Paul Ryan!!

[LisaA]

You will not find a quote from Ryan agreeing with Rand’s philosophy or objectivist beliefs. He admits he was influenced by her defense of capitalism and economic ideas

nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa

Abyssinia please quit confusing the idealogues with FACTS. I LOVE Ayn Rand’s books because they made me understand why my parents’ bleeding heart, phony and arrogant liberalism (some people are too stupid to govern themselves) was destructive and totally ignored human nature. I agree whole heartedly with her defense of capitalism but not her atheism. Apparently for those who do not like Ryan, what he actually said about Rand was irrelevant when it provides an opportunity to proclaim he makes “reckless” statements.

Thanks for the links. I hope they will be read.

Lisa

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I must have missed it…when did Mitt Romney win the Republican nomination? I wish Paul Ryan all of the best. I just hope he has not been one of the many representatives that vote to pass budgets with funds for Planned Parenthood in them.

He wrote the budget that was passed by the Republicans in the House.

The Senate refuses to pass any budget.

 

[Marie5890]

It does at that…

Ryan will help Romney with conservatives who were wary of him, but he’ll likely send moderates running the other way. A brief look at the political sites this morning showed me that Democrats are very happy about this pick. That’s not really what you go for-a pick that makes the people you’re running against happy.

And wasn’t his budget the one the Bishop’s spoke about as being against Catholic teaching?

This is why I voted no …

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Abyssinia please quit confusing the idealogues with FACTS. I LOVE Ayn Rand’s books because they made me understand why my parents’ bleeding heart, phony and arrogant liberalism (some people are too stupid to govern themselves) was destructive and totally ignored human nature. I agree whole heartedly with her defense of capitalism but not her atheism. Apparently for those who do not like Ryan, what he actually said about Rand was irrelevant when it provides an opportunity to proclaim he makes “reckless” statements.

Thanks for the links. I hope they will be read.

Lisa

This. I appreciate Ayn Rand in some aspects. I know she is an atheist going in to reading her works. Her atheism doesn’t invalidate a good many of her points on economics that liberals castigate with their phony defense of the poor.

 

[Abba]

I must have missed it…when did Mitt Romney win the Republican nomination?

Minor detail. Good question.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It would be interesting for someone to take a few polls:

1. Senior Citizens reaction to Ryan
2. Catholic reaction to Ryan

etc. etc.

Personally, I don’t know what the majority thinks, but as for me, I think he is a great choice.

With regard to the Catholic vote, again I think, as I said in my earlier post this morning, that Romney was concerned about voter apathy, including the religious vote, and has been watching the concern among Catholics and similar others about his commitment to life issues, and whether that would figure in election day turnout, and whether those who vote their religion would sit out the election.

 

[meltzerboy]

Uh Reagan was giving credit to AMERICA, whereas Obama was claiming HE would lower the oceans and heal the planet. Humility thy name is NOT Barack

Lisa

Good point, whether or not I agree with your assessment of Obama. Nonetheless, most of Reagan’s speeches were platitudinous drivel, but still inspirational. He often refrained from telling the people anything negative. Undoubtedly, this was part of Reagan’s own optimistic personality with regard to America. Carter, on the other hand, told the people what they didn’t want to hear, and he suffered the consequences for it. (I realize Carter was also largely incompetent; a much better ex-President.)

 

[meltzerboy]

old.usccb.org/prolife/gospel.shtml

Bringing a respect for human dignity to practical politics can be a daunting task. There is such a wide spectrum of issues involving the protection of human life and the promotion of human dignity. Good people frequently disagree on which problems to address, which policies to adopt and how best to apply them. But for citizens and elected officials alike, the basic principle is simple: We must begin with a commitment never to intentionally kill, or collude in the killing, of any innocent human life, no matter how broken, unformed, disabled or desperate that life may seem. In other words, the choice of certain ways of acting is always and radically incompatible with the love of God and the dignity of the human person created in His image. Direct abortion is never a morally tolerable option. It is always a grave act of violence against a woman and her unborn child. This is so even when a woman does not see the truth because of the pressures she may be subjected to, often by the child’s father, her parents or friends. Similarly, euthanasia and assisted suicide are never acceptable acts of mercy. They always gravely exploit the suffering and desperate, extinguishing life in the name of the “quality of life” itself. This same teaching against direct killing of the innocent condemns all direct attacks on innocent civilians in time of war.

