Don't Believe the Hype About Paul Ryan

Ryan was a loyal soldier throughout the free-spending George W. Bush years, and a big government conservative under Obama.

If nothing else, Mitt Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., as his running mate has made a dull and joyless campaign a little more interesting.

When I heard the news, my internal monologue went something like this:

"Are wonks suddenly cool?"

"Why is a guy my age potentially a heartbeat away from the presidency?"

"Does that he really only have 6 to 8 percent body fat?"

"Why do I know that?"

"Will someone please buy Ryan a suit that fits?"

Some conservatives are considerably more exuberant, viewing Ryan as the budget-slashing paladin we've long been waiting for. As a curmudgeonly libertarian, it's my job to pour cold water on the flames of political passion. So -- hey girl: If you're over the moon about the Ryan pick, let me confess: I'm not so excited. And I just can't hide it.

Ryan was a loyal soldier throughout the free-spending George W. Bush years, voting for No Child Left Behind and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, among other debacles. At the dawn of the Tea Party, Ryan lent his support to the auto and bank bailouts. He voted for TARP and gave "one of the most hysterical speeches" demanding others do the same, as Michelle Malkin observed in 2009.

In a newly popular YouTube video, the articulate congressman lambastes Barack Obama for creating, in Obamacare, yet another entitlement we can't afford. It's an impressive performance, but in 2003, Ryan voted for Bush's prescription-drug entitlement, adding over $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities to the national tab.

Ryan's much-hyped budget plan would eliminate the deficit, "but not until 2040 or so," my colleague Mike Tanner explains, and his cuts in domestic discretionary spending amount to an average of just $35.2 billion per year below what Obama himself has proposed.

In May, FreedomWorks' Dean Clancy usefully compared Ryan's budget to the much bolder plan introduced by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. Ryan's budget "would achieve balance in 26 years;" Paul's, "in five." Ryan's plan is short on specific cuts, whereas "Mr. Paul eliminates four Cabinet agencies -- Commerce, HUD, Energy and Education." Tellingly, "Mr. Ryan increases defense spending. Mr. Paul does not spare the Pentagon from scrutiny."

As Newsweek's Eli Lake explains, Ryan "tilts the ticket closer to the neoconservatives" on defense policy. Indeed, Ryan voted for the Iraq War in 2002 -- and against winding down the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007 and 2011.

Last summer, he gave a foreign policy speech suggesting that the most pressing reason we need to solve our budget problems is so we can continue being the world's policeman. "We can and we must remain committed to the promotion of stable governments that respect the rights of their citizens" in Iraq and Afghanistan, Ryan insisted. It seems he's learned absolutely nothing from a decade spent wasting American blood and treasure making the world safe for democracy abroad.

Wars aren't free: We've spent over $1.3 trillion in direct outlays on the War on Terror abroad, with the true cost much higher. The Pentagon makes up about 19 percent of the federal budget. If you leave it off the table, as Ryan does, you're just not serious about staving off fiscal Armageddon.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Crossing-out Ron/Rand Paul on your list, who would have been a better choice for Mittens?

  • John||

    No one. If he had chosen anyone else, the Reason line would have been "he could have chosen someone serious like Ryan."

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Rand Paul could have been a killer choice for Romney, but factors including 1) his stronger loyalty to libertarian values 2) his lack of national political experience (2 years in the Senate as opposed to Paul Ryans 13 years in the House) and 3) the fact that his father is still contesting the Republican nomination probably kept him low on the list of VP hopefuls.

  • John||

    I think Rand Paul is better off in the Senate. Who wants to be VP? I wouldn't have taken the job if I were Paul and it was offered.

  • ||

    I do like the suggestion I read last night or this morning of Rand presiding over the senate every fucking day he's in office. That would be fucking hilarious.

  • John||

    True. But he would have to really assert himself to do that. No VP has done that for a long time. I would like to see that too. But it wouldn't happen even if he was VP. He is better off in the Senate.

  • MSimon||

    Rand is probably in cahoots with the Drug Money laundry.

    Running the Laundry

    Because the DEA was not on his list.

  • MSimon||

    The US is in cahoots with the Sinaloa cartel.

    A Market Correction

  • T o n y||

    Or the fact that he's a libertarian nutjob.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Or the fact that he's a libertarian nutjob.

    Contrary to you, an anti-liberty nutjob. Right?

  • Concerned Citizen||

    This country was founded by (non slave owning) libertarian nutjobs. What's Tony's point?

  • Loki||

    To troll and provoke a reaction from people. To a griefer shitstack that's better than sex.

  • Bill||

    I did not think this way in the past, but now I suspect some of these trolls are paid by the Soros foundation or some other progressive group.

    The reason I say this is that progressives and other statists routinely believe that anyone that disagrees with them is funded by big oil or the Koch foundation. They also historically in many countries are the first to try to quash alternate points of view and even resort to violence. Think about how things work on the typical college campus or about the poor woman whose leg was broken a few years ago leaving a republican fund raiser.

    Now that I have seen people like Peter Gleick resort to criminal activities based on his mistaken belief that the other side is funded by his "enemies" I now realize that there probably are paid proglodyte trolls. Who else would keep coming back for years to a site spouting the same nonsense?

    Of course, by now, some are spoofs.

  • niobiumstudio||

    Even though Ryan is a bit of a neocon, he is by far the best choice Romney could have made and still be electable. It doesn't matter though, because Mittens isn't all that conservative. As FDR's Vice-President said the Vice President is "not worth a bucket of warm piss."

  • XM||

    The Reason line would have been a ready made "He / She only pays lip service to limited government" for just about every viable GOP VP candidate.

    Was Ryan a doctrinaire libertarian when Reason featured him in videos and discussions about medicare and college entitlement spending? They obviously valued his input or wanted to demonstrate that a policy maker shared some of their views.

    Ron Paul is a social conservative, so he's not a true libertarian. So the only choice left is Gary Johnson, who couldn't beat Ron Paul in primaries, and Ron Paul couldn't beat Rick Santorum.

    Ryan is a decent pick from a flawed field that won't pass any sort of libertarian purity test. "Oh but he voted for big government in 2002" could apply to so many people. You kinda have to hope the center right's attitude has changed since then, because there's no indication that the other side has.

  • Brett L||

    Any governor on the shortlist except T-Paw.

  • John||

    He's not. But there's a silver lining here: his selection means that the 2012 campaign just might bring us a serious discussion of these issues.

    If he is not serious and is just a corrupt big spender, how could Ryan's selection lead to a serious discussion of the issues? That doesn't make any sense.

  • Joe R.||

    Because Obama and the media will accuse him of being serious anyway.

  • ||

    If he is not serious and is just a corrupt big spender, how could Ryan's selection lead to a serious discussion of the issues? That doesn't make any sense.

    That's because it's nonsense. It's a tired old closer for career writers who don't have a better way of concluding their articles and provides for a false sense of impartiality as opposed to telling the world what he really thinks. That's journalism for you.

  • niobiumstudio||

    There will never be a "serious discussion of the issues" because "serious" to Team-Red means only have a "little bit of a deficit and a bit of tax cutting" and "serious" to Team-Blue means having "A big deficit, but raising taxes on the rich to not pay for it."

  • Anonymous Coward||

    You mean that despite his (now forsworn) love of Rand, Paul Ryan is, at his core, a TEAM Red hack?

    Color me red with surprise.

  • John||

    But somehow his selection is going to create some kind of serious discussion or something.

  • ||

    But somehow his selection is going to create some kind of serious discussion or something.

    Maybe we'll get lucky further down the thread.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    A serious discussion as to whether America beggars itself in the name of the Pax Americana, or beggars itself in the name of entitlements, subsidies, kickbacks and payoffs.

