Paul Ryan Discussion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Al_Moritz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rlg94086 said:
Meh…doesn’t matter. The link Bellasbane provided lists misrepresentations of Romney that have been refuted several times. There is no need to take it seriously.
Click to expand...
One must wonder why Obama is running Ads about Romney being a pro-life extremist!
 
po18guy said:
As to Romney: Past history, or present day?

As to the war, you mean the one that Obama escalated? Yeah, that one…
Click to expand...
I think the trouble with Romney is that his pro-choice, pro-gay rights views of the past aren’t so far in the distant past. Therefore the electorate isn’t quite sure what his core values are and what positions he is likely to advocate and attempt to implement in the near future after his possible election. With Obama, we know and with Ryan, we know; but with Romney, we are left wondering. The only true constant for Romney is his lack of consistency; that is, except for foreign policy, in which he has no past track record to speak of, only his current statements, which, one can only hope, are mere political pandering.

In regard to the war, Obama has at least set a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, something Romney is opposed to. And with regard to the Iraq War, Obama was one of the few who voted against it, if I remember correctly.
 
Tampa_Dave said:
I’ll take two more like Antonin Scalia, thank you. Toss in another Clarence Thomas for good measure.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget it took a couple of Senate Democrats to cast their votes for C. Thomas to their own political peril after the Anita Hill fiasco. Dixon of Illinois was one of them who lost in the next primary.
 
ishii said:
Hello DeSanto -

You’re missing my point entirely which is that this election between Obama and Romney could have huge repercussions as to the ideological shape of the supreme court. If you want two or three more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs, then vote for Obama. If you want more Scalias (or atleast a good chance of more Scalias) then vote for Romney/Ryan.
Click to expand...
The way it’s been working lately, the justices seem to be getting replaced with someone of their own ideology so no net gain for either side. A serious swing might have occurred had Bush’s nominee Harriet Meirs been confirmed, but fortunately that didn’t happen. And there is no assurance Romney will nominate another Scalia if Scalia were to step down for any reason.
 
DeSanto said:
As I said, I understand your point just fine. You think that the judges rule based on their ideology. Whether they do or not is up for debate but they are not supposed to. The point I’d like to convey to you is, you sound as if you don’t mind if they rule according to their personal views as long as the ones you agree with get appointed. So vote for Romney and we’ll get the “right” ideologs appointed into the supreme court. I don’t know about you but I don’t want the supreme court to be rule by ideologs. You do not give these justices the credit they deserve and just assume they decide based on their personal views.
Click to expand...
I didn’t make myself clear - sorry. The right generally supports a strict, constructionsist interpretation of the constitution - one that doesn’t manufacture “rights” out of thin air that are not in the constitution. “rights” such as abortion. The left generally believes the constititution is a “living document” which can be altered at will in order to bring about leftist policy goals - abortion, gay marriage, etc. So, a justice who believes in a strict interpretation of the constitution - Scalia, e.g. - would disagree with the Roe V Wade decision and think it should be overturned. Romney also believes this and is on record saying that he would nominate justices in the mold of Scalia. So its not about “GOP” justices or “Democrat” justices but rather strict constructionist justices vs. activist loose interpretation justices. The Democrats nominate the latter (under Clinton and Obama) and the Republicans nominate the former - but sometimes they get defeated and they have to go to the 2nd or even 3rd choice which is much less reliably constructionist (Souter). Other times they get surprised (Roberts) because there are no guarentees are there…

Also there are “swing” vote justices such as Anthony Kennedy who are difficult to predict - sometimes they side with the conservative side, sometimes with the liberal side.

The supreme court is very powerful - the ideological balance could shape the direction of our country for decades to come. Let Obama pick the next two or three justices and forget about overturning Roe V Wade for the next 40 years. Then look forward to a million abortions a year. I don’t want that and I don’t think you do either.

I hope this makes it more clear. Sorry to be so vague earlier.

