my liberties please.....I'm not big on national security when it comes with a side of bull#.

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I hate to be rude but I feel that your are being delusional here. Allow me to explain why.

What is the main difference between Obama and Romney? Is there one? Many? I can't really tell.

Also, I feel that Paul Ryan is not experienced enough and therefore, not qualified to be a VP candidate for any party at this point.

You can go vote for Romney but you'll just get 4 more years of the same, even with Ryan on the ticket.

Thanks. I needed a good laugh.

Paul Ryan is 10 times more qualified to be Vice President than Joe Biden.

Joe Biden is an embarrassment.

Paul Ryan will Preserve and Strengthen MediCare.

Look closely at the picture below. Is Paul Ryan lying to his own mother?

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Trust me, voting for Romney is NOT facing reality.

Voting for Romney is like voting for another set of blinders, probably with a jazzy color scheme and a false sense of hope.

A vote for Romney is a clear move away from the - Fiscal Cliff -.

A vote for Romney will stop - another - credit downgrade.

President Mitt Romney will give us Peace & Prosperity.

----------

A vote for President Mitt Romney will give George Soros a huge headache.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


It was not addressed to you and I would appreciate if you don't troll.

Your threads and posts are not amusing me.

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

It was not addressed to you and I would appreciate if you don't troll.

Your threads and posts are not amusing me.

The above post says : reply to Eurisko

Look for yourself.

I think you better get used to the fact that Paul Ryan was the best pick.

It's over.

Biden is no match for Ryan.

Name calling won't help you make your argument.

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I hate to be rude but I feel that your are being delusional here. Allow me to explain why.

What is the main difference between Obama and Romney? Is there one? Many? I can't really tell.

Also, I feel that Paul Ryan is not experienced enough and therefore, not qualified to be a VP candidate for any party at this point.

You can go vote for Romney but you'll just get 4 more years of the same, even with Ryan on the ticket.

As I've said several times now...but am happy to say again to yet another repeat of the same challenge.

I don't like Mitt Romney. He was near the bottom of the Republican hopefuls I would ever have wanted to see make it. However, we are stuck with him...and in November ONE of two men WILL win this election and will be the President for another 4 years. No theory there, as much as some seem to suggest there is some alternative world where one of them isn't running the United States.

Give that absolute cold and hard fact of life, I need to choose one of those two men, at this point, to vote for. Missouri DOES NOT LEGALLY ALLOW Ron Paul to run or get vote credit as a write-in at this point, in this race. That makes that option 100% and truly wasted...so that isn't even an option as a passing thought.


Again... Given the above realities. I am going to vote for Romney and Paul Ryan because the devil I don't know is preferable to the one I do. I *KNOW* Obama has spent this nation into total ruin and is openly declaring he simply hasn't done ENOUGH OF IT. The previous president ran deficits of half a trillion dollars...and we all but choked on the number. Obama runs then a 1.5 trillion and no one even mentions it.

Well.... I've had it with financial ruin as a national policy. Mitt may run us down too...in which case the nation will collapse and likely, the world with us....at least for a period of time. Mitt MAY cause that. Obama *WILL* cause that. So... Gamble...and I'm playing for an inside straight. VERY unlikely Mitt saves things as they stand now....but...

The difference? Mitt isn't riding the Titanic down to the bottom and gleefully saying it's a good job he deserves our gratitude for having done. Obama IS doing precisely that and the difference is as sickening as it is obvious.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I think there is a big difference between gun control and "hand over all of your rights so that you may be safer."

I don't agree with either, but I don't see our right to bare arms going anywhere soon.

Similar principle. Also consider that a Democrat House, Senate, and President did not only not do away with the Patriot Act as promised, but expanded it. Seems that they are just as power hungry when they get their hands on the power as the next guy.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yes, that's a great way to characterize the Obama campaign.

- The Titanic -

As we speak David Axelrod is rearranging the deck chairs to no avail.

They are burning through cash like crazy and nothing is working.

The 8.3% unemployment rate and 1.5% GDP growth rate is acting like an anchor

around Obamas ankles. The rising price of gas is just making it worse.

With each passing day Romney supporters gain enthusiasm.

Obama supporters are losing enthusiasm.

The Scott Walker recall election was the warning for Obama.

His time is up.

reply to post by NavyDoc

Similar principle. Also consider that a Democrat House, Senate, and President did not only not do away with the Patriot Act as promised, but expanded it. Seems that they are just as power hungry when they get their hands on the power as the next guy.

I agree. Good thing that I stick to that principle and will not be voting for either candidate.

At least I can say that I am consistent, unlike others. (not meaning you particularly)

And civil liberties are more important that national security

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Scroll up some more. I was referring to Wrabbit.