“Pro-life” is not a term that is exclusive to Catholic theology. And, as I said in my earlier post, without a safe environment, all other issues (including abortion and euthanasia) will become meaningless because we will cease to exist.

 

[LisaA]

I think the assumption that seniors are totally driven by a selfish desire to keep the current system of Medicare is not only erroneous but uncharitable. How many of them are also concerned with their children’s and grandchildren’s future? How many of them are concerned with their country’s future? How many of them do not NEED all of the Medicare and SS funds and would be understanding of a means test to save these programs for those who really need them? Look at who was elected in Florida. Gov Scott, Marco Rubio, Allen West. These are not Leftists who throw out bribes for votes in the form of ever increasingly ridiculous promises they cannot keep.

Seniors may be concerned about Ryan’s plans for Medicare but they HATE Obamacare even more. They realize that between the IPAB, the “best practices” standard and other restrictions, they are the first to be DENIED care. Obama himself said “Well why get the surgery when you can just get pain pills…” The ONLY way to cut costs under the current system is through rationing. Obama and the Left have embraced the Professor Singer approach to the value of human life. Further Obamacare destroyed Medicare Advantage (except for the bone tossed to Florida) which seniors LOVE. Seniors are like other human beings, they want choices and options in healthcare. They aren’t stupid either, they know that the current situation is unsustainable and Obamacare has forced many doctors OUT of the Medicare market. FWIW I am in healthcare finance and have been for 30 years. Our clinic has a demographic of mostly seniors and we encounter them and their concerns every day. I have yet to meet a senior who is positive about Obamacare. They are very afraid and should be.

Ryan’s plan gives seniors the option to stay on the old system or change to a patient based, choice focused system with premium support. Further for all of you Lefties the Ryan plan offers MORE support to the poor and less support to the wealthy. My boss makes over a million dollars a year (from investments he is retired) and get SS and Medicare just like the lady who used to clean our office. This is morally questionable and economic suicide. Do you think that means testing, increasing eligibility age and market based approaches are beyond the understanding of seniors. They are NOT stupid and the vast majority of them are very concerned about their children and grandchildren with these unsustainable entitlement programs.

Further Ryan is a great communicator and if he is allowed to speak, I believe can convince any concerned seniors or soon to be seniors (I would be one of them) that his plan will SAVE Medicare not kill it like Obamacare will do. Please get the facts. If you want increased access and reduced costs Obamacare needs to head for the dustbin of history with other idiotic social engineering plans.

Lisa

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You will not find a quote from Ryan agreeing with Rand’s philosophy or objectivist beliefs. He admits he was influenced by her defense of capitalism and economic ideas

nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa

I provided a link that provides an audible file to the speech.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think the assumption that seniors are totally driven by a selfish desire to keep the current system of Medicare is not only erroneous but uncharitable.

I hope you’re not referring to me. I hope I did not come across that way.

Seniors may be concerned about Ryan’s plans for Medicare but they HATE Obamacare even more. They realize that between the IPAB, the “best practices” standard and other restrictions, they are the first to be DENIED care. …Further Obamacare destroyed Medicare Advantage (except for the bone tossed to Florida) which seniors LOVE.

I agree with all of that.

Ryan’s plan gives seniors the option to stay on the old system or change to a patient based, choice focused system with premium support. Further for all of you Lefties the Ryan plan offers MORE support to the poor and less support to the wealthy.

Please elaborate.

My boss makes over a million dollars a year (from investments he is retired) and get SS and Medicare just like the lady who used to clean our office. This is morally questionable and economic suicide. Do you think that means testing, increasing eligibility age and market based approaches are beyond the understanding of seniors.

The whole SS for the rich thing has been a travesty forever. That was never the intent of social security, not from the beginning, and should always have been means-tested.

Or, let’s put it this way: I think SS could be/should have been converted to savings accounts (IRA’s) for those lacking IRA’s, such as older workers, and there are a zillion older workers with virtually no retirement income (no safety net), for reasons beyond their control. IOW, you shouldn’t have to be absurdly poor on the brink of homelessness to get SS, but if you’re a middle-income older worker, SS can become your IRA, postponed until you rely on it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t know if the reasoning is “fiscal prudence,” or the reasoning is that not all senior citizens are dependent on Medicare. That would be a major factor. Second factor would be the current age of these seniors, which presumes being safe from personal liability due to future Medicare changes. Doubtful any bill would pass which cuts off current seniors.

You would think no such bill would pass, but it did. Obamacare cuts half a trillion out of Medicare funding. The chief Medicare actuary says Medicare will pay less than medicaid in a few years, and a lot of providers won’t accept Medicaid. Seniors are in for a rough time under Obamacare, and that’s not someday or other, it’s right now. Obamacare gets rid of Medicare Advantage in 2013; a very popular program with seniors. He put its demise off for the election so seniors wouldn’t realize it.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Ad - America’s Comeback Team

youtube.com/watch?v=Add2VY0FM7U

 

[rlg94086]

“Pro-life” is not a term that is exclusive to Catholic theology. And, as I said in my earlier post, without a safe environment, all other issues (including abortion and euthanasia) will become meaningless because we will cease to exist.

This is a Catholic forum. I was providing the quote for clarity of what Pro-life means for Catholics. The environment is important, but it is not to be placed as an equal to real life issues - the direct killing of innocent human beings.

Thank you for sharing your non-Catholic views, but I usually line up more with the Magisterium than I do with non-Catholics.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And wasn’t his budget the one the Bishop’s spoke about as being against Catholic teaching?

This myth is like Dracula. It just never seems to die no matter how many times it’s refuted.

“The bishops” did not speak against the Ryan budget. Two bishops (count them) complained of two things only:

1. Reduction of the INCREASE in food stamp funding from 12% to 8%.
2. Elimination of paying $1,000 per child to illegal immigrants.

That’s it. One of them said it in a private letter and the liberal media got hold of it and ran it as if it somehow represented the opinion of the U.S. bishops without the limitations, which it does not.

It may be recalled that Ryan discussed his plan with his own bishop, who felt it was not contrary to Church teachings. To anyone who is familiar with the Social Encyclicals and the true teachings of the Church, it would not seem contrary to those teachings.

It is, however, contrary to the “Liberation Theology Lite” that has unfortunately been accepted as Church teaching by some over the years and plays into the hands of the abortion-promoters who give lip service to a bogus version of “social justice” while promoting intrinsic evils.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is a Catholic forum. I was providing the quote for clarity of what Pro-life means for Catholics. The environment is important, but it is not to be placed as an equal to real life issues - the direct killing of innocent human beings.

Thank you for sharing your non-Catholic views, but I usually line up more with the Magisterium than I do with non-Catholics.

Have you read through this thread, or any of the similar threads? Some, Catholics, immediately, and seemingly joyfully, spoke of medicare and social security ‘reforms’; without mentioning the issues you’ve listed. When those issues are being debated, in other places as well as on these forums, some of the same people also speak of those issues not equaling the real life issues. It seems when persuading others they ‘must’ vote for a specific candidate, the real life issues are important, but other issues are the first thing discussed when a specific candidate names a running mate that has spoken against other than real life issues. It makes one suspect, to say the least…

 

[Abba]

Have you read through this thread, or any of the similar threads? Some, Catholics, immediately, and seemingly joyfully, spoke of medicare and social security ‘reforms’; without mentioning the issues you’ve listed. When those issues are being debated, in other places as well as on these forums, some of the same people also speak of those issues not equaling the real life issues. It seems when persuading others they ‘must’ vote for a specific candidate, the real life issues are important, but other issues are the first thing discussed when a specific candidate names a running mate that has spoken against other than real life issues. It makes one suspect, to say the least…

Good point.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter on face the nation

Well, you know ask the wealthy to pay a little bit more. Cut waste from the government. Reform Medicare. More than $300 billion in savings from Medicare. On top of the savings we’ve already achieved. You know I heard Mitt Romney deride the $700 billion cuts in Medicare that the president achieved through health care reform

my emphases

youtube.com/watch?v=YCEgidipc5g

 

[meltzerboy]

This is a Catholic forum. I was providing the quote for clarity of what Pro-life means for Catholics. The environment is important, but it is not to be placed as an equal to real life issues - the direct killing of innocent human beings.

Thank you for sharing your non-Catholic views, but I usually line up more with the Magisterium than I do with non-Catholics.

I realize you are providing clarification of the Catholic meaning of pro-life and thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut; but you were also responding to my post in which I defined the meaning of pro-life as I see it.

 

[Abba]

Here is Ryan’s track record on international issues:

America is the most pro-human idea ever conceived. (Sep 2010)
Voted NO on supporting democratic institutions in Pakistan. (Jun 2009)
Voted YES on cooperating with India as a nuclear power. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
Multi-year commitment to Africa for food & medicine. (Apr 2001)
Withhold UN funding until voluntary and program-specific. (Aug 2011)
Rated -3 by AAI, indicating a anti-Arab anti-Palestine voting record. (May 2012)
Acknowledge the Armenian Genocide of the early 1900s. (Mar 2007)
Acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, as official US policy. (Mar 2009)
Commitment to unbreakable U.S.-Israel bond. (Mar 2010)
8.5% tax on imports from foreign countries. (Jul 2009)
Voted YES on promoting free trade with Peru. (Nov 2007)
Voted YES on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
Voted YES on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
End economic protectionism: let dairy compacts expire . (Aug 2001)
Rated 67% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act’s roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
Voted NO on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps in US, but not abroad. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on Veto override: Congressional oversight of CIA interrogations. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on restricting no-bid defense contracts. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)
Voted YES on supporting new position of Director of National Intelligence. (Dec 2004)
Voted YES on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)
Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
Voted YES on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002)
Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
Rated 22% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on banning armed forces in Libya without Congressional approval. (Jun 2011)
Voted NO on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan. (Mar 2011)
Voted NO on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. (Jun 2008)
Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)
Strengthen sanctions on Syria & assist democratic transition. (Apr 2008)
No contact & enforce sanctions on Iran until threat is gone. (May 2011)
Boycott & sanctions against Iran for terrorism & nukes. (May 2011)
Sanctions on Iran to end nuclear program. (Apr 2009)

from this site:
ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/

Thank you gilliam for providing this information. :tiphat:

My personal opinion is that Paul Ryan is charming and quick on his feet. This can be seen on that interview with Ramon Arroyo. I actually enjoyed it a little - Donald Trump - BAM! I don’t know him. The polls - BAM! they are guided to give results etc…

However, I did not like the shuffling of the feet from Ayn Rand to Radzinger! It didn’t and doesn’t work. After some thoughts where one arrives at is the questioning of the real roots of his ‘principles’ and because of the shuffling it is unknown. Ironically he said that he was reading "Without Roots’ to confirm his move and well it is exactly without root that his stands remains.

Looking at his history with international issues, he appears to me to be just another groomed politician and part of nominating him as VP is to clear the way for him to serve as president at some point. And, not necessarily for the people of the United States but for certain interests groups that have a bit too much power.

I am not surprised by his history concerning international issues. His ‘outlook’, if you will, is very much in line with that of Romney who is already barking at Russia and China and plans to attack Iran as soon as he takes office. Not surprised at all because if he seriously held a different position he would not have accepted he offer. Ron Paul would not accept to run with Romney for a billion dollars.

Bottom line, Paul Ryan is not my cup of tea.