What's new

Romney's VP Choice

You mean, where Ryan talks about how capapble the CBO is, and then says they are incompetant? Maybe he was trying to avoid laughing?


I recall him saying they do a good job if they are given enough information to do said job. I don't recall him ever saying that they were incompetent. Just that they didn't have enough information to get the accurate numbers. But hey, keep being a political hack. It suits you.
 
I must have missed the VP candidate that is out there somewhere who would have been free from any attacks from the Obama campaign. Romney could have selected Michelle Obama and Barack's campaign manager would instantly be all over her in a way that would put the President's honeymoon to shame. It's about perception, charm, and making the least gaffes. Not every American can find the time to be as politically savvy as your average Jazzfanz poster. (Insert barely contained snickering right about........here).

The bottom line is that the best thing that Ryan has going for him is that he'll be debating Biden, who is the charismatic equivalent of "The Thriller".

Has the VP debate ever produced any significant results?
 
Paul Ryan's budget plan is totally ridiculous. The following are assumptions in the CBO report that Ryan insisted on. To date, I have seen the Congressman or his fans advance zero evidence that any of these are remotely realistic. And this is an issue I've been following somewhat closely.

At least Ryan's own party voted to endorse his plan. Obama couldn't get a single vote from either party.

Joking aside, are you looking Ryan's 2011 or 2012 plan. The 2012 plan was much less radical.
 
You posted, didn't you? Maybe you didn't insist, but it's a figure of speech -- you didn't insist but you did do it, despite that you admit you don't know what you're talking about. That's kind of like insisting how stupid you are in the first place.

Good one Saltair's...go back to stalking middling basketball players in Illinois.
 
Thriller, you ignorant slut.

Here is Ron Wyden.

220px-Ron_Wyden_official_photo.jpg


He is a hard core leftist from Oregon. He is co-sponsoring Ryan's bill in the senate. Do you know what that means? Counting only Ron, Ryan's plan has more Democratic support in the senate than anything Obama has produced.

Additionally, here is a pic from the Romney/Ryan Rally yesterday:

Romney-Ryan-Mooresvile-NC-2.jpg


That line goes on for half a mile. That is in swing state Virginia.

Ryan will and already is making a difference.

BTW, that pic was by GayPatriot. You need to cite where you get your stuff unlike when you forgot to cite beta-snivler Ezra Klien for the words you lifted off of him earlier. If you have to cut and paste your arguments from other people you actually suck worse than Fahreed Zakaria who actually gets paid to rip off numbskulls.
 
He is co-sponsoring Ryan's bill in the senate. Do you know what that means?

Nope. I don't. Enlighten me please. I'm just so ignorant.

Are you talking about the same Wyden that said that Romeny was talking "NONSENSE" today? Perhaps foxnews didn't report this today. Of course, you're not ignorant. I'm the ignorant one. Maybe you missed this one? Haha:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012...ryan_n_1770611.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

"This man said I'm going to find Democrats to work with. He found a Democrat to co-lead a piece of legislation," Romney said of Ryan at a campaign stop in Ashland, Va.

He took it a step further at a campaign rally in Manassas, where he explicitly called out Ryan and Wyden's Medicare collaboration.

"The president's put out a plan on Medicare. He would cut spending $700 billion," Romney said before a crowd of approximately 8,000 supporters. "Paul Ryan and Senator Wyden said, 'No, we need to restore, retain and protect Medicare.' That's what our party will do."

But according to Wyden, Romney's telling of events is misleading and inaccurate.

“Governor Romney is talking nonsense," Wyden said in an emailed statement Saturday night. "Bipartisanship requires that you not make up the facts. I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.' I wrote a policy paper on options for Medicare."

Wyden noted he had spoken and voted against the Medicare provisions in the Ryan budget. "Governor Romney needs to learn you don't protect seniors by makings things up, and his comments sure won't help promote real bipartisanship,” he added.

Wyden and Ryan did collaborate on a policy paper in December, proposing that seniors be given a choice between traditional Medicare coverage and an alternative private plan. Wyden's decision to team up with Ryan resulted in a fair amount of criticism from fellow Democrats, prompting him to defend the collaboration in a 2,380-word op-ed published on The Huffington Post.

In the opinion piece, the Oregon senator clearly stated that the Wyden-Ryan approach was “simply a policy paper intended to start a conversation about how Democrats and Republicans might work together to uphold the Medicare Guarantee" and made it clear the proposal would in no way eliminate the traditional Medicare plan.

