Paul Ryan Discussion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Al_Moritz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think it implies a lack of understanding, empathy and compassion. Pro-choice people generally do not believe that an embryo or a fetus (at least up to a certain age) is a person, and thus they do not believe that they are killing a person. You must know the arguments, I’m sure.

?
And Plantation owners didn’t believe Blacks were “people” and Sherman believed the “only good Indian was a dead indian” So I guess if you can rationalize evil its OK?
 
I have read Ayn Rand’s books. Loved them. Changed my life. Do I agree with her atheism? Do I agree with everything she said? No. Neither does Ryan.
What do you agree with then? Ayn Rand was not academically disrespected because she was an atheist - although that should be relevant to religious people – she was disrespected for the reasons I suspect you love those books. The books can be emotionally appealing. I have read some of her work myself, and if you are in an impressionable state of mind they can feel like a justification and vindication of selfishness and self-righteousness. But in the end the arguments are illogical and ill-conceived, as has been pointed out by fellow libertarian Robert Nozick (who was a proper academic) and others.
This particular subject…Ryan channeling his inner Ayn Rand… has been beaten to death, debunked and dispensed with. If you enjoy beating dead horses go for it but if not check the fora and you will find much written on the subject.
Show me the debunking then.
A self appointed spokesman for a relatlvely obscure self claiming Catholic organization is hardly the authority on the subject of Catholicism’s impact on Paul Ryan’s budget.
Where did I quote this spokesman?
You are assuming that what passes for academia toady can be described as intellectual.
Ok, genius. Give an example of what you are talking about,
And Plantation owners didn’t believe Blacks were “people” and Sherman believed the “only good Indian was a dead indian” So I guess if you can rationalize evil its OK?
Why should I accept that analogy? You need arguments. There are arguments for why an embryo or a fetus is not a person, and there are some counterarguments that either tackle or circumvent the issue, and the best one is secular. Look into «a future of value» by Marquis.

I don’t want to get into a discussion about abortion, but there are obviously reasons for not thinking that an embryo is a person. On the face of it, you can at least observe that an embryo without a brain cannot have mental states. And when we think about persons, we think of beings with mental states.
 
Correct-I dont recall the Left attacking him for being a rich white man who couldn’t relate to the common people. Of course may be because he didnt earn his money-his wife did(well actually she married into it but thats another story).
Maybe the Left didn’t attack John Kerry because he was a war hero, unlike Mitt Romney who protested against those opposed to the Vietnam War and yet, hypocritically, had about three deferments himself. The Right did, however, shamelessly use their super-pacs to discredit John Kerry’s heroism during the War.

Kerry did resemble both Romney and Gore, though, in that all three are awkward in relating to the public on an emotional level.
 
Why should I accept that analogy? You need arguments. There are arguments for why an embryo or a fetus is not a person, and there are some counterarguments that either tackle or circumvent the issue, and the best one is secular. Look into «a future of value» by Marquis.

I don’t want to get into a discussion about abortion, but there are obviously reasons for not thinking that an embryo is a person. On the face of it, you can at least observe that an embryo without a brain cannot have mental states. And when we think about persons, we think of beings with mental states.
So if the unborn is not human what is it? A Tomato? Who determines what human life deserves protection and what does not? Why should ANYONE have that right???
 
Maybe the Left didn’t attack John Kerry because he was a war hero, unlike Mitt Romney who protested against those opposed to the Vietnam War and yet, hypocritically, had about three deferments himself. The Right did, however, use their super-pacs to discredit John Kerry’s heroism during the War.

Kerry did resemble both Romney and Gore, though, in that all three are awkward in relating to the public on an emotional level.
Or maybe the Left didn’t protest Kerry(who was not a war hero by anyones stretch of the imagination) because he was “their” rich guy. War heros dont falsely accuse those who also served as being murderers and rapists.
 