  • ||

    Man, having both Rands (Ayn and Paul) mentioned in the same thread is getting confusing. Did Paul Ryan once come out of the closet for Rand, only to turn his back on Rand when Paul wouldn't leave his wife for Ryan?

    Personally, I think it's the best explanation of Ryan's actions conflicting with his words so much. He's acting the part of the jilted lover by trying to sabotage Rand's libertarian politics.

  • ||

    Don't worry, I'm sure someone will come along shortly to sarcastically recommend that if we don't like Ryan, we vote for Obama.

    Because as everyone knows, it's only sound logic to imply that criticism of one candidate automatically equates to praise of the other.

    Here's a rundown of faux actual Reason headlines, and what the HitandRunpublicans actually see through their filters:

    Actual (faux) Headline: "Paul Ryan Not Really Good on Spending"

    What HitandRunpublicans see: "Paul Ryan is Worse Than Obama!"

    Actual (faux) Headline: "Why I'm Voting for Gary Johnson"

    What HitandRunpublicans see: "I'm Secretly Voting for Obama Due to My Love of Cocktail Parties"

  • sarcasmic||

    Because as everyone knows, it's only sound logic to imply that criticism of one candidate automatically equates to praise of the other.

    Oh please! Johntony would never do something like that!

  • John||

    He is just as bad as Obama isn't he? That is what the article is saying isn't it?

    It is kind of hard to be worse than Obama. But Reason seems to be making the case the Ryan is just as bad.

  • sarcasmic||

    Right on cue!

    Good boy!

    Whoof! Whoof!

  • ||

    John is nothing if not utterly predictable. He couldn't resist a dog whistle if you paid him.

  • ||

    No, that is not what Reason is doing. You're giving in to binary logic and assuming that if the magazine is against one candidate, that automatically means they favor the other.

    That isn't true. You're arguing against a strawman. If the article was something along the lines of, "Obama Is Better Than Paul Ryan", your arguments would have a point. But the only place you see that article is in your head.

    Are you going to be like this for the next four years if they get elected? Any time anyone criticizes one of them for something, spout off, "What, would you have rather had OBAMA!?! you democrat liberal!!!"

  • John||

    So I want to get this straight. Paul Ryan is better on budget issues than Obama. Right or wrong? Better, worse or equal, which is it?

  • ||

    Probably ever so slightly better, but the shade of difference is something between Communist Vietnam and Pol Pot's Cambodia.

    Just because someone criticizes Communist Vietnam, does not mean they are advocating for the Khmer Rouge.

  • John||

    All right. But Obama is much better on gay marriage isn't he? And his supporters are saying that he will be better on civil liberties in a second term. Granted that seems really unlikely. But we don't know. At least he is saying it unlike Ryan and Romney.

    So all things considered, it looks to me like the case is made for Obama. Johnson is not going to win. But at least Libertarians can hope for an Obama win as some kind of solace.

  • ||

    TEAM RED TEAM RED RAH RAH RAH

  • John||

    So all things considered, it looks to me like the case is made for Obama.

    That is rah rah team red? Jesus, I actually agree with you people about something and you go ballistic.

  • Randian||

    Oh Lord, Round III of this bullshit, eh John?

    Look, folks, John is engaging in the dictionary definition of trolling here. Just ignore him and he'll switch to something else.

  • Joe R.||

    But at least Libertarians can hope for an Obama win as some kind of solace.

    Who the fuck says I'm expecting any kind of solace out of the election? The only thing I'm hoping for is that the planet doesn't run out of liquor between now and then, because I need it to self-medicate.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Please stop this John. It's not funny. It's fucking tiresome. I'm about to filter you with Reasonable, but I want to continue to read your typos. So I've got a dilemma.

    I'm voting for Gary Johnson. If that means your Team loses the office, so be it. Since it's not my Team, I'm not obligated to try to make it more libertarian. It's your Team, you work from within to make it more libertarain. In the mean time, I will vote for the candidate I would like to be Prez.

  • John||

    I am glad you are voting for Johnson LBC. You should. All I am saying is that given what I am reading here, if Romney loses, Libertarians will be better off.

    I have never once said, don't vote for Johnson.

  • ||

    All I am saying is that given what I am reading here, if Romney loses, Libertarians will be better off.

    Funny, that's the exact opposite message all our liberal commenters get. I wonder why that is?

  • Bill||

    There ARE many scenarios in which we could ACCIDENTALLY be better off with an Obama win.

    I will NEVER vote for him and being in Louisiana, may just skip voting since it is a foregone conclusion who will win here.

    Or I could try a symbolic vote for Johnson but have been disappointed in the past when the libertarian candidate only got 1.3% of the vote so there was no symbolism or message received.

    If Obama reverses himself on drugs, war and civil liberties he could be ok.

    If he destroys the economy and the healthcare system, at least then it would be hard to blame it on the libertarians and the evil free market and maybe then we could elect Rand Paul or Gary Johnson in 2016 (pie in the sky I know).

    If Romney/Ryan get elected and then proceed to be mini-Bush/Obamas, the economy and health care could still go to hell but then it will be blamed on the free market libertarian Romney/Ryan (yes a single entity) and in 2016 we will get Nancy Pelosi or someone worse.

    Wow, am I depressed now.

  • Joe R.||

    Actual Headline: "Don't Believe the Hype About Paul Ryan"

    What HitandRunpublicans see: "He is just as bad as Obama"

    It's like Gojira is psychic.

    That is what the article is saying isn't it?

    Actually, the article says "his cuts in domestic discretionary spending amount to an average of just $35.2 billion per year below what Obama himself has proposed."

  • ||

    Sort of depressing that $35.2 billion is a small number.

  • John||

    Look Jim. When you read this article the only conclusion I can make is that Ryan is horrible. I don't understand how anyone ever voted for him to be honest. And if Romney is not offering anything on fiscal policy, just what is he offering?

    Nothing it looks like.

  • sarcasmic||

    Sit!

    Rollover!

    Play dead!

  • ||

    Yeah, Ryan is pretty bad. So the answer is to vote for Johnson, or some other pro-liberty candidate, not get all hysterical that you're the last man on earth who can secretly see the cosmo plot to reelect Obama.

  • John||

    I am not hysterical at all. And why is a plot to re-elect Obama such a bad thing? It appears that re-electing Obama might be the right thing? Why wouldn't it be? It doesn't look like Romney is going to be any better. Obama is at least the devil we know.

  • BakedPenguin||

    John, you're becoming a troll. You are TEAM RED TONY right now, making all the sense he does.

    Most of us who have specified a preference stated long ago that we would vote for Johnson. A libertarian magazine pointing out that a politician is not in favor of liberty should not confuse you to the extent that Reason's Ryan articles obviously have. How you get "go vote for Obama" out of that is bizarre.

  • John||

    You go to "Vote for Obama" like this BP.

    1. Ryan and Romney are frauds and at best 1or 2% better than Obama on the government.

    2. Romney like all Republicans is a neo con war monger and much more likely to get us in a war than Obama

    3. Obama is committed to gay rights, an important issue to Libertarians, and Romney is not.

    4. Romney is much better on 2nd Amendment rights, but Obama can't do shit on those anyway so that is a wash.

    5. Johnson is not going to win.

    6. Obama's support of gay rights is probably a greater advantage than Romney's minuscule and generally meaningless advantage on the budget.

    Thus, from the Libertarian perspective, you are better off hoping for an Obama win.

    What about any of that is not true or not something that Reason supports?

  • ||

    Your reasoning is so stupid and flawed that I have to assume you are an even bigger moron than I thought, or else you are an utterly despicable manipulator and liar. Congratulations, New Mary.

    Or else you're projecting, which means you are fucking retard.

  • John||

    Why is it stupid Epi? What of those six propositions is wrong? Tell me.