Now Wyden is firing back, accusing Romney of "talking nonsense" and mischaracterizing his work with Ryan.

Doesn't seem like Wyden's co-sponsering Ryan's plan. Perhaps Mitty lied to you? Or perhaps your "Fair" and "Balanced" media just reported incorrectly? Hahaha! Better luck next time, my (ignorant slutty) friend! :)

Speaking of Ryan's plan, both Ryan's and Romney's plans greatly hurt social programs while protecting the wealthy/extending their tax cuts.

America doesn't support that. That would be ignorant. Democrats are going to exploit them. And it's truly going to hurt your GOP. Don't be ignorant.

That line goes on for half a mile. That is in swing state Virginia.

Cute picture. Forgive me if it doesn't convince me of Ryan's great influence. A line of a bunch of redneck white people who would have voted for Romney in the first place isn't exactly providing me with hard evidence that Romney is any better off now than a few days ago.

Speaking of photos, I remember seeing a big line of people waiting to see Palin outside of Borders here in Utah. Using your logic, maybe she should run for President! LOL

Bye bye now!

Don't Tread on Me
 
Last edited:
Palin%20booksigning.jpg


Michigan is an important state too. Palin should be the repub Pres because there was a line there supporting her.

This is fun! Lets keep posting pictures of lines and make gross assumptions about them!
 
Dude you come at me with the Huffington Post, the Bleacher Report of Politics?

Of course Wyden is going to hem a little now, with clueless sheepbots like yourself probably threatening his children.

Keep in mind that YOUR team thugged through a bill that ACTUALLY cut 700 billion from Medicare, and you said nothing. You don't give a rat's %$#% about these entitlements. If you did you would be working to fix them. You just cheer for Democrats like you cheer for the Jazz, except that you actually are far more critical of the Jazz than your political party.

The thing is what is said on a message board is not going to make a hill of beans difference. I'm just gald I'm working with my team and not yours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2mzbuRgnI4

No Mea Culpa about plagurizing Ezra Klein? Cut and paste is a liberal's best friend. Saves them from having to think on their own.


Down Twinkles. . .
 
Thriller Neg repped me which I supect means that I won.

What a waste of my time. . .

Is this post even worth responding to? Hmmm... Meh, sure, I guess. It's Sunday and I have a sufficient amount of time to correct you...

btw, I neg repped you with a link for the article in which Wyden denies what you had originally claimed.

LOL. You attack the Huffington Post (the messenger) while ignoring the message (in which Wyden denies what you claimed).

Rationalize all you want and never let facts get in the way of your opinions. Like Wyden saying exactly the opposite of what you had claimed.

So who exactly is winning this argument?

Oh and BTW, Wyden didn't just suddenly start denying co-sponsoring legislation with Ryan. He actually did that a long time ago, back in March. He wrote a 2300 word piece about this.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-ron-wyden/preserving-the-medicare-g_b_1365237.html

Finally, Wyden-Ryan isn't a piece of legislation. It does not include legislative language or specifications detailing exactly how the system would work. If Wyden-Ryan or something like Wyden-Ryan gets to the legislative stage, those specifications will be important to get right as the devil is always in the details. Right now, however, Wyden-Ryan is simply a policy paper intended to start a conversation about how Democrats and Republicans might work together to uphold the Medicare Guarantee.

That's pretty consistent with what he's saying today.

it's also pretty unsurprising that Mitt is trying to hop on the Wyden wave, just as he did in March. What a surprise, Romney exaggerates, lies, and deceives. He did it months ago so why not do it again? In that very same 2,300 word paper:

Republicans will undoubtedly declare their support for Wyden-Ryan without knowing what that means or believing in its principles. Mitt Romney, for example, claims to have helped write Wyden-Ryan even though I have never spoken to him about Medicare reform and have yet to hear him declare that there should always be a role for traditional government-run Medicare.

I also believe you fall into the category that Wyden warns about in the very same 2,300 word paper. And yes, I'm calling you out:

Those who say they support Wyden-Ryan simply for political cover are neither helping seniors nor being bipartisan. Rather, using Wyden-Ryan for political purposes harms seniors by making a bipartisan agreement to uphold the Medicare Guarantee that much harder. Anyone who does this deserves to be called out on it.

Stop playing political games. Lets do what's best for America.

Have you had enough yet?
 