Ishii
 
ProVobis said:
The way it’s been working lately, the justices seem to be getting replaced with someone of their own ideology so no net gain for either side. A serious swing might have occurred had Bush’s nominee Harriet Meirs been confirmed, but fortunately that didn’t happen. And there is no assurance Romney will nominate another Scalia if Scalia were to step down for any reason.
Click to expand...
Well, Romney is on record as saying he would nominate justices in the mold of Scalia. If he fails to do so then he is in danger of losing much of the support base for re-electoin. How would the court have swung if Harriet Meirs had been confirmed? To the left? Conservatives disliked her.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is getting old and not in very good health. Its possible that there could be a vacancy there - I think Kennedy is also a possibility. Scalia, unfortunately is getting old too. Possibility of lots of vacancies and opportunities to change the balance of the court - depending on who is president.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
How would the court have swung if Harriet Meirs had been confirmed? To the left? Conservatives disliked her.
Click to expand...
Yes, that was my understanding.

But that wouldn’t have been the first time a Republican president did that. Look at what Nixon did, and thus what led to Roe vs Wade in the first place by a vote of 7-2. (A JFK appointee was one of the two votes against.)

And here’s a thought. Does one seriously think a Republican-appointed Supreme Court will overturn itself?
 
ProVobis said:
Yes, that was my understanding.

But that wouldn’t have been the first time a Republican president did that. Look at what Nixon did, and thus what led to Roe vs Wade in the first place by a vote of 7-2. (A JFK appointee was one of the two votes against.)

And here’s a thought. Does one seriously think a Republican-appointed Supreme Court will overturn itself?
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court has reversed itself before…so I don’t think it impossible.

God bless.

-Paul
 
meltzerboy said:
I think the trouble with Romney is that his pro-choice, pro-gay rights views of the past aren’t so far in the distant past. Therefore the electorate isn’t quite sure what his core values are and what positions he is likely to advocate and attempt to implement in the near future after his possible election. With Obama, we know and with Ryan, we know; but with Romney, we are left wondering. The only true constant for Romney is his lack of consistency; that is, except for foreign policy, in which he has no past track record to speak of, only his current statements, which, one can only hope, are mere political pandering.

In regard to the war, Obama has at least set a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, something Romney is opposed to. And with regard to the Iraq War, Obama was one of the few who voted against it, if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...
Upon anyone’s conversion, their former life is in the recent past. And, look at the choice he made: from popular, worldly, well accepted views to very unpopular ones. This is not the direction of someone who simply desires an office - he is coming under intense personal criticism for his change of mind.
 
po18guy said:
Upon anyone’s conversion, their former life is in the recent past. And, look at the choice he made: from popular, worldly, well accepted views to very unpopular ones. This is not the direction of someone who simply desires an office - he is coming under intense personal criticism for his change of mind.
Click to expand...
That’s a good point. I’ve wondered why in the world Romney (or anyone, for that matter) wants to be President, given his comfortable lifestyle, past accomplishments, and aptitude and passion for the business world. Either he sincerely thinks he can help the country or he thinks of acquiring the job and its title as another business-like professional challenge and triumph, or perhaps both.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
And Obama wasn’t born in the USA.
Click to expand...
ishii said:
I didn’t make myself clear - sorry. The right generally supports a strict, constructionsist interpretation of the constitution - one that doesn’t manufacture “rights” out of thin air that are not in the constitution. “rights” such as abortion. The left generally believes the constititution is a “living document” which can be altered at will in order to bring about leftist policy goals - abortion, gay marriage, etc. So, a justice who believes in a strict interpretation of the constitution - Scalia, e.g. - would disagree with the Roe V Wade decision and think it should be overturned. Romney also believes this and is on record saying that he would nominate justices in the mold of Scalia. So its not about “GOP” justices or “Democrat” justices but rather strict constructionist justices vs. activist loose interpretation justices. The Democrats nominate the latter (under Clinton and Obama) and the Republicans nominate the former - but sometimes they get defeated and they have to go to the 2nd or even 3rd choice which is much less reliably constructionist (Souter). Other times they get surprised (Roberts) because there are no guarentees are there…

Also there are “swing” vote justices such as Anthony Kennedy who are difficult to predict - sometimes they side with the conservative side, sometimes with the liberal side.

The supreme court is very powerful - the ideological balance could shape the direction of our country for decades to come. Let Obama pick the next two or three justices and forget about overturning Roe V Wade for the next 40 years. Then look forward to a million abortions a year. I don’t want that and I don’t think you do either.

I hope this makes it more clear. Sorry to be so vague earlier.

Ishii
Click to expand...
I so appreciate the kind and respectful response! I totally agree with what you are saying, I just don’t like it. It is called perverted justice, and I want no part of it.
 
ProVobis said:
Yes, that was my understanding.

But that wouldn’t have been the first time a Republican president did that. Look at what Nixon did, and thus what led to Roe vs Wade in the first place by a vote of 7-2. (A JFK appointee was one of the two votes against.)

And here’s a thought. Does one seriously think a Republican-appointed Supreme Court will overturn itself?
Click to expand...
I think part of the flaw in your reasoning is the belief that there is some kind of identity on the court that sees itself as “Republican” and believes it somehow has to uphold past decisions that were decided by a Republican appointed majority - as if party affiliation decided everything. I have heard the old " Roe V Wade was supported by a majority of Republican appointed justices" argument many times. As if the stance of the Republican party, and the analysis of potential justices was the same in 1970 as it is today. Social issues mainly involved crime, law and order in the Nixon era - no one asked potential justices if they believed a right to privacy for abortion existed.

This is not 1970, is it - there was an outcry when Bush nominated Harriet Meiers and he had to nominate someone else. That alone should show you the difference between the Nixon era and now. I think it will take another two decent justices to overturn Roe V Wade. In any event, I can imagine giving up - and giving the abortion lobby a long-term victory at the expense of the unborn.

Ishii
 
meltzerboy said:
That’s a good point. I’ve wondered why in the world Romney (or anyone, for that matter) wants to be President, given his comfortable lifestyle, past accomplishments, and aptitude and passion for the business world.*** Either he sincerely thinks he can help the country ***or he thinks of acquiring the job and its title as another business-like professional challenge and triumph, or perhaps both.
Click to expand...
My bold italics

I would like to think that Romney wants to help the country. I think we need someone who understands business - who has a track record of turning around failing enterprises and he deserves a chance. Obama has failed miserably. I am convinced more than ever that Obama is basically an empty suit who doesn’t know the first thing about business and what makes the economy tick. He is an ideologue first and foremost.

Ishii
 
Et_Cetera said:
It has been condemned by Catholic bishops for a reason, but of course many here don’t want to think about that. The GOP voice matters more than a Church authority figure.
Click to expand...
If you’re so concerned about the Church’s position on all of this then you should be aware that the Church does not require us to accept the opinions of “Church authority figures.” Doctrines yes, opinions no. As for Ryan’s budget being condemned by “Catholic bishops” this is, unsurprisingly, a bit of an exaggeration. It was condemned by Bishop Blair … and defended by Bishop Morlino. Should we believe that the Church is in schism here?

I understand the desire to simply condemn Ryan and move on without addressing the issues his budget plan raises. Given the absence not only of any coherent plan but of any plan at all by the other side and the unsustainable deficits run up in the past few years, focusing on the budget is a losing proposition for Democrats. Nonetheless there is no justification whatever for claiming that the Church opposes Ryan’s proposal or that we are not morally justified in supporting it.

Ender
 
DeSanto said:
ok? wow! where did that come from?
Click to expand...
You keep making silly claims that Romney has offshore accounts and somehoe this is illegal, immoral or wrong.

As far as we know, Romney has complied with US tax law, unless you have proof to the contrary - i.e. a judgement against him.

Also, as I have stated, many people own offshore investments and use the tax code to their advantage.

Therefore, Romney’s offshore accounts should have little bearing on whether we should vote for him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top