  • wareagle||

    seeing as how the Reasoners supported Obama last time, big grain of salt should be required. The salient question is, is the train too far down the tracks to be stopped?

    If it is, Obama completes the fundamental transformation he talked about - and anyone paying attention understood - and the empire crashes. If not, then either Romney slows the progression and the crash still comes, or he is the business tycoon of business tycoons and an 80s redux occurs. Given that folks like McConnell, Boehner, and the rest of the GOP old guard are going nowhere, I find optimism hard to manufacture.

  • ||

    And more TEAM RED TEAM RED RAH RAH RAH!

  • ||

    "6. Obama's support of gay rights is probably a greater advantage than Romney's minuscule and generally meaningless advantage on the budget."

    When has Obama ever shown commitment to protecting anybodys rights from infringement? And note, gay marriage ~= gay rights, only gay inclusiveness in the government teat. Noone in their right mind would ever conclude that an Obama win would advance the libertarian cause in any way based on those points, and I don't see anyone here suggesting that it would.

  • Barack||

    Do you mean reelect Joe Biden?
    Since when is electing a president the same thing as electing a vice president, and WHAT THE FUCK ABOUT JOE BIDEN?
    Sorry about my all caps, but my God, the man's a moron, and I don't see all this hype about Obama's pick for a VP.
    After all he's only one step away from the presidency.

  • Tim||

    WHO DOES NUMBER TWO WORK FOR?

  • ||

    You are number six.

  • Jackand Ace||

    The hip bone is connected to the thigh bone...

  • R C Dean||

    Now that Reason has torn down Ryan's bona fides, I look forward to the article comparing the Repub ticket to the Dem ticket and concluding that,

    (a) in spite of the horribleness of Romney/Ryan, its still better than Obama/Biden, or

    (b) there is no difference between them on any major issue, so you might as well vote for the guys who give lip service to medpot and gay marriage.

    I get that Ryan is news, so he gets a few cycles to himself. But, man, Obama and Biden are just proggy gaffe machines. Here's hoping Reason catches up with them someday soon.

  • ||

    Wow, you seem to be going full HitUndRunpublican too. I'll note that you don't seem to think Gary Johnson even exists. How very TEAM of you.

  • John||

    But Johnson won't win. Not voting or voting third party when the choices are so obviously bad is fine. But that doesn't change the fact that one of the two choices is going to win like it or not.

  • ||

    JOHNSON WON'T WIN, SO LET'S BE ADULTS AND VOTE FOR A STATIST.

  • ||

    TEAM RED TEAM RED RAH RAH RAH

  • John||

    How is it rah rah for Team Red to point out that either Romney or Obama is almost certainly going to win the election? Is that not true?

  • ||

    Try this: how does it advance the conversation in a meaningful way? And why do you feel the need to say it fifty times a day all of a sudden?

  • John||

    Because Reason keeps making such a persuasive case for how horrible Romney and Ryan are.

  • ||

    And they haven't been doing that to Obama for the last three years?

  • ||

    They're picking on John's TEAM! NO FAIR!

  • John||

    They are not picking on my team. They have convinced me. I am ready to join the other team Epi.

  • ||

    There can be only two.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    how does it advance the conversation in a meaningful way?

    Because TEAM RED TEAM RED RAH RAH RAH and TEAM BLUE TEAM BLUE RAH RAH RAH on every fucking subthread on every fucking thread on every fucking post in which someone even remotely implies that voting for someone other than the libertarian candidate might be a rational choice given realistic evaluations of the candidates' electability really advances the conversation in a meaningful way?

  • ||

    I have great reservations about basing anything on "electability". That seems to be the magic word people say to absolve themselves of any guilt for abandoning 85% of their principals voting for someone who gives lip service to the other 15%.

  • Randian||

    You know, NEF, if you and the other Hit n Runpublicans could come up with a better counter than "Well, you have vote for someone who has a 'chance'", you wouldn't encounter TEAM RED TEAM BLUE quite so often.

    InTrade gives Romney a 41% chance. What makes you voting for him a "better thing" just because of that number?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Didn't InTrade predict that the Supreme Court would declare Obamacare unconstitutional?

  • ||

    Johnson won't win because serious men like you keep declaring that Johnson won't win, and so won't vote for him.

    Admittedly it's a chicken-and-egg thing, but the only way to break the cycle is to actually start voting 3rd party.

  • ||

    It's always next time that we can start voting third party. But in this, "the most important election in our lifetime", we need to all band together and stop The Other Guy.

  • John||

    Johnson won't win because people won't vote for him. I am not saying that is good. But it is reality.

  • Archimedes||

    And people won't vote for him because he can't win!

  • John||

    People won't vote for him because they don't agree with him. If people agreed with him, he would have won the nomination.

    We don't have a trillion and a half dollar deficit because the people of this country are hard core Libertarians.

  • Bill||

    It's a bit of a rigged contest in that Johnson was not allowed to participate in the debates and they barely let Ron Paul speak. More people would agree with Johnson if they even knew what he said.

  • Randian||

    Including you, because ZOMG MOST IMPROTANT ELECTION EVAR

  • John||

    Where have I ever said I wasn't going to vote for Johnson. And I certainly have never said this was an important election let alone the most important one ever.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Exactly, Jim. Don't waste your vote on one of the major parties.

  • ||

    That is patently retarded John.

    You know, if all the people that said, Romney might suck on everything, but at least he'll be better than Obama, would vote for Johnson, he'd stand a better chance at winning. But no, you just keep cheerleading for the two party system.

  • John||

    But Designate,

    People are not liberarians. Johnson is not going to win. Sure, you should go vote for Johnson. But don't delude yourself into thinking anyone but Romney or Obama is going to actually win.

    So it is a fair question to ask, if has to be one of those two, which one should Libertarians want. And given what Reason has to say on the subject, it would appear that Obama is the answer.

  • ||

    Except for all of those articles for the last 3 years about how Obama sucks.

    And the problem is that you are thinking binarily. Just because it might be inevitable that Obamney will win, doesn't mean that we have to choose one over the other.

    So my answer would, and will always be: They can both fuck off.

    Now get off my lawn.

  • John||

    Having an opinion on one or the other is not choosing. I may have hated both the Giants and the Patriots, but I still could have an opinion on who was going to win last year's Super Bowl. Same thing here.

  • ||

    Or you could have said: "Fuck it, I'm watching the lingerie bowl instead."

  • John||

    Sure Designate. But if you instead said, I hate the giants and won't be unhappy if they lose, but the Patriots are worse. That would not be choosing. It would just be admitting preference.

  • Joe R.||

    But Johnson won't win.

    And Obama won't win my state.* So what's the difference in voting for Obama but not Johnson?

    *Arkansas went about 60-40 for McCain in '08. I doubt it's going to get better this year. Sure, Obama is statistically more likely than Johnson to win it, but you're arguing "hit by lightning" vs. "hit by meteor" at that point.

  • John||

    Then vote for Johnson. But Johnson being the best choice doesn't mean Obama isn't the better choice over Romney.

  • R C Dean||

    Not really. I was never going to vote for Romney. Haven't voted for a Republican for President in quite awhile. I'll pull for Johnson (wait, that didn't come out right).

    I'm just curious as to when, and how, Reason will pivot its coverage back to Obama.

  • ||

    They've been hammering Obama for 3 years. I think they can take a break to hammer the flip side of the coin for a while.

    But still, how very TEAM of you.

  • R C Dean||

    I think the new site is going all buggy on us.

    Apparently, the part of my comment that read "I was never going to vote for Romney. Haven't voted for a Republican for President in quite awhile. I'll pull for Johnson" didn't come across on some browsers.

  • ||

    Epi's probably censors out the dirty language.