Last edited:
This beat down of framer reminds me of this Happy Gilmore shot. Framer, an ignorant slut without facts who got excited after watching a foxnews report calls out his much older, well-informed, and better experienced elder. "I think you've had enough!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnJQ9U9pW9Q
 
No Mea Culpa about plagurizing Ezra Klein? Cut and paste is a liberal's best friend. Saves them from having to think on their own.

One last thing, please tell me which post you feel I copied and pasted without providing a link. I have no clue who Ezra Klein is and I'm pretty sure that if you read my posts throughout this thread that I'm not afraid of posting links and giving citing where I get information from. See, in doing various research papers at the University I attend, I have learned to appreciate giving credit where credit is due. If I read something, use its' information, I will gladly cite it.

So please, show me the post in which i neglected to cite my source(s).

Attacking the messenger (as you have done with the Huffington Post) is a loser's way in ending an argument. You have failed to prove you point (in fact, just the opposite was proven). So your personal attacking of me and the Huffington Post basically tells me that you've cried uncle and will shortly bow out of this discussion.

thank you, and have a great week
 
I recall him saying they do a good job if they are given enough information to do said job. I don't recall him ever saying that they were incompetent. Just that they didn't have enough information to get the accurate numbers. But hey, keep being a political hack. It suits you.

Which, you know, he tries to solve by gaming the system by telling them which assumptions they should use in scoring all his proposals. It's a pretty clever way to embrace the numbers you want and dismiss the ones you don't, but it's not really intellectually honest.

One last thing, please tell me which post you feel I copied and pasted without providing a link. I have no clue who Ezra Klein is and I'm pretty sure that if you read my posts throughout this thread that I'm not afraid of posting links and giving citing where I get information from. See, in doing various research papers at the University I attend, I have learned to appreciate giving credit where credit is due. If I read something, use its' information, I will gladly cite it.

I think he's raging so hard he's gotten two posts confused. I posted a list of assumptions, in a quote box rather than representing them as my own, that came from an Ezra Klein post, largely because that format was easier to manipulate and easier to read than the CBO report. This is basicaly a non-issue and he's not disputing the truth value of any of it (he can't, those are the assumptions ordered by Ryan for the budget) but he's getting weird about no-link to the quote box. That's a technical error that's my fault. These things happen when I'm burning time off between the bronze and gold medal games with no sleep at 5 AM. Oops.

Of course, framer then accused the wrong person of misattribution, ironically misattributing the blame. So I'm not certain he's that clean on the issue. :)

In any event, the Washington Post link I quoted earlier was here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...udget-numbers/2011/08/25/gIQAEZrePS_blog.html

The original CBO report is here: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-20-Ryan_Specified_Paths_2.pdf . Paul Ryan's stated assumptions for the report are found on page 3 and 4. In full they read as follows:

For each of the fiscal years 2012 to 2022, Chairman Ryan and his staff specified amounts of total revenues and spending for major categories of the federal budget. For 2022, total revenues were set at $4,601 billion; net spending on Medicare, $855 billion; spending on Medicaid and CHIP, $332 billion; spending on Social Security, $1,340 billion (matching CBO’s projected amount under current law); and spending on other mandatory programs together with defense and nondefense discretionary programs, $1,747 billion. For 2023 and later, Chairman Ryan and his staff specified rules by which revenues and spending would evolve:
■ Revenues. Starting from 18¾ percent of GDP in 2023, revenues would rise by one-tenth of 1 percent of GDP per year until they reach 19 percent of GDP in 2025 and then stay at that level.
■ Net Medicare Spending. For people enrolled in the program prior to 2023, net Medicare spending—including offsetting receipts, which are mostly payments of premiums—would grow at the same rate as under the extended baseline scenario. For people born in 1958 or later (that is, people who turn 65 in 2023 or later) or for those who otherwise become eligible for the program in 2023 or later, net Medicare spending is calculated as follows: Total spending for those beneficiaries in 2023 would be set to a total that works out to be $7,500 (in 2023 dollars) for each new 65-year-old beneficiary on a full-year-equivalent basis. Total spending would grow in subsequent years with nominal growth in per capita GDP plus 0.5 percentage points per year, and with an adjustment for the health status and number of beneficiaries who entered the program in 2023 or later. In addition, the eligibility age for Medicare would increase by two months per year beginning in 2023 until reaching age 67 in 2034.
2
■ Federal Medicaid and CHIP Spending. Federal spending for Medicaid and CHIP would increase from the $332 billion specified for 2022 at an annual rate that equals the sum of the annual growth rates of the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) and the total U.S. population. (For all years, the Chairman specified that there would be no spending for subsidies to purchase health insurance through new exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act.)3
■ Social Security Spending. Social Security spending would grow at the same rate as in CBO’s June 2011 extended baseline scenario.
■ All Other Federal Spending Apart from Interest Payments. Other mandatory spending together with defense and nondefense discretionary spending would start at $1,739 billion in 2023 and then grow with the GDP price index.