Please, spare me your silliness.

I won't change your mind, you won't change mine but could we at least be mature about it?

reply to post by Eurisko2012

Agreed and we do have very similar thinking...an additional thought. and relating to other comments down the thread.....

I noticed something about that TARP program some are so quick to hold up as the nightmare Obama had to deal with...and why HIS stimulus of nearly a trillion was needed. To be sure..even those people don't suggest those are the only factors...but, enough focus strictly on who originated the TARP fund to make hay of it.

A large portion of TARP was unspent in 2009 and Obama didn't just use it..he FOUGHT for the right to commandeer those funds and spend them how he saw fit. It's also fair to note...if some others want to get all partisan about how this calamity happened, that the vote on TARP and what followed was Democratic, regardless of the President (and I fast came to hate Bush for his socialism in the last couple years of his term)

The Official Vote for TARP was 263-171 and partisan split in favor was 172(D) and 92(R). Those opposed to TARP? 63(D) to 108 (R). Dems wrote it...Dems passed it. Bush signed it as HE asked for it, when it got to his desk...if anyone cares about records being accurate on that.

Obama Lobbies for TARP funds, Stimulus Plan
(The dateline on that story in Jan 13, 2009. He was inaugurated January 20th, 2009. He wasn't even in OFFICE yet...and chasing those TARP funds while demanding more)

Of course.. we know his idea of stimulus too....Again, in their own words..

(I honestly cannot believe the left ..Media Matters, no less...DEFENDED this statement and all but memorialized it....as so many on the left argued meaning and wording when Pelosi said almost the same thing awhile back)

Vilsack: "[W]hen You Talk About ... The Food Stamp Program, You Have To Recognize That It's Also An Economic Stimulus." On the August 16 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Vilsack said, "When you talk about the SNAP program, or the food stamp program, you have to recognize that it's also an economic stimulus." From the broadcast:

Source

So look at the bright side...I guess... kinda...uhhh..sorta??? We're going down and the Titanic is slipping under.....but there is plenty of food for all to eat on the way! Food Stamps for all and for all a card for free food!

Since we are speaking of the different Paul Ryan's ,
My favorite Paul Ryan is the one quietly asking for stimulus money
for his district while campaigning the opposite.

www.youtube.com...

This article was written last year...it simplifies Ryans medicare plan for everyone to understand.....for our liberal "friends" it is similiar to Germany's plan.......it also mirrors the Federal Employee plan......so if it's good enough for the feds it should be good enough for everyone:

Ryan seeks to reverse this impending cost disaster by instituting a new program beginning no earlier than January 2021 affecting only those aged 55 and younger. The plan has the following major elements:

Part A and Part B trust funds are combined to create one unified trust fund. The new Medicare Program and the existing program continue to be financed by trust fund revenues, Medicare payroll taxes, and general revenue contributions as done now.
By January 2021, insurance companies must establish competing healthcare coverage plans with specified benefits and limitations. Some would provide only high-deductible catastrophic coverage. Others could provide more liberalized coverage. Medicare would establish categories of generalized coverage. All plans which met specified requirements would become "Medicare certified" and eligible for premium payment cost sharing.
Each patient would select from the approved list a plan best matching his or her expected healthcare needs for the coming year. Medicare would reimburse the health plan a fixed amount of money for each enrollee for premium payment support. If the Medicare-provided assistance exceeded the premium required for the selected plan, that excess would be credited to a "Medical Savings Account" (MSA) for the beneficiary's future use.
Ryan currently estimates the reimbursement amount at an average $11,000 -- with further adjustment determined by income level. Higher-income patients would receive less premium assistance.
Beneficiaries with annual incomes below $80,000 ($160,000 for couples) would receive full standard payment amounts; beneficiaries with annual incomes between $80,000 and $200,000 ($160,000 to $400,000 for couples) would receive 50 percent of the standard; and beneficiaries with incomes above $200,000 ($400,000 for couples) would receive 30 percent.
After enrollment in a plan, all beneficiaries could, at their option, undergo an annual health "risk adjustment" examination. Results of this exam would be submitted to Medicare and become eligible for a higher risk-adjusted premium payment.
To further assist those individuals with incomes near or below the poverty level, Ryan proposes additional payments above just premium support. While any enrollee, regardless of income level, would be able to set up a tax-free MSA if desired, the new Medicare Program would specifically establish and fund an MSA for low-income beneficiaries to help them with deductible payments required for care procedures. The amount paid to those below the government-established poverty level would be equal to the deductible for the average Medicare high-deductible health plan. Those with incomes at or 50 percent above the poverty level would receive 75 percent of the full deposit.

