Paul Ryan!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chrish1975
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lynnvinc said:
From the League of Conservation Voters (which keeps an environmental voting scorecard on politicians) see lcv.org/media/blog/meet-paul-ryan.html :

Mitt Romney is doubling down on the Koch Brothers agenda – picking a running mate who has received thousands in campaign cash from the oil tycoons. At the same time, Ryan is a staunch climate change denier and a leading voice in the most anti-environmental House of Representatives in our nation’s history.

Here’s a few fast facts about Paul Ryan:

•Ryan earned a score of just 3% in LCV’s 2011 National Environmental Scorecard, and his lifetime score is a dismal 20%.
•Ryan has received $244,250 (and counting) from the oil and gas industry.
•Ryan has received $115,500 from Koch Industries employees and their PAC over the years.
•Ryan’s budget plan maintains $40 billion in special tax breaks for Big Oil.
•Ryan has promoted unfounded conspiracy theories about climate scientists.
Conspiracies which have led to death threats against a 6-year-old child, daughter of a climate scientist.

We don’t need benzene in our drinking water, heatwaves and droughts in our corn fields, and killing of climate scientists and their families (which is bound to happen in this Exxon/Koch/Scaife/Hamm poisoned atmosphere).

If pro-lifers were really concerned about life issues, they’d be promoting politicians like Bart Stupak, who not only was against abortion, but also scored really high on pro-environment votes. (He and his family also received death threats instead, supposedly from such “pro-lifers.”)

Methinks Romney/Ryan supporters care less about life issues and more about paying less taxes, stiffing the poor and sick, and poisoning the water and air so as to guaratee low fuel prices.
Click to expand...
Wow that’s great! I think the Climate Change lobby is right on par with the flat earth society. So much of their theories have been debunked, are based on open lies admitted in private correspondence. The EPA has become Darth Vadar to our country’s citizens. They stomp through people’s lives raping and pillaging, stopping construction for a mud puddle in a backyard (yes this is a real case) not to mention Mr. We’ll Crucify Them from Texas.

I would love to see Romny/Ryan say they are getting RID of the EPA. Everything you’ve said above just makes me love’em more!

Lisa
 
lynnvinc said:
From the League of Conservation Voters (which keeps an environmental voting scorecard on politicians) see lcv.org/media/blog/meet-paul-ryan.html :

Mitt Romney is doubling down on the Koch Brothers agenda – picking a running mate who has received thousands in campaign cash from the oil tycoons. At the same time, Ryan is a staunch climate change denier and a leading voice in the most anti-environmental House of Representatives in our nation’s history.

Here’s a few fast facts about Paul Ryan:

•Ryan earned a score of just 3% in LCV’s 2011 National Environmental Scorecard, and his lifetime score is a dismal 20%.
•Ryan has received $244,250 (and counting) from the oil and gas industry.
•Ryan has received $115,500 from Koch Industries employees and their PAC over the years.
•Ryan’s budget plan maintains $40 billion in special tax breaks for Big Oil.
•Ryan has promoted unfounded conspiracy theories about climate scientists.
Conspiracies which have led to death threats against a 6-year-old child, daughter of a climate scientist.

We don’t need benzene in our drinking water, still greater heatwaves and droughts in our corn fields once climate change kicks in, and killing of climate scientists and their families (which is bound to happen in this Exxon/Koch/Scaife/Hamm poisoned atmosphere).

If pro-lifers were really concerned about life issues, they’d be promoting politicians like Bart Stupak, who not only was against abortion, but also scored really high on pro-environment votes. (He and his family also received death threats instead, supposedly from such “pro-lifers.”)

Methinks Romney/Ryan supporters care less about life issues and more about paying less taxes, stiffing the poor and sick, and poisoning the water and air so as to guaratee low fuel prices.
Click to expand...
Who completely caved in to Obama on the Stupak Amendment. Holding firm on the Stupak Amendment would certainly have demonstrated a commitment to pro-life principles. Caving in did not.
 
Paul Ryan is not the sort of politician who has bipartisan appeal. During his years in Congress, he has sponsored exactly two pieces of legislation that were voted into law: he changed the name of a post office in his district and changed the way that we tax arrows (as in bows and arrows). As part of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles budget commission, he voted against the recommendations of the committee. He seems to value ideological purity over the kind of compromise that attracts votes from the other party and gets legislation passed in Congress.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Yaaaaa! We conservatives and libertarians want to see people get sick and die just so we can line our pockets with their money.

When you think of a conservative or libertarian, is this what you see?

http://www.themusicvoid.com/wp-cont...fat_evil_greedy_money_loving_man__xlarge.jpeg
Click to expand...
Well played, sir.

It boggles my mind when people, especially Catholics accuse me, with a Conservative/Libertarian leaning, of not wanting to “help the poor” or somehow that I am less of a Catholic/Christain because of it. The Church has stated that people can hold a wide range of opinions on how we are to help the poor. These people who attack me/us would be better off becoming better catechized in this respect.
 
Alan55 said:
Paul Ryan is not the sort of politician who has bipartisan appeal. During his years in Congress, he has sponsored exactly two pieces of legislation that were voted into law: he changed the name of a post office in his district and changed the way that we tax arrows (as in bows and arrows). As part of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles budget commission, he voted against the recommendations of the committee. He seems to value ideological purity over the kind of compromise that attracts votes from the other party and gets legislation passed in Congress.
Click to expand...
Yeah well heaven knows how he has been elected seven times with huge percentages in a bluer than blue state without any bipartisan support. But hey what do the facts matter?
Lisa
 
Alan55 said:
Paul Ryan is not the sort of politician who has bipartisan appeal. During his years in Congress, he has sponsored exactly two pieces of legislation that were voted into law: he changed the name of a post office in his district and changed the way that we tax arrows (as in bows and arrows). As part of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles budget commission, he voted against the recommendations of the committee. He seems to value ideological purity over the kind of compromise that attracts votes from the other party and gets legislation passed in Congress./QUOTE

You could say exactly the same thing about Obama.
Click to expand...
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
Well played, sir.

It boggles my mind when people, especially Catholics accuse me, with a Conservative/Libertarian leaning, of not wanting to “help the poor” or somehow that I am less of a Catholic/Christain because of it. The Church has stated that people can hold a wide range of opinions on how we are to help the poor. These people who attack me/us would be better off becoming better catechized in this respect.
Click to expand...
When I think of a conservative/libertarian, this is what I see:

http://home.comcast.net/~mcfad/ett/Illustration/bible_stories/images/Good Samaritan.jpg
 
lynnvinc said:
•Ryan has promoted unfounded conspiracy theories about climate scientists.
Conspiracies which have led to death threats against a 6-year-old child, daughter of a climate scientist.
Click to expand...
I highly recommend that Obama or his SuperPac put out a campaign ad with the climate scientist claiming that Ryan encouraged people to make death threats to his 6-year-old daughter. It would fit right in with their campaign strategy, so far.
 
rlg94086 said:
How is seeing/hearing racism where it doesn’t exist (i.e. “food stamp president”) a “canary in the coal mine?”
Click to expand...
Robert - you should know how this game is played by now. Since Obama is black any attack on him is automatically deemed racist, no matter how the facts play out.

Obama has been unpatriotic and a failure, by his own words and campaign promises. This is fact.
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

This thread is wandering, please return to the topic of the original post

Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.

If you wish to review the subject, please see Charity for specifics, or CAF rules for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
Well played, sir.

It boggles my mind when people, especially Catholics accuse me, with a Conservative/Libertarian leaning, of not wanting to “help the poor” or somehow that I am less of a Catholic/Christain because of it. The Church has stated that people can hold a wide range of opinions on how we are to help the poor. These people who attack me/us would be better off becoming better catechized in this respect.
Click to expand...
The “not wanting to help the poor” argument was discussed a few pages ago and debunked by LisaA and I. The liberals and heterodox do not care about what the Church actually teaches about helping the poor, they are more concerned with believing and perpetuating the lie that Republicans are greedy rich people. Not to mention they totally ignore the fact that life issues take precedence over these types of budgetary issues. Life issues are number one, the rest is fluff. When given a choice between a pro-abortion or pro-life candidate, the debate about who to vote for should stop right there. However, the heterodox and liberals do not seem to get that and instead beat a dead horse about budgetary issues and “helping the poor”, also ignoring the fact that the poor are not actually being helped by current policy or the policies of the last 50 years, rather poverty has become generational and perpetuated by handouts with no strings attached.

God bless.

-Paul
 
PJD1987 said:
The “not wanting to help the poor” argument was discussed a few pages ago and debunked by LisaA and I. The liberals and heterodox do not care about what the Church actually teaches about helping the poor, they are more concerned with believing and perpetuating the lie that Republicans are greedy rich people. Not to mention they totally ignore the fact that life issues take precedence over these types of budgetary issues. Life issues are number one, the rest is fluff. When given a choice between a pro-abortion or pro-life candidate, the debate about who to vote for should stop right there. However, the heterodox and liberals do not seem to get that and instead beat a dead horse about budgetary issues and “helping the poor”, also ignoring the fact that the poor are not actually being helped by current policy or the policies of the last 50 years, rather poverty has become generational and perpetuated by handouts with no strings attached.

God bless.

-Paul
Click to expand...
Sorry, I haven’t had a chance to read the full thread yet. I spent the weekend driving to a family wedding and back. When I had the TV on at the hotel on Saturday morning and heard the news, I thought that this was really good news.

I think the pick was great. Now Romney can point to a firm budget proposal and say it’s better than anything the Democrats have done the last 4 years.
 
Alan55 said:
**Romney has spoken in the most general terms – content mostly to criticize Obama’s policy choices – and has consistently avoided offering any specifics with respect to economic policy. ** With Ryan on the ticket, Democrats will have lots of opportunities to point to the specifics in his economic policy, which Mitt has endorsed. Ryan will solidify the Republican base but will do nothing to make Mitt more appealing to undecided voters. To the contrary, when people learn more about Ryan’s plans for entitlement programs, Mitt will lost votes.
Click to expand...
Please give this a read: mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf

It is the 150+ outline of Romney’s plan for jobs and economic growth and has been out for months. It’s much more detailed than anything you will find from Obama or the Democrats.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
Sorry, I haven’t had a chance to read the full thread yet. I spent the weekend driving to a family wedding and back. When I had the TV on at the hotel on Saturday morning and heard the news, I thought that this was really good news.

I think the pick was great. Now Romney can point to a firm budget proposal and say it’s better than anything the Democrats have done the last 4 years.
Click to expand...
No need to apologize, I was merely pointing out that your stance is absolutely correct, and the limited nature of liberal objections to Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan. They hold no water and continue to be debunked repeatedly, yet they return to the same things over and over again.

We will continue to hear the same tired arguments and misrepresented themes for the next three months.

God bless.

-Paul
 
SamH said:
Actually its more taxes for everyone with an income and spend money we don’t have.
Click to expand...
Let’s add spend money we don’t have on projects and activities we don’t need (Solyndra anyone?)
Lisa
 
SamH said:
Actually its more taxes for everyone with an income and spend money we don’t have.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess if you define “rich” as “have income”, then there you have it. Since it seems as if the goal posts change all the time, lets just make it objective. If you work and have income, then you are rich.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top