So, you know, all numbers are in fantasy land.
 
I think he's raging so hard he's gotten two posts confused. I posted a list of assumptions, in a quote box rather than representing them as my own, that came from an Ezra Klein post, largely because that format was easier to manipulate and easier to read than the CBO report. This is basicaly a non-issue and he's not disputing the truth value of any of it (he can't, those are the assumptions ordered by Ryan for the budget) but he's getting weird about no-link to the quote box. That's a technical error that's my fault. These things happen when I'm burning time off between the bronze and gold medal games with no sleep at 5 AM. Oops.

Ah, that makes sense.

I don't know why anyone would think that it would be worth it to "lie" about citing sources/failing to cite sources on a message board.

But I merely figured his accusations against me were just like his accusations that Wyden co-sponsored legislation with Ryan, lacking in truthfulness and evidence.

Here's a question, regardless of VP choice, won't the debates between the two Presidential candidates preceding the election have an impact on the voting booth? How much so? Are there really many voters in doubt right now? Does Obama beat Romney in the debates? Or does Romney outshine Obama in the debates? Romney will most likely attack Obama's (lack of) economic success. What will be Obama's plan of attack? Obama, as I remember, attacked McCain in the debates talking greatly about ending the Bush tax cuts, passing his health care reform, and ending the Iraqi War. What will he use in the debates this year?
 
Here's a question, regardless of VP choice, won't the debates between the two Presidential candidates preceding the election have an impact on the voting booth? How much so? Are there really many voters in doubt right now? Does Obama beat Romney in the debates? Or does Romney outshine Obama in the debates? Romney will most likely attack Obama's (lack of) economic success. What will be Obama's plan of attack? Obama, as I remember, attacked McCain in the debates talking greatly about ending the Bush tax cuts, passing his health care reform, and ending the Iraqi War. What will he use in the debates this year?

I'm pretty sure the impact of debates is more hypothetical than actual.
 
I'm pretty sure the impact of debates is more hypothetical than actual.

Isn't that always gonna be true when we discuss a future event in terms suitable to our own fantasies/expectations/fears?

But I agree with you if you're saying the debates won't produce any shift in voter decisions.

Well, it looks to me like the Dem strategy is going to backfire. Ryan is the real deal, walks the walk the way he talks the talk. The effort to demonize him will just make him look good, and convince some folks like me to hold their noses and vote for Romney.

He's too smart, and too articulate. . . . and he makes Romney look smart too.
 
Last edited:
One last thing, please tell me which post you feel I copied and pasted without providing a link. I have no clue who Ezra Klein is and I'm pretty sure that if you read my posts throughout this thread that I'm not afraid of posting links and giving citing where I get information from. See, in doing various research papers at the University I attend, I have learned to appreciate giving credit where credit is due. If I read something, use its' information, I will gladly cite it.

So please, show me the post in which i neglected to cite my source(s).

Attacking the messenger (as you have done with the Huffington Post) is a loser's way in ending an argument. You have failed to prove you point (in fact, just the opposite was proven). So your personal attacking of me and the Huffington Post basically tells me that you've cried uncle and will shortly bow out of this discussion.

thank you, and have a great week

Dude, there's such a thing as overkill. Most folks just wear out way before you're done spewing your bile, and you end up losing your audience.

Duh. . . . some Republicans chirp out a little song about cooperation and getting results to suit the needs of the day, and you blow up like this?

And you forget how Obama does the same thing every chance he gets, trying to out-moderate the moderates, and out-compromise the compromisers so far as media hype can make the case.

This whole argument just gets a huge laugh. It's politics.

I think the stakes in this race are pretty low. Two chumps both willing to do what they're told by the same interests. It takes someone like Ryan to even get me interested in it all.

Here's a dude who can actually form opinions on his own, and is willing to say what he thinks. Almost has me hoping a breeze is clearing the mists in Foggy Bottom.
 
Back
Top