Recognizing that Americans are becoming healthier than ever before and living much longer, Ryan further proposes that a phase-in of the start of the new Medicare program would, after 2021, be raised in a slow incremental fashion from the current age 65 to 69 years 6 months.

As proposed, the Ryan Medicare plan resembles the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). In the FEHBP model the government provides a set financial contribution each year. Employees and retirees have a variety of options, including catastrophic coverage plans with high deductibles, health maintenance organizations, and high-end plans with many choices of doctors and other providers. Everyone has a choice of at least 10 fee-for-service plans, but the exact number varies by where an enrollee lives. Read more: www.americanthinker.com...

AND notice the rich have to pay more of their own money.....isn't that what you are all screaming for?

The rich must pay!

So this plan seems to address all the complaints including the budget and solvency...the only problem with Dems is that a conservative came up with it so it must be bad.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by xuenchen

 

No.
Paul Ryan supported TARP and supported making the patriot act permenant. So don't try to sell us this garbage.
We know all we need to know about Paul Ryan.

All adults realize that National Security trumps Civil Liberties.

The Patriot Act was created by Bush and - endorsed - by Obama.

----------
TARP - the big banks paid their money back with interest.

Wells Fargo never really wanted it in the first place.

Wow. Just wow. NOTHING trumps civil liberties.


"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Similar principle. Also consider that a Democrat House, Senate, and President did not only not do away with the Patriot Act as promised, but expanded it. Seems that they are just as power hungry when they get their hands on the power as the next guy.

I agree. Good thing that I stick to that principle and will not be voting for either candidate.

At least I can say that I am consistent, unlike others. (not meaning you particularly)

And civil liberties are more important that national security

edit on 21-8-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

Ultimately civil liberties and national security go hand in hand. As posted above, those who give away liberty for security deserve neither.

Originally posted by xuenchen

1. No, the Ryan budget isn’t extreme

2. No, his plan doesn’t favor the rich

3. No, Ryan’s plan does not destroy Medicare

4. No, he’s not at war with women

5. No, he’s not a congressional obstructionist

So, in other words, these are Ryan's weaknesses.

I still find it funny that they have to keep reminding seniors that they are exempt from those non extreme medicare changes.

reply to post by NavyDoc

Ultimately civil liberties and national security go hand in hand. As posted above, those who give away liberty for security deserve neither.

I can agree. I just put the emphasis on personal freedom because I will not give it up for national security.

Eurisko2012 has stated many times that he believes national security is much more important. Sounds to me like he is a "big-government liberal" that wants your rights to be taken so that the government can take care of him......so he is safe.

"National security welfare queen"......I may have just thought of the next greatest bumper sticker!

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by xuenchen

 

No.
Paul Ryan supported TARP and supported making the patriot act permenant. So don't try to sell us this garbage.
We know all we need to know about Paul Ryan.

All adults realize that National Security trumps Civil Liberties.

The Patriot Act was created by Bush and - endorsed - by Obama.

----------
TARP - the big banks paid their money back with interest.

Wells Fargo never really wanted it in the first place.

Wow. Just wow. NOTHING trumps civil liberties.


"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Wow ! Just WOW !!! Walk into an airport and go face to face with a TSA Supervisor.

Go ahead and scream as loud as you can that - NOTHING !!!!!!! - trumps civil liberties.

They will take you away in handcuffs. Then you can mumble to yourself........

........Wow, Eurisko 2012 was right. What was i thinking ?

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Similar principle. Also consider that a Democrat House, Senate, and President did not only not do away with the Patriot Act as promised, but expanded it. Seems that they are just as power hungry when they get their hands on the power as the next guy.

I agree. Good thing that I stick to that principle and will not be voting for either candidate.

At least I can say that I am consistent, unlike others. (not meaning you particularly)

And civil liberties are more important that national security

edit on 21-8-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

Ultimately civil liberties and national security go hand in hand. As posted above, those who give away liberty for security deserve neither.

That kind of high minded indignation has a way of disappearing when tall buildings explode,

hundreds of citizens jump from burning buildings and fall on the concrete below or when

an Al Qaeda crop dusting small plane rains down nerve gas on innocent civilians.

OH, um....nevermind....about the civil liberties for now. - Stop Al Qaeda ! -

Here are some examples for you.

- Civil Liberties - Wiki



Oh LOOK ! - damaging national security interests - why did they put THAT in there??

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
And I am supposed to trust a source that itself attempts to spread lies???

.... says the person who quotes left wing rag Huffington Post.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Now why couldn't HE have been #1 and better yet, telling Romney the VP slot isn't open to offer him?

Ryan is more qualified than Romney to be POTUS. Definately.
And he hasn't got the baggage that Romney has ...