Or maybe the Left didn’t protest Kerry(who was not a war hero by anyones stretch of the imagination) because he was “their” rich guy. War heros dont falsely accuse those who also served as being murderers and rapists.
Actually, it is probably because he accused those who also served as being murders and rapists that many Democrats celebrated their “war hero.”
 
Or maybe the Left didn’t protest Kerry(who was not a war hero by anyones stretch of the imagination) because he was “their” rich guy. War heros dont falsely accuse those who also served as being murderers and rapists.
👍
 
What do you agree with then? Ayn Rand was not academically disrespected because she was an atheist - although that should be relevant to religious people – she was disrespected for the reasons I suspect you love those books. The books can be emotionally appealing. I have read some of her work myself, and if you are in an impressionable state of mind they can feel like a justification and vindication of selfishness and self-righteousness. But in the end the arguments are illogical and ill-conceived, as has been pointed out by fellow libertarian Robert Nozick (who was a proper academic) and others.
.
Wow that’s a grand stretch. So you presume reading Ayn Rand makes me feel good about being selfish and self righteous?

As to your worship of the opinions of “academics,” having been raised by them and spending my life as a faculty brat I am not the slightest bit impressed by alphabet soup following someone’s name.

With respect to my appreciation of Ayn Rand’s books, remember these are fiction but I think contain some real truths. One of them is that Rand understands human nature. Most Leftists are woefully out of touch with reality on that score. They base their approach to societal problems on intentions, not results. Rand’s premise is that if you reward bad behavior, you get more of it. Our many perhaps well intentioned progams reward bad behavior…thus they fail. I no longer wonder why we have generational welfare, a majority of minority babies born to single women. We reward that behavior and it increases. Do the math.
I don’t want to get into a discussion about abortion, but there are obviously reasons for not thinking that an embryo is a person. On the face of it, you can at least observe that an embryo without a brain cannot have mental states. And when we think about persons, we think of beings with mental states.
And that line of reasoning would justify killing people who are in (perhaps) temporary comas or who have severe mental impairments or dementia.

There is no line of argument to promote abortion that doesn’t fall on its face when applied consistently to other human beings who are dependent, challenged, or physically disabled. We are more than brains with legs Persuader.

Lisa
 
And that line of reasoning would justify killing people who are in (perhaps) temporary comas or who have severe mental impairments or dementia.
You just addressed the 800 pound gorilla.

John
 
I thought Paul Ryan’s speech tonight was magnificent in tone and style, so much better than Chris Christie’s presentation. Also, Condi Rice did a wonderful job in her speech, more bipartisan in approach than Ryan. Ryan for economic issues and Rice for foreign policy (despite her connection to GWB as Secretary of State): now THAT would be a winning party team.

Nonetheless, true to form, the inimitable Chris Matthews was immediately critical of Ryan’s talk, though he did admire Rice’s.
 
I thought Paul Ryan’s speech tonight was magnificent in tone and style, so much better than Chris Christie’s presentation. Also, Condi Rice did a wonderful job in her speech, more bipartisan in approach than Ryan. Ryan for economic issues and Rice for foreign policy (despite her connection to GWB as Secretary of State): now THAT would be a winning party team.
In a totally non-partisan ( as much as that is possible) way, let me say this: Mr. Ryan is a bright man and gave a decent speech. Politically, I do not understand his choice as VP. He is divisive and from a relatively small state.

Regarding Ms. Rice…she is a remarkably talented person and her speech was very well delivered.

John
 
I thought Paul Ryan’s speech tonight was magnificent in tone and style, so much better than Chris Christie’s presentation. Also, Condi Rice did a wonderful job in her speech, more bipartisan in approach than Ryan. Ryan for economic issues and Rice for foreign policy (despite her connection to GWB as Secretary of State): now THAT would be a winning party team.

Nonetheless, true to form, the inimitable Chris Matthews was immediately critical of Ryan’s talk, though he did admire Rice’s.
I agree. It was better than Chris Christie’s speech. I thought Ryan started out a bit slow, but he found his stride pretty quickly - perhaps he was nervous at first. I respect Condi Rice a great deal too. Would you support a Ryan/Condi team? or Condi-Ryan? If so, how would they be different from Romney/Ryan?

Ishii
 
In a totally non-partisan ( as much as that is possible) way, let me say this: Mr. Ryan is a bright man and gave a decent speech. Politically, I do not understand his choice as VP. He is divisive and from a relatively small state.

Regarding Ms. Rice…she is a remarkably talented person and her speech was very well delivered.

John
I think the idea behind picking Ryan was that he would be the best choice to articulate the serious fiscal/budget issues that our country faces. That includes the reformation of entitlements. I have to agree- I can’t think of anyone other than Ryan - who schooled Obama on Obamacare to call to task the Democrats on those fiscal issues and Obamacare. Regarding Wisonsin being a small state - if Romney wins Wisconsin, he will be in a very good position as Wisconsin is a swing state that went for Obama in 2008. Wisconsin is also the center of the movement to bring states back to fiscal sanity and away from the runaway spending supported by the public sector unions - which tried to oust Governor Walker, unsuccessfully. Perhaps Wisconsin is a bell weather state. With that considered, I think Ryan was an excellent choice politically.

Ishii
 
I think the idea behind picking Ryan was that he would be the best choice to articulate the serious fiscal/budget issues that our country faces. That includes the reformation of entitlements. I have to agree- I can’t think of anyone other than Ryan - who schooled Obama on Obamacare to call to task the Democrats on those fiscal issues and Obamacare.
Well, good luck with that.

John
 
Well, good luck with that.

John
Thanks. Judging from the convention so far, the GOP has made an excellent case for abandoning the deficit spending of the Obama admin and returning to fiscal sanity and economic growth. And freedom - economic and religious.

Ishii
 
Thanks. Judging from the convention so far, the GOP has made an excellent case for abandoning the deficit spending of the Obama admin and returning to fiscal sanity and economic growth. And freedom - economic and religious.
Of course, your analysis is totally impartial.

All I can say is that the President is the home team (last at bat) this year…and the Obama-Clinton team has not yet begun to fight.

Everyone duck and cover,

John
 
Well, good luck with that.

John
So far so good John. I’ve had the advantage of hearing from and learning a lot about Paul Ryan long before he was appointed to this ticket. He is a MASTER at communicating complicated economic issues so that they are understandable to the average person. He and Marco Rubio are two of the best at communication and after eight years of GWB (love the man but what a poor speaker) it is a blessed relief.

Futher Ryan is incredibly LIKEABLE. He comes off as like a 40 year old boy scout, clean thrifty brave reverant…wonderful family, beautiful wife and children with 1000 watt smiles. These are happy warriors. Compare this to Obama with his sniping, arrogant attitude, snarkines and abysmal record. Add “Chains You Can Believe In” Joe Biden with his glowering presence, screaming and pounding his fist on the podium. Obama seems to have forgotten that “HOPE” was his slogan…he seems to have lost it.

Tonight his 80 year old mother happened to be on the jumbotron with a grandchild cuddled in her lap…PRICELESS. It’s going to be difficult to portray Paul Ryan as throwing his mother off the cliff.

Also getting a laugh out the Dems claiming Romney as ‘an extremist’ Talk about a difficult sell…

Lisa
 
Code:
Of course, your analysis is totally impartial.
As is yours, I’m sure.
All I can say is that the President is the home team (last at bat) this year…and the Obama-Clinton team has not yet begun to fight.
Obama/Clinton team: Fighting for the agenda of NARAL and HHS mandate. what catholic can in good conscience support that? What about Biden?

Ishii
 
So far so good John.
As I said earlier…the Democrats have the last convention this year. Regarding Congressman Ryan’s likeability, that is subjective, and all the homey pictures you describe will mean nothing when the real politics begins.

And don’t underestimate Biden…he was born in Pennsylvania.

Sorry, irrelevant, but just a home town thing.

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top