  • ||

    Maybe I'd care what you said if you still didn't seem utterly binary about who they went after.

  • R C Dean||

    So, I should complain that they haven't beat up Johnson recently, either? I'm planning to vote for him, so I don't complain about that.

    Help me out here: what's "binary" about pointing out that:

    (1) Reason has been slagging TEAM RED hard and fast.

    (2) Several staffers voted TEAM BLUE last time, and they haven't really slapped them around much lately.

    (3) I'm voting for Johnson this time, myself, but am just curious as to how Reason will pivot back to the horse race, in light of (1) and (2).

  • ||

    They've spent three years beating up on Team Blue; I think I can spare them a couple of weeks for this sideshow. It comes across like you're equating three days of bashing Ryan to three years of bashing Obama and demanding that they be brought back into parity.

  • John||

    Of course they can. And they are doing a great job of it. They are right. Ryan is horrible. Clearly no improvement over Obama.

  • ||

    Your TEAM tears are so yummy and sweet, John. Going unhinged suits you.

  • John||

    So agreeing with Reason makes me unhinged?

  • ||

    No, John, going FULL RETARD makes you unhinged. Are you really so stupid that you don't realize how obvious you are?

    We have a new troll, as stupid as Mary, and it's you, John. Congratulations, you are now a colleague of Mary Stack's.

  • John||

    If Ryan is as bad as Reason says he is, then there is no difference between the two tickets. You always say that don't you? Given that, why not let Obama have another four years? Who knows, he might do better next time.

  • BakedPenguin||

    John was always conservative about some issues, but never a moron like this. I think Mary must have finally tracked John down, killed him, and is now posting under his name. She's probably wearing his skin as we speak.

  • Archimedes||

    It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again

  • ||

    GOD DAMN IT

  • ||

    It puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again, BP.

  • ||

    Didn't a sudden and equally dramatic thing happen to Tulpa a month or so ago?

    Are the more conservative members of the commentariat being replaced by skrulls?

  • R C Dean||

    So agreeing with Reason makes me unhinged?

    Well, when you put it that way . . . .

  • ||

    Explain to me again, exactly, how, "Ryan Isn't Good" means the exact same thing as "Clearly No Improvement Over Obama"?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Reason must acknowledge the 2% improvement Romniac/Ryan would be over Obama! If they do not do that in every article, they are pulling for Obama!

    Obama agrees with us 4%; Romney / Ryan agree with us 6%! TEAM RED FUCK YEAH!

  • John||

    If there is only a 2% difference between them, then why not vote for Obama?

  • ||

    Compound interest, that's why.

  • John||

    There is only one level of broke Joe.

  • BakedPenguin||

    And both TEAMS will find that level.

  • ||

    ...or why not vote for the guy running on the ticket of the party espousing the philosophy that this website specifically advocates for? Why can you not grasp the concept that some of us do not buy into the inevitability of only two bad choices?

  • ||

    ...because John's a TEAM RED hack?

  • John||

    I am a team Red Hack Epi because I agree with Reaon that Ryan is horrible and just as bad as Obama?

    Jesus fucking Christ, I finally agree with you people and you accuse me of being Mary Stack.

    You are right. You win. Ryan and Romney are the two worst candidate in the last 100 years. They will probably spend more than Obama. I am not going to argue with you anymore. I am going to take what Reason says and believe it.

    They are horrible and Johnson is not going to win. So we are better off with Obama winning.

    What is so crazy about saying that? And why has it caused everyone this board to go nuts?

  • ||

    Keep going for gold with the stupid, John. You are singlehandedly burning all your credibility on this board with this issue. You are amazingly stupid.

  • John||

    I spent 8 years defending Bush on here Episiarch. I am not spending four months defending Romney. You are right, he is horrible. What do you want me to say?

    And given Romney is so horrible, maybe Obama isn't such a bad choice considering the alternatives. As I said below, a second Obama administration would be good for laughs if nothing else.

    Isn't getting people to agree with you the whole point of these discussions? There I agree with you. Why aren't you happy about it?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Jesus fucking Christ, I finally agree with you people and you accuse me of being Mary Stack.

    Ummm. From my reading of these threads. If you agreed with us, you would declare your vote for Gary Johnson. And stop with the Team bullshit.

  • John||

    LBC,

    I have never said don't vote for Johnson. I have just said that Johnson isn't going to win. That is not team bullshit. That is the truth.

  • Smurfs Poop Blue||

    Holy shit John, you are really catching some flak over a simple observation.

  • Trespassers W||

    Ryan is horrible. Clearly no improvement over Obama.

    I just wanted to point out a fact that gets lost in all this insanity: Obama will, presumably, be running against Romney, not Ryan. It's still the same turd sandwich / flaming douche decision it ever was.

  • R C Dean||

    Obama will, presumably, be running against Romney, not Ryan.

    I wouldn't bet on it. Last time he ran against Palin, not McCain, and that turned out pretty well for him.

  • Trespassers W||

    OK, good point, amusingly stated.

    But seriously, if John wants to argue that we (libertarians) should now vote Republican because Ryan is a step in the right direction (a point that also has to be argued in the face of big steaming piles of evidence to the contrary), then at some point he has to address the fact that it's still, in fact, a vote for the very same turd sandwich as last week.

  • John||

    Trespassers,

    I am not making that argument. I am making the opposite. You guys are right. Ryan is horrible and not a step in the right direction. We are better off with Obama because he is no worse than Ryan on the budget and better on gay rights.

    It is amazing how conceding the argument has made people so angry.

  • ||

    Maybe it's because people can read the sarcasm dripping off of your "concessions" and "agreements"?

    Nevermind that most of us here think that Obama/Romney are functionally the same.

  • ||

    Ryan is horrible, so we are better off with Obama? You're misstating the argument, that's why everyone's pissed off.

  • Bill||

    They have had at least 3 articles in the past week hammering Obamacare. (You know, the one patterned after Romney-care).

  • Jackand Ace||

    "Wars aren't free..."
    How true, but how foreign a concept to neo-cons like Ryan. They all think defense spending is done with magic money...dollars not subject to the same constraint as those in other programs. Thats why Bush put his wars into the scam of a "supplementary budget."
    What a joke...Ryan is no different than Cheney, and supported all of Cheney's initiatives that helped bankrupt this country. He only takes issue with Cheney on one thing...gay rights. He's less of a libertarian than Cheney. Hard to believe that is even possible.

  • Romulus Augustus||

    You mean Paul Ryan isn't in the Wisconsin National Guard and pulled a tour of Iraq and a tour of Afghanistan?
    It's not like he's a decreipt old man like most who beat the drum for war.

  • Restoras||

    Chickenhawk!!

  • ||

    Great, the Reason staff is trolling John, and enabling him to troll the rest of us. Very disfunctional, people.

  • Brett L||

    Who else will answer every comment on a thread and thereby quadruple a 50-60 response thread into the 200s? They know what they are doing.

  • lesliemcintire||

    I am much closer to the libertarian view on the size and scope of government than Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan; however, it's a 2-party system, and the Romney-Ryan ticket gets us moving in the direction of fiscal responsibility. I believe step 1 is to elect Romney POTUS, and step 2 is to draw him more towards the fiscally libertarian position once installed. We have no hope of persuading Obama, especially if he's re-elected POTUS.

  • sarcasmic||

    and the Romney-Ryan ticket gets us moving in the direction of fiscal responsibility

    Uh, no?

    Romney-Ryan may slow the rate of acceleration, but the velocity will still continue to increase.

  • niobiumstudio||

    Until they put military spending on the table fiscal responsibility is just a dream.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're right. Ignore the fact that half of all federal spending is entitlements. That doesn't matter.

    http://www.heritage.org/federa.....ng-problem

  • Jackand Ace||

    Yeah, Heritage...no political ax to grind there, right?
    Just because 1/4 is medicare, 1/4 is SS, and 1/4 is defense, you don't leave one of those quarters on the table, do you?

  • sarcasmic||

    Pointing out the fact that eliminating defense altogether will not balance the budget is an argument in favor of not cutting it at all?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Its the same BS argument about any program. Cutting NPR and Planned Parenthood won't balance the budget either. But cutting all of them will. You don't leave defense out of it. Ryan, true to his neo-con roots, does.

  • ||

    How bout the fact that defense is constitutionally mandated? SS and Medicare not so much.

    Nevermind the fact that we could cut military spending to Clinton levels and still be the biggest baddest army on the planet.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Constitutionally mandated does not justify illogical spending levels. Its not constitutionally mandated that we spend as much as the rest of the world combined.

  • ||

    Hence my second paragraph. But thanks for reading the part of my post that you wanted to read.

  • Jackand Ace||

    You're right, your point was confusing...guess you wanted to make two different points to prove how smart you are.
    Did not get that, either.

  • Virginian||

    That's because you are stupid.

    No one here denies that the military needs cutting.

    The US needs a fleet and an air force with a limited global strike capability. The only army we need is enough trained troops to secure the Mexican border from a hypothetical invasion. Add enough badass spec ops types for the odd contingency, and slash the bloated remnants of the Russian stopping armored and mech infantry. Oh and cut the hundreds of thousands of civilian DoD employees, and slash the stupid PC bullshit. The military exists to fuck up those who wish to harm the Republic. There's no need for civil affairs/psyops/propaganda troops or any of the others which are good only for an Army of occupation.

    Enough ships to protect commerce, enough bombers to level a terrorist training camp or sink an enemy fleet, and enough troops to defend the US or extract an embassy if necessary. And that's fucking it.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Exactly, and that is not going to happen. One of the best things we have done in quite a while is the "sequestration." $1T cut. People like Ryan are screaming about it, because it cuts THEIR sacred cow, the military.
    Too bad.
    After sequestration, I say now lets find more.

  • Bill||

    Since the VP's preferred policies only matter in the run-up to the election and usually have no bearing on what the president will do, I am betting that a Romney presidency will do nothing to get us moving in the direction of fiscal responsibility.

    Fool me once, etc.

  • ||

    Yes, let's all vote for Obama, but wearing a TEAM RED jersey. That's not about TEAM at all, no sir.

  • ||

    Enacting step 1 makes step 2 impossible.

  • niobiumstudio||

    leslie, I don't think there will be any way of drawing Mitt toward the libertarian view - it would isolate him from most of his base. The vast majority of people electing him would balk at the idea of libertarian things like cutting military spending or allowing gay marriage or taxing drugs.

  • ||

    Here's a little secret a lot of us learned after being burned by the republican party over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over*; you're never going to accomplish Step 2.

    *and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

  • John||

    Exactly. All the more reason to hope Obama wins.

  • ||

    John actually thinks his tactic of saying "vote for Obama" isn't crystal clear TEAM bullshit. Oh, John, if only you were smarter, this could be more fun.

  • John||

    Bullshit. You guys are the ones saying it not me. I am just taking you at your word. If Ryan is that bad, why not hope Obama wins? What difference does it make? If nothing else four more years of Obama will be good for gay rights and laughs.

  • ||

    The stupidity of this argument you have latched onto like a pitbull is hilariously epic. I find it stunning that you don't get how stupid you look with it. You really are like Mary Stack, completely un-self-aware in your stupidity, projection, and emotional responses.

  • ||

    Or you could, like, acknowledge the fact that you can write in Daffy Duck if you thought he'd be better than Obamney.

    And not a single person here (besides our erstwhile proggy trolls) has said that Ryan is so bad a VP pick that we should just vote for Obama. Jesus Christ on a cracker you are being fucking stupid about this.

  • John||

    No one has said that designate. But if Ryan is really only 2% better than Obama on the budget and Romney is actually worse than Ryan, doesn't that kind of mean that a second Obama term might be better than a Romney administration?

  • sarcasmic||

    Shorter John: If you don't like apples then you must like oranges.

    Whoof!

  • ||

    No, because sometimes people prefer pineapple over everything else.

  • sarcasmic||

    No Nate, you are wrong. Your only choices are between apples and oranges, and you criticized apples. That means that you like oranges. Every criticism of apples is a de facto compliment of oranges. Johntony said so.

  • ||

    Damn.

    But oranges don't really go on a deep dish pizza.

  • ||

    "I believe the very heart and soul of pineapple is apple." - Ronald Reagan, 1975

  • Bill||

    The VP is usually irrelevant as far as actual governing although they for some strange reason can be the cause of someone getting elected or not.

  • T o n y||

    Except for the fact that Republicans always end up spending and growing the deficit more, your post makes a lot of sense!

    Deficit hawkishness will completely disappear as a Republican obsession if Mitt gets elected. Just as it did with Bush. It's a political bludgeon for them, nothing more.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Deficit hawkishness will completely disappear as a Republican obsession if Mitt gets elected. Just as it did with Bush. It's a political bludgeon for them, nothing more.

    And you could not be more right on that one, on the target. Not that the Great One has done anything about the deficit either, increasing it even higher than his predecesor, but who cares about minor details?

    I know what you're going to say: "If we only had a tax increase," while dancing on ruby-red shoes. The trouble being that trying to extract money from thinking and acting individuals is like trying to heard cats. Only a very tyrannical government can get away with extracting more in taxes than 20% of GDP, and that only gets you Cuba or North Korea as a result.

    It's the SPENDING which is the problem, and both parties LOVE that spend. And it is the spending which is entirely under the control of the government, not the revenue. No matter who gets chosen, the fact that the spending is the issue to tackle will not go away, ever.

  • ||

    Yep, Dems have never said "Yes we will make cuts to the budget in return for raising taxes" only to welch on the deal and actually increase spending when taxes went up.

  • LibertyMark||

    To me Paul Ryan shows the enormous gaping maw that exists between fiscal conservatives and statist "liberals".

    The liberals panic at the mere mention of Ryan's budget plan. They call it social darwinism. They say that it would be a fundamental shift in the very fabric of our civilization. They call people who support Ryan's plan extremists.

    Of course, we all know that Ryan's plan is a pitiful little thing that doesn't do much.

    So, I have always wondered. If the "liberals" are going to shriek to the high heavens about something this weak, why not propose something stronger? I can't see how the liberal shrieking could get any louder.

    But then I realize that the "fiscal conservatives" don't want real change either. They are perfectly happy producing do-nothing plans, listening to the "liberals" shriek, and then convincing their constituents that they are bravely fighting the "liberals" with the evidence being the "liberal" shrieking. And round and round it goes.

  • ||

    That is 100% completely correct.

  • John||

    Of course, we all know that Ryan's plan is a pitiful little thing that doesn't do much.

    It actually does a lot. It just doesn't do anything to the people currently on medicare and social security. You guys want to tell old people that they are a bunch lazy mooching bastards. That is nice but you can't do that and ever win an election. The only way you are ever going to reform entitlements is to do it in the future so people have time to plan for it. Current recipients are never going to vote for anyone to cut their benefits because they are going to be dead before the thing goes broke anyway. But future recipients might if they know the choice is either reform or get nothing.

  • LibertyMark||

    John, I can't speak for "you guys", but I don't want to tell my parents they are lazy moochers.

    But, SS does need to be changed in a fundamental way, like eliminated.

    So, do what Ron Paul proposed. Keep it going for people who are dependent on it, and let young people opt-out of the system. You know, completely sever themselves from it. That is real change that actually reduces the role of the Federal government.

    Ryan's plan says something about private retirement accounts, yada, yada, yada. It still forces people into the system, it controls what they can do with their money: it is not to be trusted.

  • John||

    Ryan's plan is really more about medicare. And it turns it into insurance vouchers, which would be a huge improvement over what we have.

    I would love to eliminate it too. But fuck that is never going to happen.

  • LibertyMark||

    I agree, John, that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the better.

    I'd probably vote for parts of Ryan's thing if it were the only thing on the table.

    But I wouldn't call it hugely better. Even with vouchers, there's still dependency, there's still control, there's still the forceful direction of a portion of your savings into medicare.

    And just throwing up your hands and saying "it's never going to happen" isn't a sufficient excuse to not work for more. That's what I was getting at. They could do more; the liberals are already shrieking as loud as they can.

  • John||

    It won't happen now. But it might happen in the future if you start chipping away at it.

    The liberals didn't build it in one day. They got it little by little. And I think that is the way to tear it down.

  • ||

    Well if it might happen in the future...

  • Calidissident||

    If doing "a lot" still results in a trillion dollar increase in spending over the next ten years, deficits for decades, tens of trillions of more debt, and spending levels above the recent historical average as % of GDP, then I don't think we agree on what "a lot" is

  • John||

    Turning medicare into a voucher program is doing a lot.

  • sarcasmic||

    These days the only discernible difference between Rs and Ds is abortion and gay rights, which neither side can really do anything about.

  • Loki||

    the only discernible difference between Rs and Ds is abortion and gay rights, which neither side can really do anything about

    Feature, not bug.

  • Tim||

    "Your archaic cultures are authority driven. To facilitate our introduction into your societies, it has been decided that a conservative voice will speak for us in all communications. Paul Ryan has been chosen to be that voice."

  • ||

    "You mean of course his father, Duke Leto Ryan."

    "We mean Paul. Paul Ryan."

  • ||

    "The military spending must flow."

  • ||

    "He is becoming more popular in the Landsraad Senate and could threaten me!"

  • ||

    Tell me of your homeworld, JJ.

  • ||

    Well Still-Hot Sean Young, there are these two warring tribes you see, and a bunch of morons who froth at the mouth and attack each other over whether one is wearing a blue bandana or a red one. On the local level we call this "gang warfare" and on the macro level it's called politics.

  • ||

    The slow blade penetrates Still-Hot Sean Young's shield, JJ.

  • ||

    What about the flaccid blade?

  • Archimedes||

    Tom Clancy wrote about life under a Vice President named Ryan.
    It was verbose.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Archimedes,

    Don't get distracted by things you can't understand. Sit down and watch Spongebob, like a good little kid.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Yes, but there's no way someone could crash a jetliner into D.C. without it getting blown out of the sky these days.

  • ||

    The Browns once had a quarterback named Frank Ryan. He had a PhD in math.

  • ||

    All Tom Clancy novels are verbose.

    And bringing up that novel makes me imagine the 747 crashing into the capitol building. ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC!!!!1!!11!!

  • Lord Humungus||

    wait, was this thread made for John?

  • John||

    I love it. I finally agree with everything they say and grant them that Romney and Ryan are horrible and they all go nuts and hate me for it. They have all blown a fuse or something.

  • Randian||

    John, would you say you're making the puppets dance?

  • John||

    No Randian. As I said above. You win. You are right. Romney and Ryan are terrible. The worst. What do you want me to say?

    I honestly understand how "you are right" and "you win" are trolling. If you don't think Romney and Ryan are horrible then say so. If you do, stop accusing me of trolling when all I am doing is agreeing with you.

  • Randian||

    You do understand that "Romney / Ryan are terrible =/= Obama is better", right?

    Type this phrase out if you want to ensure you are not trolling:

    "I, John, understand that criticism of the Romney/Ryan ticket on budgetary matters does not mean that reason or any of its editors or commenters are necessarily endorsing Obama"

    Can you do that?

  • John||

    You do understand that "Romney / Ryan are terrible =/= Obama is better", right?

    I am not saying they are endorsing Obama. But my question is why isn't Obama better? Seriously. Given that Obama is less likely to start a war and is committed to gay rights and the Ryan and Romney are not serious at all about the deficit, what exactly about Obama is worse? I am not seeing it, at least not at Reason.

  • ||

    Given that Obama is less likely to start a war and is committed to gay rights

    OK, you are fucking with us. That's good.

  • John||

    Warty,

    If you polled the reason staff and asked them "Who is more likely to start a war Romney or Obama?" I would be shocked if Romney didn't win in a landslide.

    So my statement about Romney and the war is coming strictly from Reason.

  • Randian||

    If you polled the reason staff...So my statement about Romney and the war is coming strictly from Reason.

    Ha.

    A ha ha ha.

    If I asked John if he fucks sheep, I would be shocked if he said "no", so my statement about John and sheep is coming strictly from John.

  • John||

    Let me ask you Randian. Who is more likely to get us in a war Romney or Obama?

    do you think obama? If so, why?

  • ||

    Why can't they both be equally likely to get us into a new war? Obama has been stabbing his dick all over the place. Romney hasn't said or done anything to indicate he wouldn't do the same.

  • Randian||

    I do think that the Republicans are more likely to get us involved in a war. I still fail to see how that makes me an Obama supporter.

  • John||

    It doesn't Randian. It just means that all things consider, Obama is the better choice over Romney. Once again, Obama can finish second even if Johnson still finishes first.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Dude, you are making up fake poll results and using that as the basis of an argument? Seriously man, you need to take a break from this site, and Team politics.

  • John||

    LBC,

    Am I wrong? Do you think Obama is more likely to get us in a war?

  • sarcasmic||

    Pretty please, with sugar on top, go fuck yourself.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Do you think Obama is more likely to get us in a war?

    Well, frankly, yes. Obama's done a pretty good job of getting us into wars so far. So what? I'm not going to flee to the Romney vote because of that. You know why? Because I think Gary Johnson will be less likely to start a war than both Obama and Romney. In fact, I think Johnson will best represent my interests as POTUS.

    And I don't care if he has no chance of winning. The Raiders, Lakers, and Buckeyes didn't win it all this year. And I'm still fine because I don't cry if my "team" doesn't win.

  • John||

    So Romney is less likely to get us into a war than Obama. Good to know.

  • sarcasmic||

    Pretty please, with sugar on top, go fuck yourself.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Well, now we're getting somewhere.

  • ||

    Well, I like kitties.

  • ||

    TAKE YOUR REPUBLICAN SHILLING BULLSHIT ELSEWHERE WARTY GODDAMNIT!!!

  • ||

    So you're fucking with everyone now, right John?

  • ||

    John's not that smart.

  • ||

    Nervous breakdown with 3 months to go. Poor bastard.

  • Archimedes||

    Starting to miss MNG yet?

  • ||

    Not even for a second.

  • Trespassers W||

    Seriously? Without MNG, I feel like the Force is out of balance.

  • jacob the barbarian||

    OK. You miss THAT one? Try this ...
    Fibertarians are enslavers of the nature earth Gaia -- before the onset of civilization people lived FOREVER one granola that fell from the skies. They drank wine that was pissed from the loins of loving wolves ... Yadda yadda bladda bladda

    DRINK!

  • jacob the barbarian||

    damn! my comment just got 'reasonabled' Damn you Trespasser!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I keep hearing from people I know about how Ryan is the most evillest archvillain ever. In fact, his evilness is so self-evident there is apparently no need to produce supporting evidence. Only an ignoramus like me would doubt it.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    In Libertopia, claiming to be an Ayn Rand fan but never actually living up to Objectivist principles gets you a mandatory minimum of 5 years the Great Gulag of Colorado.

  • ||

    Yes, because as we all know, being a libertarian means you HAVE to be an objectivist.

    It triez moar harder?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Objectivists will purge the Cosmotarian dissidents from power (ala, Stalinists vs. Trotskyists).

  • Scarcity||

    Shit! He's onto us! Or them! Or somebody!

  • Calidissident||

    I think John has officially reached peak retard everybody

  • John||

    Why because I agree with you guys that Romney and Ryan are horrible fraud candidates who will be just as bad or worse than Obama on the budget?

  • Calidissident||

    No, because you are either a) advocating voting for Obama or b) desperately trying to defend Romney and Ryan by sarcastically arguing that if they are as bad as Reason writers and commentators say they are, then we must logically support Obama.

    (And I think we all know option b is what's actually going on)

  • John||

    I am not saying you must logically support Obama. You should support Johnson. I am just saying that I can't see how, if all of this is true, that Obama isn't slightly better than Romney and Ryan from the Libertarian perspective.

    Why is that such a controversial statement?

  • sarcasmic||

    Why is that such a controversial statement?

    It's not controversial, it's a lie. In case you haven't noticed yet, most libertarians have fully functional bullshit detectors and don't appreciate dishonesty.
    What you are doing is employing Tony like intellectually dishonest and disingenuous tactics, and you're not making any friends.

    So pretty please, with sugar on top, go fuck yourself.

  • John||

    Why is it a lie? You guys are the ones making the case against Ryan. What is wrong with agreeing with it?

  • sarcasmic||

    A case against Ryan is not a case in favor of Obama. That is the logical fallacy that you keep insisting upon.
    And you know that it is a lie.

    So pretty please, with sugar on top, go fuck yourself.

  • John||

    A case against Ryan is not a case in favor of Obama. That is the logical fallacy that you keep insisting upon.

    Not by itself no. But when you combine it with the few things that Obama has going for him, the fact that he is less likely to get us in a war and the fact that he is pro gay rights, it means that Obama is the better choice. Doesn't mean he is better than Johnson, just that he is second and better than Romney.

  • sarcasmic||

    A fallacy combined with anything is still a fallacy there, Johntony.

    So pretty please, with sugar on top, go fuck yourself.

  • ||

    Except he isn't a lock on any of those things seeing as how he changed his stance on gay marriage in the middle of his campaign (after holding the opposite position for years) and involved us in Libya and has been poking his dick finger into Syria and Iran's eyes.

    I'd say Johnson first, then write in zombie Ben Franklin, then Romney/Obama side by side.

  • Trespassers W||

    What you are doing is employing Tony like intellectually dishonest and disingenuous tactics, and you're not making any friends.

    +1 Well-put.

  • ||

    Or we could think they are both equally bad. But I'm sure that never crossed your mind.

  • John||

    But they are not both equally bad. Obama is less likely to get us in a war and better on gay rights. Isn't that true?

  • sarcasmic||

    Pretty please, with sugar on top, go fuck yourself.

  • ||

    No, no it's not.

  • John||

    So you don't think Obama is better on gay rights? Is he more likely to get us in a war?

  • sarcasmic||

    Pretty please, with sugar on top, go fuck yourself.

  • ||

    As I've stated previously, I think he is just as likely to get us into a war as Romney.

    And no he isn't better on gay rights either.

  • ||

    Keep on driving the FULL RETARD home, John, you obviously can't help it. I mean, New Mary. Sorry.

  • Randian||

    JOHN MAKESES THE COSMOS DANCE

  • ||

    This is the worst political chat room ever.

  • Randian||

  • John||

    By advocating for Obama. Really? Why is that such a shocking proposition?

  • sarcasmic||

    Pretty please, with sugar on top, go fuck yourself.

  • sarcasmic||

    Because you intentionally misstate what people say as you employ every fallacy under the sun, while pretending that you don't see it.

    Keep it up Johntony. I don't care if you make yourself look stupid. Nobody does. Not even you, apparently.

  • John||

    What do people believe? Do they not believe that Romney and Ryan are big government frauds who will not change a single thing if elected?

    It looks like they think that to me.

  • Randian||

    What do people believe? Do they not believe that Romney and Ryan are big government frauds who will not change a single thing if elected?

    Correct.

    For the final time, that does not mean we must "logically support Obama". That's the lie you keep telling.

  • John||

    I have never said you should support Obama. I have only said that that means Obama is the better choice than Romney.

    That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't vote for Johnson or that Johnson isn't the best choice. It just means that Obama comes in second.

  • sarcasmic||

    Pretty please, with sugar on top, go fuck yourself.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Why because I agree with you guys that Romney and Ryan are horrible fraud candidates who will be just as bad or worse than Obama on the budget?

    Also, the ridiculous hyperbole used in this line of arguments is extremely grating. None of the Reason writers called Ryan a horrible fraud. None of the commentariat did, either. In fact, the only person who introduces such language to these arguments, is you. Stop.

  • John||

    Really? How is this

    Don't Believe the Hype About Paul Ryan
    Ryan was a loyal soldier throughout the free-spending George W. Bush years, and a big government conservative under Obama.

    Not calling him a fraud? And there are multiple posts on here that say Romney and Ryan are the flip side of the turd sandwich known as the major parties.

    That sounds like calling him a fraud to me.

  • sarcasmic||

    Pretty please, with sugar on top, go fuck yourself.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Looks like they called him a loyal soldier, and a big government conservative. Both of those are apt descriptions of Ryan. True statements, no? You are the one that reads "horrible fraud" into those descriptions. That is a you problem.

    As far as the commentariat, you should know that there is little respect for status quo politicians. I'll give you we may disparage politicians pretty harshly. And yeah, Ryan is going to get his share of insults from us. Just like every last politician who is a topic on these boards.

    But I still think you are too passionate and reading too much into Reason's coverage and analysis of Ryan. Relax, breathe and reread the articles with a more critical eye.

  • John||

    But Bush was a huge spender and Reason hates him. Hard to see how anyone who supported Bush's spending policies could now be called serious about cutting the size of government. No?

    As far as the comentators, if they think Ryan is that bad fine. Maybe he is. I am giving them the field. But if Ryan is as bad as they say, then maybe Obama winning isn't such a bad thing.

  • sarcasmic||

    Fallacy of false equivocation, with a dash of straw. Go fuck yourself Johntony.

  • ||

    Obama is a huge spender and Reason hates him. Hard to see how anyone who supported Obama's spending policies could now be called serious about cutting the size of government. No?

    There probably do exist people who think Obama is a better choice than Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan. All you have to do now is go find someone who has actually said that, and then copy and paste everything you've written in this thread and you'll be all set with a pre-configured argument.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    As far as I can tell, Paul Ryan is about as "exotically out of the mainstream of political thought" as a big bowl of mashed potatoes with chicken gravy is "exotically out of the mainstream of American home-style cuisine".

  • sarcasmic||

    Slightly off topic: Ashley Greene in a bikini!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....y-man.html

  • ||

    Nice.

  • Trespassers W||

    Slightly on topic: as a result of a freak series of events, Tony actually sounds more reasonable than John today.

  • sarcasmic||

    Pathetic what people will stoop to in the name of their TEAM.

  • John||

    Trespassers,

    I am not kidding. I defended Bush on here. I am not defending Romney and Ryan. You guys win. They are everything the people on here say they are and worse. If it makes people angry to admit they are right, I don't know what to tell them.

  • sarcasmic||

    Pretty please, with sugar on top, go fuck yourself.

  • ||

    I'm curious why you haven't commented on the Mike Riggs thread specifically attacking Obama supporters.

    Does it mess with your narrative that everyone here secretly likes Obama?

  • John||

    Because I didn't see it. And Riggs is right. Of course Obama is bad and his supporters are frauds. But it also appears that Ryan is just as bad or worse.

    I have never claimed that Obama is good. But if Ryan is just as bad or only marginally better on the budget, maybe Obama is a little better. no?

  • sarcasmic||

    Fallacy of false equivocation. Go fuck yourself Johntony.

  • Trespassers W||

    If it makes people angry to admit they are right, I don't know what to tell them.

    Here's an idea for starters:

    "I apologize for being so disingenuous, hyperbolic and generally crazy over the last few days. For some reason I thought you'd be happy that Ryan was nominated, but I guess I can see why you don't like him. So I don't blame you for not wanting to vote Republican, even if it means that Obama is re-elected. I also recognize that this means that you don't want Obama to be elected, either, but it's not really up to you anyway."

    Just throwing that out there. You could throw in a few misspellings if you want to really make it your own.

  • John||

    I don't think they do want Obama to be re-elected. But all things considered, they probably should.

    And there is no point in debating about Ryan. Reason has established beyond doubt he is utterly loathsome. Ryan is horrible. And Romney is worse. As bad as Obama all things considered and probably worse.

    You guys made your case.

  • sarcasmic||

    Straw man fallacy. Go fuck yourself Johntony.

  • John||

    So Romney and Ryan are not that bad? Really?

  • sarcasmic||

    Keep digging Red Tony! Keeeeeep digging!

  • ||

    Fuck you squirrels. I AM NOT SPAM.

  • Lisa||

    I don't think a lot of libertarians realize that even if Gary Johnson won, there would still be a lot of compromising. The choice between blue or red and an independent ticket is not the choice between compromising and perfect freedom land. It's just easy to think that because libertarians rarely, if ever, get to try their agenda in the real world.
    The real world works in degrees.

  • Lisa||

    and before someone accuses me of being a statist, I would love to live in perfect freedom land. But that doesn't make it possible, even if the "right guy" wins.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Statist! Just kidding.

    I agree there have to be compromises. There is in every endeavour. But if Johnson were elected POTUS (ha hah ha!) at least one side of the negotiations would start on the side of liberty. As it is now, the compromises made in D.C. are between less liberty, or a lot less liberty.

  • John||

    I can't see his supporters being too happy with compromise though. That is the problem with being a revolutionary candidate.

  • Bill||

    Lisa, I understand that very well.

    That's the problem. Ryan wants to cut stuff a little bit and would balance the budget in 26 years (really!!).

    But by the time all the compromise takes place, that tiny cut will be miniscule and we will be on a pace to balance the budget in 47 years. But Romney will be president not Ryan (if they won) so even those numbers are optimistic.

    A plan like those proposed by the Pauls to balance the budget in 4-5 years and close multiple departments will be compromised to something about 10% of what they propose and maybe the budget could be balanced in 17 years.

    That's why all these scare stories in the MSM by the dems are ludicrous (as are the repub scare stories about Iran, etc.). Cuts like Ryan proposes would be small potatoes and in fact will be diluted so much no one will even notice.

  • John||

    Johnson would get ate alive. He wouldn't have any allies in Congress. One of two things would happen. Either he would roll over and compromise with Congress and totally demoralize his supporters or he would stand firm and a bipartisan majority in Congress would override his veto and bypass him.

  • pagoda||

    John, for many reasons - not the least of which is that Romney and Obama are essentially the same - this is going to be the "LEAST Important Election of Our Lifetimes".

    Which makes it the BEST time to vote Johnson because;

    a) getting over 20% in this election takes away a bunch of the "he can't win" BS four years from now. I am voting Johnson just so I don't have to listen to your flawed logic again next year.

    b) the losing team in this election will spend the next four years courting the Johnson 20+% - which means having a candidate next election that might actually have some libertarian beliefs.

    John, your plan of voting for someone who is 2% better gives us NO opportunity for real change four years from now.

  • John||

    1. Johnson isn't getting 20%.

    2. 2% better is still better. And it appears at least according to Reason Obama has that 2% for whatever that is worth.

  • ||

    Where did Reason say that? Oh they didn't, you hysterical lying twit.

  • sarcasmic||

    He's Red Tony! You expect him to lie.

  • John||

    All the posts on Ryan I see say he is a total lying hypocrite who has no intentions of reducing government. I fail to see how that is an improvement over Obama.

  • pagoda||

    Translation: Johnson isn't getting 20% if you can help it.

  • Bill||

    I would be happy if Johnson got 5% of the vote.

    Just enough to make the GOP realize that it cost them the election when they mistreated Paul and Johnson.

    You are right. This is the LEAST important election.

    We are fucked no matter what. May as well make a statement that may change the GOP in the future.

    And let Obama get ALL the blame for his and Bush's policies and big spending.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    As someone inclined toward the Romney/Ryan ticket, I find John's act *extremely* irritating. "Gosh, I stipulated that Ryan is as bad as Obama, why won't you admit you support Obama," etc.

    Johnson has no chance of becoming President, but neither did George Wallace and Ross Perot. Do you think that those who voted for Wallace and Perot had no impact on politics? Of course they had an impact, because they showed the major parties a source of votes to poach! Will John actually try and persuade us that "lol a vote for Wallace or Perot was meaningless so you might as well be a Democrat ha ha I can't believe my own cleverness!"

  • John||

    I never said the vote was meaningless. I just said not everyone wants to engage in a protest vote. And I never said anyone supports Obama. I just say that if everything Reason says about Ryan is true, Obama is the better choice than Romney.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If a "protest" candidates gets enough votes, soon the major parties steal his issues.

    And, yes, you were indeed going all binary on everyone with this oh-well-you-better-support--Obama schtick.

    Like I said, politically speaking a defeat for Romney will undoubtedly be spun as a repudiation of "Ryan's radical austerity blah blah." So he gets credit for raising the issue and arousing the Dems, but it would be nice if he were bolder.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    As for Ryan, I can easily imagine the conventional wisdom if Obama beats Romney. It will be Palin cubed: "We Republicans lost because Ryan was an austerity-mad Grandma-killing Ayn Rand Tea Party extremist - we must never try and pull and budget-cutting foolishness again!"

    If that happens, then best-case scenario (don't even ask about worst-case) is that the budged/debt issue devolves on the Democrats on only-Nixon-can-go-to-China grounds. Some patriotic Dem leader will belatedly offer some kind of deficit-reduction plan, a mixture of tax increases and budget cuts, and Republicans will have to be coaxed into supporting it by promises of bipartisanship (maybe another commission).

    But Republicans will give up on the deficit as a winning issue. At least the leaders will.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    All true.

  • ||

    The fact that Ryan's budget plan is so half-hearted and is still being called draconian, extremist, dangerous, social darwinism (lol @ the left stealing that bit of rhetoric from the creationist movement they've derided for 50 years), terroristic, ageist, and any number of other "isms" by the left demonstrates the utter vacuity in Washington and reveals the utter hopelessness of the Democrats on that front. Spoiler alert: the free shit constituency wins.

  • Barack||

    Where's the Joe Biden article? Why isn't everyone upset about that douche bag?

  • Alex the wolf||

    I think it is fair to compare the current GOP ticket with the one in the 80´s.
    Charismatic, with a free market rethoric that sometimes makes deals because it wants to get things done and realizes that´s the way politics work. And with real experience governing a deep blue state (California-Massachusetts)
    It worked in the 80s, look at the Reagan recovery. The only way to fix the deficit is through grow, a return to the gold standard won´t do it. Fon anyone supportive of free markets and realistic, Romney Ryan should be a good choice, nothing to be ashamed of.

  • misjoyo||

    buen post, tee shirt pas cher homme gracias por compartir!

  • jason||

    He is new contender and defiantly he is going to famous lot more.

  • PortuguesePete||

  • numnumnum||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement