Wherein The New York Times Decides Catholic Bishops Are Not Partisan Because It’s Time to Tear Down Paul Ryan

It behooves Mitt Romney at this point in his campaign to market Paul Ryan as a fiscal hawk and deficit hero, despite some striking evidence to the contrary, like his votes for TARP, Medicare D and even George W. Bush’s wars, each a budget-buster of its own on the road to fiscal calamity. Nevertheless, because the Obama campaign and the Democratic party have decided that the way to win in November is to scare Americans by portraying Mitt Romney as a callous figure who intends on dismantling government, killing your grandmother, and whatever horrible thing it is that they think will scare people into re-electing the president, liberals actually share Mitt Romney’s goal of portraying Paul Ryan as a fiscal hawk, and worse. The New York Times published an op-ed today that tries to do just that:

More than three-fifths of the cuts proposed by Mr. Ryan, and eagerly accepted by the Tea Party-driven House, come from programs for low-income Americans. That means billions of dollars lost for job training for the displaced, Pell grants for students and food stamps for the hungry. These cuts are so severe that the nation’s Catholic bishops raised their voices in protest at the shredding of the nation’s moral obligations.

Mr. Ryan’s budget “will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment,” the bishops wrote in an April letter to the House. “These cuts are unjustified and wrong.”

Paul Ryan is so evil, argues the Times, that the Roman Catholic congressman has even drawn the ire of Catholic bishops with his budget proposal. The word of the Catholic bishops, in this case, should be taken at face value. But the Times is no friend of religious institutions or even of those same Catholic bishops. From a Times op-ed on “the politics of religion,” published just a few months ago:

Thirteen Roman Catholic dioceses and some Catholic-related groups scattered lawsuits across a dozen federal courts last week claiming that President Obama was violating their religious freedom by including contraceptives in basic health care coverage for female employees. It was a dramatic stunt, full of indignation but built on air…

This is a clear partisan play. The real threat to religious liberty comes from the effort to impose one church’s doctrine on everyone.

Except, apparently, when that doctrine happens to align with a liberal agenda, then its a moral obligation for our political leaders. Thanks for clearing that up, New York Times!

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.

  • ||

    This is a clear partisan play. The real threat to religious liberty comes from the effort to impose one church’s doctrine on everyone.

    Yeah cuz the catholic church is a big TEAM RED supporter.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Brutus||

    Ha-ha. He meant Team Red, not the teeming Reds.

  • ||

    Yeah my sarcasm might not have come through.

    The Catholic Vote has favored Democrats for at least 50 years...maybe longer, I don't know.

    If Catholics are partisan it would be in favor of the Dems.

    The fact they went to the right on this particular issue would indicate they broke from their default partisan position and instead took a position that was based on their values rather then their politics.

    The exact opposite of partisan.

    At best the NYT's claims are ill informed and convoluted...but my guess is the NYT's editorial staff is just straight up lying.

  • ||

    "Captain! Captain! TEAM RED has deployed the Battleship Ryan what should we do?!?!"

    "We don't know it's vulnerabilities and it's weapons are reverse engineered from battleship Clinton. Fire everything we have got and pray we hit"

  • Caleb Turberville||

    At least the differences of opinion are policy-based. He lacks the easy caricaturization of Palin, Cheney, Quayle, or Bush, so TEAM BLUE's late-night minions will have a difficult time do their bidding.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    What did Hitchens tell Maher that one time? "Anybody can do a Bush joke. It's become the joke that stupid people laugh at."

  • Xenocles||

    Was that the line he delivered before flipping off the audience?

  • Mickey Rat||

    So it just occured to you that the NYT previously complaining about religion in politics was just an attempt at manipulation?

  • mnarayan||

    Every time someone writes something, its the first time they thought it.

  • ||

    You just blew my mind.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Jeez, it's like you haven't read the NYT Style Guide. Religion is great when it means social-gospel activism and speaking truth to power; it's wrong when it means imposing a partisan agenda. I hope that wasn't too subtle for you teabaggers.

  • Brutus||

    The Episcopal Church is the very epitome of this.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    More than three-fifths of the cuts proposed by Mr. Ryan, and eagerly accepted by the Tea Party-driven House, come from programs for low-income Americans.

    And, of course "low-income" is defined as what, exactly? A family of four with a household income of less than $120,000/ year?

  • Xenocles||

    I think a family of four needs to be above $90K under the ACA standard. I was shocked to hear that I would have nearly qualified for a subsidy had I not been military.

  • Broseph of Invention||

    I thought I grew up pretty comfortably, and it wasn't until going to a public university and applying for financial aid that I found out that my family was actually in the bottom fifth of all my classmates and thus "needy". I'm glad they told me I was poor, or I would have had no idea.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Same here. I've since discovered I could have gone to any Ivy school or MIT for free based on my parents income (coupled with my grades which were good enough to get in). Growing up I never once thought we were poor. I guess that's the good thing about living in the world's richest country.

  • ||

    It all depends on how you spend your revenue, something the government hasn't learned yet.

  • Knoss||

    But what if the current welfare system leaves the poor with the highest effective income tax, and regulations pose the biggest restrictions on the poor?

  • Brutus||

    Heaven forbid Ryan's budget cuts! Then the bishops might have to step up to the plate, clothing the naked and feeding the hungry themselves!!

    Maybe it's my ignorance of Scripture, but I don't recall Christ commanding us to make other people aid the poor. It was always a personal responsibility. Now I can just pay my taxes and I'm square with the Lord!

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Meh. Jesus said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar." That quote set a dangerous precedent for the social-justice religious types.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    *"...are Caesar's."

  • Brett L||

    I knew we should have put Jesus's picture on our money.

  • Old Mexican||

    Jesus said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar." That quote set a dangerous precedent for the social-justice religious types.


    What Jesus meant with that is "Hey, humor the self-absorbed prick. You know who you really love, big guy!"

  • ||

    Maybe it's my ignorance of Scripture, but I don't recall Christ commanding us to make other people aid the poor. It was always a personal responsibility.

    In fairness the Catholic Church does not have a very good record of actually following scriptures.

    Hell for over a 1000 years they actively suppressed knowledge of what was in it. A book that explicitly says it is ones moral duty to spread its knowledge.

  • Brutus||

    A fair cop.

  • Xenocles||

    It's pretty rich for the Catholic bishops to complain about social justice when they take orders from a guy who lives in an art museum.

  • Sevo||

    And pays no taxes.

  • Mood Aplut||

    Compare Benedict's lifestyle to Obama's and come back and say that again.

  • Xenocles||

    Okay.

    It's pretty rich for the Catholic bishops to complain about social justice when they take orders from a guy who lives in an art museum. The Pope gets his shoes custom-made from the same guy who made a pair for Barack Obama, so there you go.

    It's extra embarrassing when you consider that the Church pays zero taxes of any kind on its own property and revenue despite massive commercial and rental real estate holdings. Where exactly is that $7B+ per year going?

    Of course, Jesus didn't object to luxury either even when sacrificing it could be used to help the poor. See Mt. 26:6ff.

  • Michael Ejercito||

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The Catholic Church has attorneys to feed and clothe.

  • ||

    You're expecting intellectual consistency from America's Pravada?

  • Brutus||

    The Oldsmobile?

  • Aresen||

    More than three-fifths of the cuts proposed by Mr. Ryan, and eagerly accepted by the Tea Party-driven House, come from programs for low-income Americans.

    Isn't this just the long form of "Single Women, Minorities Hardest Hit"?

  • Atanarjuat||

    Yes, it is. And IINM, 3/5 is about the proportion of the federal budget that goes to transfer programs, so that statement would be (roughly) correct even if one were to cut evenly across the board.

  • Xenocles||

    It's just like how almost any tax cut will necessarily help the rich - they're the ones paying nearly all the taxes these days.

  • Sevo||

    ..."the Tea Party-driven House"...
    Where is this thing exactly? Pretty sure there's nothing in DC approximating the description.

  • ||

    The chances of Romney getting my vote are vanishingly small, but I might just think about it if he and Ryan start responding to Obama's criticisms with something like, "Pell grants do nothing but drive up the cost of a college education. You may get a grant for $1000, but that does you little good when tuition has gone up $1400."

  • ||

    In the letters, Bishops Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, California, and Richard E. Pates of Des Moines, Iowa, chairmen of the Committees on Domestic Justice and Human Development and International Justice and Peace, respectively, urged Congress to resist proposed cuts in hunger and nutrition programs at home and abroad saying that “a just spending bill cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons.”

    So, two of the more lefty bishops are against the TEAM RED VP's advocacy of slowing down the growth of the federal government?

    Hmmm, you would think from the wording of the NYT article that ALL Catholic bishops are against this ... no bias there.

  • ||

    Shorter: two Catholic bishops are in favor of preserving the current or higher level of immoral government theft that violates Biblical teachings, because they do not understand what Jesus was saying when he advocated for voluntary charity given by individuals.

  • ||

    iirc, assuming jesus existed and assuming the (chosen) books of the bible (vs. the discarded ones e.g. book of thomas etc.) are an accurate representation of what he said, he never spoke AGAINST govt. charity. he spoke FOR private charity.

    that aside, the "jesus would be on my side" argument leaves me cold, no matter who is doing it.

  • Brutus||

    There isn't any such thing as "government charity."

  • ||

    Meh. Jesus said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar." That quote set a dangerous precedent for the social-justice religious types.

    Technically, Jesus essentially said, "Don't get yourself killed by refusing to pay taxes. Turn the other cheek, and give back to Caesar the coins minted by Caesar ."

    This somehow got twisted by many purported Christians into, "It is moral and right to advocate for the modern equivalent of Caesar stealing from peasants."

  • Mood Aplut||

    Funny how the subsequent "render unto God the things that are God's" always seems to be forgotten, when that's probably the main point of the verse.

    Though there is plenty of other scripture saying that you should obey authority and pay taxes.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Shorter NYT: It's OK for Catholic bishops to lobby for keeping current levels of government programs "for the poor," but it's wrong for bishops to defend their own religious freedom. The latter is just politics, the former is prophetic witness.

  • ||

    he never spoke AGAINST govt. charity.

    Actually, Jesus did speaking against theft in general -- dunno if he felt it was necessary to give a thousand examples of theft and condemn each one specifically -- presumably theft by government agents wasn't considered any more moral than other kinds of theft, though anything but silence on the topic would have gotten him killed sooner.

    Mark 10:19 ESV / 45 helpful votes

    You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’”

    Matthew 19:18 ESV / 44 helpful votes

    He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness,

  • ||

    im aware of that. but it's a libertarian premise that taxes are theft.

    it was not, as far as evidence shows, JESUS' premise

    again, he spoke FOR private charity. i have still seen zero examples he spoke against govt. charity

  • Brutus||

    I don't see some taxes as theft, but clearly others are. This is exactly what Jesus told the tax collectors he supped with to repent of.

  • ||

    yes. i am just cautioning against assuming one's own semantical assumptions (vis a vis theft etc.) are shared by others

  • Brutus||

    Others can say what they wish. They're wrong, but they may speak error as they wish at the risk of being corrected.

  • Xenocles||

    Tax collectors back then literally stole from the people - they made a living by skimming the take.

  • Brutus||

    Only the skimmers have changed in 2,000 years.

  • ||

  • wef||

    Yet another reference to the crony-capitalist, power-worshiping lewinskies at the nytimes.

    In terms of bringing something interesting to the table, it is pointless. Why legitimize these lickspittles?

  • anon||

    More than three-fifths of the cuts proposed by Mr. Ryan, and eagerly accepted by the Tea Party-driven House, come from programs for low-income Americans.

    three-fifths

    RACIST!

  • MarkVShaney||

    Way too smart for this crowd.

  • Old Mexican||

    Mr. Ryan's budget "will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment," the bishops wrote in an April letter to the House.


    And they're so credible now because they want women to exist without affordable medical care, barefoot and pregnant.

    Right, NYT?

  • Old Mexican||

    But the Times is no friend of religious institutions or even of those same Catholic bishops.


    Ed, Ed, are you.... Are you - oh my dear God - are you questioning the sincerity of the New York Times editorial board?

    Are you implying they speak from both sides of their mouths?

    What is the world coming to?

  • Old Mexican||

    That means billions of dollars lost for job training for the displaced, Pell grants for students and food stamps for the hungry.


    Oh, for Pete's sake, tell me where can I sign for that!

    By the way, food stamps do not go to feed hungry people. If the government has to advertise heavily inside such communities like the Hispanic community, is because people are not banging on the door of the Food Stamp offices to be fed.

  • Hyperion||

    By the way, food stamps do not go to feed hungry people

    From what I have observed when I have been unfortunate enough to have to go into Walmart in the first weeek of the month to buy my household supplies, it mostly goes to people who are already about 300% overweight.

  • Suki||

    +300

  • Hyperion||

    Yeah, well for starters, the NYT is a liberal douche rag, not worthy of a serious read by anyone who prefers logic over emotional oriented projection.

    Anywho, Ryan is a really well spoken and smart guy, who does not impress me at all with his politics. When he is ready to get up there and tell me that we need serious cuts but the first to feel the pain will be congress and their families and all the bureaucrats in DC and their families, then I will take him more seriously. Afterall, it is the aforementioned who have caused all of the problems, so they need to be first in line to share in the sacrifice. I am not holding my breath.

    Meh, this election sucks just like the last one. 4 more years of Obozo and his court jester. Does it get better? I dunno.

  • ||

    Does it get better?

    Eventually the country goes broke.

    I am a strong believer that if all the federal government did was collect taxes to pay interest on its debt we would be better off.

  • Hyperion||

    I agree JC, I have been saying this here on H and R for a long time. I guess I should have been specific that I meant will it get better bar a complete collapse of the economy. I 100% think that is where we are heading, unless Libertarians have a near takeover of the GOP, we are heading right over the cliff.

  • Suki||

    killing your grandmother

    Mrs. Soptic was a grandmother?

  • Hyperion||

    Even though I am not excited at all about Ryan at all, the look on Obamas face here is priceless

    Obozo looking stupid

  • Atanarjuat||

    Great video. Side-by-side with Ryan, Obama is far from the great speaker he was made out to be in the 2008 election, and is reduced to "Uh, um, uh..."

  • Broseph of Invention||

    What's with liberals and "job training" programs? Does any employer give any credit to these programs? If the quality of job training at my place of employment is anything to go by, job training is pretty worthless. And that's from my employer, who's better aware of its needs and situated to train me than a third party. From my experience, employers that need workers but are reluctant to hire generally are waiting for a very specific type of worker with years of specialized experience, which a training program won't give. Or they're afraid of regs, but that's a different matter.

  • Hyperion||

    I can't really agree with you here, completely. I have never taken part in any kind of internship myself, or job training, maybe because I didn't have the opportunity. But I did have a couple of interns, summer hires ya know that we paid little, who worked out very well and that we eventually hired. So I think job training programs are maybe worthwhile, I put them way ahead of lifetime wellfare.

  • Broseph of Invention||

    Internship's are pretty good, and probably any kind of apprentice program is worthwhile. I guess I'm not really sure what even goes on at these "job training" programs. If it is something like an apprenticeship or required certification, then I could see it being of some value, but if it ends up as classroom time for.

    For example, if someone said to me that they completed a two week class in handling hazmat supplies, the only way I'd give it some credit is if it got some certification out of the way or perhaps showed interest on their part. Chances are we have our own way of doing things which are different than they may have learned. The training we have at work is almost always geared towards our own administrative framework, and includes information that they want you familiar with but that you usually just look up.

  • Broseph of Invention||

    *for things better learned on the job, then they may be training people for things that don't exist.

  • ||

    IME, most hazmat handling classes do provide a certificate of completion. It would be negligent as hell on the part of employers to hire and not provide hazmat training prior to actually having to handle the stuff, especially since it's so heavily regulated. Our FAA audits always first involved presenting certifications for handling hazmat

  • Broseph of Invention||

    And I think you're right about welfare. What do you think of the government paying for internships and apprenticeships, both for employers and employees? My worry is that there's a risk of turning those into make-work programs, with maybe some cronyism on the part of employers.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Broseph of Invention,

    What's with liberals and "job training" programs?

    You have to realize the real intent of the programs: To give paying jobs to Democratic job trainers.

  • Archimedes||

    I'm not sure I agree.
    My cousin has been unemployed for 18 months. She had to move back in with my aunt and uncle.
    She has posted her resume and responded to every Kijiji job posted in that time.
    She has a degree in Comedy writing.
    This economy sucks.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    She has a degree in Comedy writing.

    Satire, right?

  • Broseph of Invention||

    I'm thinking this would make a decent template for a single season TV show. Not saying this is your cousin, Archimedes.

    Unemployed comedy writer lives in home town with parents and does odd jobs for money, but thinks there is a big TV market for comedic writing about her perceived quirky life. So she makes screenplays about her life and sends them to a studio. Except her life is boring and she's a shitty writer and not funny. Every episode would open with the people at the studio reading aloud and making fun of the awful monologue she envisions her own show beginning with. The rest of the show would follow her around as she makes awful jokes and desperately tries to live an "interesting" life so that she can write about it. The supplemental narration would be her clueless and painful thoughts as her life unfolds, illustrating how she misses genuinely funny things but jumps on ideas that don't work at all. The outro would be certain scenes from the episode acted out as she portrays them in her screenplay, with laugh track.

  • RBS||

    Starring Mary Stack.

  • Xenocles||

    She has a degree in Comedy writing.


    Satire, right?

    I was going to say Political Science.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Archimedes,

    My cousin has been unemployed for 18 months.

    No employer is going to knock on her door. She will continue to be unemployed.

    She had to move back in with my aunt and uncle.

    And mooch from them. Good for her.

    She has posted her resume and responded to every Kijiji job posted in that time.

    Yes, that's how you get a job: by posting resumes.

    She has a degree in Comedy writing.

    I'm laughing already.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Yes, that's how you get a job: by posting resumes.


    How else would you find a job?

  • Calidissident||

    Seeing as how Ryan's budget doesn't actually cut anything, I don't see why they felt the need to say "three-fifths of the cuts will hit low-income people." Three-fifths of zero is still zero

  • Sevo||

    Well, if it did, it would amount to "three-fifths of the cuts will hit low-income people."
    See? If there was a cut, why someone wouldn't get their free stuff!
    The man has no compassion! None at all!

  • Archimedes||

    You'd deny human beings their basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter?
    I bet if you could make a profit off of air, you'd hold that back from them too.

  • Calidissident||

    Where did Sevo imply that he thinks people should be forbidden from acquiring food, clothing, or shelter?

  • Archimedes||

    By implying that a Government providing its people their basic needs of food, clothing and shelter = free shit.

  • ||

    Because it is free shit. I can assure you that in a Romney/Ryan presidency poor people won't be starving in the street. Any Democrat that actually believes that is simply retarded.

  • Xenocles||

    We're not implying. We're explicitly labeling it as such. Pay attention.

  • Brutus||

    Because, well, it is free shit.

  • ||

    "Government providing its people"

    ALL BOW BEFORE THE OMNIPOTENCE OF THE STATE

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    I bet if you could make a profit off of air, you'd hold that back from them too.

    ...then blow this place up, and be home in time for Corn Flakes!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Archimedes,

    You'd deny human beings their basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter?

    Yes, if these human beings expect to have me give it to them gratis. They can go to hell if they do.

    I bet if you could make a profit off of air, you'd hold that back from them too.

    Yes, but in order to make the profit, the market must clear, meaning it would make no sense to have only dead customers.

  • Broseph of Invention||

    The only thing Paul Ryan has cut is abs.

    (Over the next few months, there will be many requests for shirtless pictures of Paul Ryan due to his workouts. If pictures come out, some disgruntled conservative woman will likely use that quip or something like it, where it will be retweeted by other conservatives. I have googled "Paul Ryan cut abs" and nothing has come up. IOW, you heard it here first.)

  • John||

    Conservatives love Ryan. Stop concern trolling. That is what liberals do.

  • Broseph of Invention||

    There's been a lot of plagiarism going around, John, and I don't want to get burned when I drop that sweet zinger. That is all.

  • Xenocles||

    It can cut programs and still grow on balance - say I cancel my $35 range membership and reward myself for saving money by adding a $50 dinner out every month.

  • Archimedes||

    Should the US lift sanctions on IRAN to allow American volunteers in to aid the earthquake relief?

  • ||

    Yes.

  • ||

    They should just lift the sanctions.

    If aids workers is the excuse they need then i say go for it.

  • John||

    No. We should just sell them nukes with the missiles to deliver them. Then we can declare their brand of Shia Islam the official state religion as an official apology for our sins. They may or may not love us for it, but Libertarians and Liberals will feel so much better about things it will be worth it.

  • Fluffy||

    Actually, under the NPT we are obligated to provide the Iranians with any assistance they request in setting up their nuclear power generation facilities.

    Naturally, our treaty obligations are meaningless to us, of course.

    TTBOMK we don't owe them any missile technology, though.

  • John||

    Sure we are. And they are obligated to let us monitor those facilities. And they are not doing that, so fuck them.

    But beyond that, there is no more noble death than dying at the hands of Iranian nuke. We all deserve it for putting the Shah in power. And what is even better is we are going to bestow that honor on the Jews. Who says we don't love the Jews?

    I really don't get why we pick on Iran either fluffy. There are most more dangerous and combative countries like Canada and France we could be picking on. Instead, we pick on one of the most peaceful and just regimes on earth in Iran. I mean we don't even trust them. You would think they have a President who keeps pledging to build nukes to destroy Israel and bring on the coming of the 12th Imam or something.

  • Fluffy||

    Actually, they've let the appropriate parties monitor all facilities subject to the NPT.

    There are most more dangerous and combative countries like Canada and France we could be picking on.

    Every negative thing you could possibly say about Iran you can also say about Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis have the added distinction of having sent tanks rumbling into a neighbor to exterminate unarmed demonstrators.

    But the Saudis acknowledge our hegemony, so they're A-OK with us.

    The relative treatment of the Saudi and Iranian regimes exposes just about all US rhetoric about international relations as a lie. We obviously don't care about Iran's oppressive or theocratic government, because the Saudis have an oppressive and theocratic government. We obviously don't care about Iran exporting terrorism, because the Saudis export terrorism. And we definitely don't care if you send your tanks onto the streets of a neighbor, because the Saudis did that (and the Iranians did not). But we love the Saudis and hate the Iranians. Now why could that be?

  • Calidissident||

    Come on Fluffy, don't shatter John's view that the same government that makes all these shitty decisions domestically, and is completely incompetent, is suddenly extremely savvy and capable of great efficiency and moral reasoning abroad. I don't know if he can handle it.

  • Calidissident||

    That's right John. Because if you don't support making it illegal for anyone to do business in Iran with anyone, you support getting nuked. Your logic on foreign policy is just as bad as Tony's is on domestic

  • John||

    Maybe if the Bishops gave a shit about something besides abortion and hadn't squandered hundreds of millions of dollars in pay outs for the damage they homosexual priests do to children, we wouldn't need the government so much.

    Fuck them. Those bastards went out of their way to allow a bunch of perverts join their ranks and butt fuck little boys. I really couldn't care less what they have to say about anything.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Correction, pedophile priests, homosexuals are attracted to adults.

  • Brutus||

    The two are not mutually exclusive. Most of the kids molested have been boys. The priests are homosexuals AND pedophiles.

  • John||

    No. Not all pedophiles are homosexuals. But you can be both. And in the case of priests they were homosexual pedophiles. It wasn't girls who were being molested. And there wasn't a culture of rampant heterosexuality in the priesthood.

  • John||

    I guess I would be find the general Reason butt hurt concern trolling over this pick more compelling if I didn't think that, had the pick been someone other than Ryan, Reason wouldn't be butt hurt because Romney didn't pick someone serious like Paul Ryan.

  • Fluffy||

    Ryan does have a lot of dings to his record on the spending side that would allow me to regard him as having low credibility.

    But I have to admit that I kind of believe him. His plans aren't perfect, but he put them out there and took the political criticism that goes along with them. That does a little to restore the credibility that the TARP stuff and the Medicare expansion stuff takes away.

    In relative terms, I consider him fairly sincere as a budget hawk. The bar is very low.

  • John||

    He is not perfect. But who was Romney going to choose? He couldn't pick Ron Paul because that would have split the party. Who else is there? Christie? Ryan is the only guy who is willing to admit we have a problem. Even doing that sets him up to be called a baby killer. You are right the bar is low. All things considered, Ryan is probably the best choice that was realistically available.

  • T o n y||

    Bullshit. Paul Ryan is a bizarre choice. He's the embodiment of the entire fiscal debate that Obama is winning and Republicans are losing. An election that's a referendum on whether to voucherize Medicare? Come on.

  • T o n y||

    Ever heard of a state called Florida?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    He couldn't pick Ron Paul because that would have split the party.


    Ron Paul should be the front-runner for the nomination.

    Why did so many Republicans prefer Romney over Paul?

  • Mood Aplut||

    More than three-fifths of the cuts proposed by Mr. Ryan, and eagerly accepted by the Tea Party-driven House, come from programs for low-income Americans.

    Probably because most govt programs that are "for" any particular income level are "for" low-income people. If you randomly select programs to cut you'll get a similar (or even more skewed) distribution, even without wearing a tophat and monacle.

  • Rich||

    Feelings trump logic, sorry.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Authoritarian cop-fellating cunt Heather McDonald is outraged.

    Attacks on police officers have also skyrocketed this year. On Wednesday night, a thug on a bicycle shot the plainclothes officer who had just stopped him for suspicious behavior. This is the 10th time a cop has been shot in 2012, which is more than in the previous four years combined, reports the New York Daily News. Gun violence on the year is up 8.3% through Aug. 5, as stop-and-frisks dropped 34% between the first and second quarters of 2012, according to the New York Post.

    It is too soon to tell whether the rhetorical campaign against the allegedly racist police is behind the onslaught against officers, or if the drop in stops has led to the rise in shootings. Over the long term, however, there is no doubt that getting rid of proactive policing will return New York to the bad old days of youth wolf packs and the flight of businesses and residents from the city.

    It's too soon to tell, but as any fool can see, if you take your jackboot off the neck of the negroid hordes, Lord of the Flies will look like a picnic at the beach!

  • John||

    It is too soon to tell whether the rhetorical campaign against the allegedly racist police is behind the onslaught against officers, or if the drop in stops has led to the rise in shootings.

    It is too soon but she will assume they are anyway. And does she honestly think that the guy on the bicycle who shot the cop did so because of the "onslaught against officers". That is liberal level stupid.

  • John||

    The department should do everything it can to minimize the friction caused by its stop policy—above all by making sure that officers courteously explain to subjects they stop why they were approached. Being stopped if you are innocent of wrongdoing, even if the officer has legal grounds for doing so, is without question humiliating and maddening. But being shot when you are innocent of any wrongdoing is far worse.

    I somehow doubt Heather would think that way if she were anything but an upper class white woman in no danger of ever being stopped. I wish they would start stopping and frisking her every time she walked out her door.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Fucked up.

    Mr. Nogver watched as about a dozen police officers finally surrounded the man and shots were fired. “I can’t tell you how many shots,” he said. “It was a lot.”

    The police did not say on Saturday how many shots officers had fired.

    The confrontation began shortly after 3 p.m. on the pedestrian plaza near the Hard Rock Cafe on 43rd Street and Seventh Avenue, in the heart of Times Square.

    Lincoln Rocha, 28, and his wife, Priscilla Rocha, 28, visiting from Brazil, were walking toward Toys “R” Us when they saw three uniformed police officers talking to a man on the sidewalk. Mr. Browne said that two officers initially approached the man because he appeared to be smoking marijuana. When the officers tried to arrest the man, he stuck a marijuana cigarette in his pocket, raised the knife over his head and started to put on a blue bandanna.

    This is how you make the streets safer. You initiate a situation where everybody on the street is put at risk, because somebody might be smoking a joint. Fortunately, the police managed to kill him, so it's a happy ending. Heather probably rubbed one out when she heard.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz is outraged by Mitt Romney's offshore bank accounts. There is no conceivable explanation for those accounts other than tax evasion, apparently. Maybe we should invade Switzerland, because Swiss banks are clearly the only thing standing between us and a balanced budget.

  • John||

    And no prominent Democratic Poll has any Swiss bank accounts. Did they ask her about her tax returns?

  • T o n y||

    *cough* partisan hack *cough*

  • ||

    *hack* partisan cop-out *hack*

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Anti-terror agents; making the Homeland safer.

    At a meeting last month with T.S.A. officials, officers at Logan provided written complaints about profiling from 32 officers, some of whom wrote anonymously. Officers said managers’ demands for high numbers of stops, searches and criminal referrals had led co-workers to target minorities in the belief that those stops were more likely to yield drugs, outstanding arrest warrants or immigration problems.

    The Constitution is not a suicide pact!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The officers identified nearly two dozen co-workers who they said consistently focused on stopping minority members in response to pressure from managers to meet certain threshold numbers for referrals to the State Police, federal immigration officials or other agencies.

    The stops were seen as a way of padding the program’s numbers and demonstrating to Washington policy makers that the behavior program was producing results, several officers said.

    IMPOSSEROUS!

  • MengaBooo||

    Now that dude is talking all kinds of smack man, Wow.
    www.IT-Privacy.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement