Mitt Romney

The Case for Paul Ryan for Vice President

No matter whom Republican Romney taps as his VP nominee, Democrats will accuse this person of crimes against common decency and fairness.

|

The other day, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi nonchalantly explained to a group in Florida that conservatives are in the "E. coli club."

The next day, a pro-Barack Obama super PAC began running an ad blaming Mitt Romney and Bain Capital for the death of a steelworker's wife (who actually had insurance and passed away seven years after Romney ran Bain and five years after her husband was laid off from a money-losing steel plant).

The Obama campaign has, more than once, implied that Romney is a felon.

We often have the tendency to believe that political attacks are purely cynical, but that's probably not the case. Some attacks are presumptive.

Many liberals already believe that Republicans wouldn't mind seeing children (poor, minority and handicapped children, at least) contracting deadly bacterial diseases, even if conservatives won't explicitly say so. Many liberals assume that the wealthy (especially those who have an exotic career, such as "banker") never really pay their share in taxes and probably cheat and devastate the poor to achieve success. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might not have any proof that Romney hasn't paid a penny in taxes in a decade, but it plays to a larger social truth about conservatives; it is a given.

So, no matter whom Republican Mitt Romney finally taps as his vice presidential nominee, Democrats will accuse this person of crimes against common decency and fairness. This person will, you can bet, be indicted as someone hellbent on "dismantling" Social Security, sacrificing Medicare to the gods of social Darwinism and "slashing" the safety net into worthless tatters.

If that's the case, why not pick a politician who actually speaks about reforming entitlement programs in a serious way? Someone who has actually come up with some ideas that reach beyond platitude? Rep. Paul Ryan, who was spotted pushing a frail wheelchair-bound elderly woman off a cliff in a political ad last year, is really the only person on the shortlist we keep hearing about who fits the bill.

Obama strategist David Axelrod has already written that Ryan, like Romney, has "a conviction that our future will be brighter if we simply pass even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy; dramatically shift health care costs from Medicare to seniors, and walk away from our national commitments to education, research and development, and new energy technology."

Rest assured David Axelrod is going to regurgitate the exact same nonsense no matter whom Romney picks.

Some in the GOP also view Ryan as a liability, and the hand-wringing over his tepid budget is a sad testament to the future of fiscally responsible government. Ryan's plans still would have Washington running a $287 billion annual deficit, and they would increase government spending by about 35 percent over 10 years. That, sadly enough, is what passes for bravery these days.

On the other hand, Ryan also champions a voucher-style reform and other ideas that are excellent starting points. If there is any time to champion free market ideas on that front, it's before Obamacare is codified. His budget may be wrong, but it's a lot less wrong than, say, Obama's proposed budget, which would add $11 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years.

And it's doubtful he would hurt the ticket. Any retired Floridians who believe that pinstripe-suited goons are about to seize the 1 percent return they're making on Social Security will never shed that gullibility. Right now, though, working Americans are paying more in Social Security taxes than they will receive in benefits when they retire. That's what matters.

Of course, the veep pick is perhaps the most overvalued decision of a presidential race. Put it this way: If the vice president had any effect on your chances, Obama would be down 20 points by now. Ryan, though, would add a measure of number-crunching earnestness to a campaign (and then, more importantly, should it happen, to an administration) that lives on broad strokes.

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.

267 responses to “The Case for Paul Ryan for Vice President

  1. It’s interesting that some of the right-wing talking heads think Ryan would be a bad pick, as it would rally the left around grandmother-killing accusations. Ryan hardly has proposed radical cuts or changes, which is why we’re not all championing him, but at least he proposes cuts to something. That has to happen, or this country will go into a real and permanent decline.

    I think he’d be a decent choice. Better than, say, Rubio. Romney is already being attacked for being what he isn’t–a radical, slash-and-burn Republican. What difference does it make if he gets someone who reinforces that belief a little? Besides, Ryan has some popularity for talking a modicum of common sense.

    1. Ryan hardly has proposed radical cuts or changes

      To many people, any and all cuts and changes are radical.

      1. Yeah, I get that people think it, but I don’t get it.

      2. Hell, to many people a slow in the growth of spending is a radical cut.

      3. If you don’t mind:

        To many people, any and all cuts and changes in the rate of growth are radical.

        1. !@#$ those people, from “any and all” to “the rate of growth”

  2. Paul Ryan 2005: The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.

    Paul Ryan 2012: I reject her philosophy. It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas, who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. Don’t give me Ayn Rand.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ri…..e-forward/

    The Republican party will not tolerate atheists, or their admirers.

    1. Progressive idiots (redundant I know) feel that anyone who disagrees with them about anything is a Republican.

    2. Hey, he’s learning where the votes are. Hopefully he hasn’t really changed his philosophy.

      But why keep pushing to promote the few tolerable people in Congress to VP?

      1. But why keep pushing to promote the few tolerable people in Congress to VP?

        Because they’re the few tolerable people in congress?

    3. I wonder, did he change his mind, or was it changed for him by the GOP leaders?

      And then I have to wonder, did he even think very hard about her writings in the first place?

      I really don’t understand the Republican thought process. It’s like they reason halfway, and then get bored or something and quit.

    4. Is it not possible to be interested in her political ideas without necessarily buying the whole Objectivist philosophy. Well, I mean it obviously is possible since I am and I don’t, but why couldn’t it be possible for Ryan?

      1. Rand may have got him started on stuff, but that doesn’t mean he ended up there. Most of us have read Rand, but there’s damn few objectivists here.

        1. Yeah, that’s why I’m not getting why people are implying that there is some kind of contradiction or stating outright that he changed his mind.

          Hell, reading Descartes got me interested in philosophy, does that mean I’m somehow bound to accept his thinking for all time?

          1. Thomas Sowell fully admits he was a Marxist whilst studying under Friedman in Chicago. He said it wasn’t until he worked full time for the government that he changed his mind.

            Some people are led to the truth from various corners, but what’s important is that they get there, not where they came from.

            1. This is what happened to me. I was mildly republican when I graduated from college. Then I went to work for a congressman. This is where I discovered reason and Cato and made my way to libertarianism. Does reason still send copies of the magazine to congressional offices every month (as does Hustler)?

          2. In 2005 he said: I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are…It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff.

            In 2012 he says: I reject her philosophy. It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview.

            So Ayn Rand “taught me…who I am and what my value systems are” in 2005, but he “reject[s] her philosophy” in 2012.

            If that’s not changing your mind, what is?

            1. Because being inspired by something is not the same as believing it. As someone pointed out above, a lot of people are inspired by Decartes or Kant or whoever, but that doesn’t make them disciples of that particular philosophy.

              And beyond that, so what if he changed his mind? Who the fuck cares? In your little deranged partisan mind it means he was beaten with a hose because he couldn’t be an atheist in the Republican party. To the normal mind it means he changed his mind.

              1. We can infer why he changed his mind by when he chose to voice that change. He was recieving significant critisism from the Catholic church for his budget, and they were accusing him of being an athiest acolyte. That’s when he threw Ayn Rand under the bus.

                1. So just like when Obama freed the gays in order to continue getting campaign donations from them?

                2. Butthurt joe is butthurt.

                3. We can infer why he changed his mind by when he chose to voice that change. He was recieving significant critisism from the Catholic church for his budget, and they were accusing him of being an athiest acolyte. That’s when he threw Ayn Rand under the bus.

                  Once in a awhile you offer a non-partisan assessment of politics.

                  This is one such case.

                  Good job joe.

            2. Obama 2008:”Gays shouldn’t marry. It’s against my religious beliefs”.

              Obama 2012:”Gays should marry, I’ve evolved.”

              People change when they decide that what they thought they believed in really isn’t what they believe. It happens.

              Not everyone remains as stubbornly impervious to conflicting realities as you, Joe.

              1. I will readily admit that Obama’s change on that issue had everything to do with politics. He has been repeatedly pilloried for it on Reason. I also don’t care as much because he went from a position I don’t support to one I do.

                Paul Ryan is not similarly condemned for this obvious political cowardice. And I think it’s worse than Obama’s shift because he goes from digging Ayn Rand’s philosophy to hating it because she’s an atheist.

                1. Hey joe, why don’t you just use your old handle, you fucking stupendous pussy? Everyone knows it’s you, coward.

                  1. Everyone except me, who is the only person who could know, right?

                    Your commitment to this evidence-free conspiracy theory says a lot about the rigor of your mental logic.

                    1. Your pathetic, futile denials amuse me greatly, joe. And your continued insistence on being the utter pussy you are. It’s so very joe. Keep denying, please. Nothing could entertain me more.

                    2. One of the key aspects of a conspiracy theory is that a statement of denial is taken as proof, in itself, of the conspiracy theory.

                    3. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                      joe, you are the gift that keeps on giving. Giving incredibly stupid drivel, but hey, at least you keep giving.

                    4. Unlike the uplift universe, your steadfast belief in the way reality should be will not affect the way reality is.

                      I guess when you’re too stupid to challenge my arguments, you are forced to challenge my identity.

                    5. You don’t have arguments, you moron. You’re too stupid to see that, but that’s what makes you so entertaining, joe. Hey, tell me that you’ve “won”! That is always the highlight of your “arguments”!

                      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                    6. OK, well I’d rather shit up the thread with arguments and evidence than by probing the extent of your paranoid delusions, so enjoy your maniacal laughter, I guess.

                    7. Evidence? You eristic imbecile, you don’t have evidence, you have partisan talking points. Your delusions are fantastic.

                      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                    8. Holy shit, this guy who’s totally not joe sure does an uncanny joe impression.

                      The Derider| 8.9.12 @ 2:16PM |#|?|filternamelinkcustomrehide

                      Unlike the uplift universe, your steadfast belief in the way reality should be will not affect the way reality is.

                      I guess when you’re too stupid to challenge my arguments, you are forced to challenge my identity.
                      reply to this

                    9. Epi: “Hey joe, why don’t you just use your old handle, you fucking stupendous pussy? Everyone knows it’s you, coward.”

                      Derprider/joe: “Everyone except me, who is the only person who could know, right?”

                      Excpt that if you and joe are really two different people, then it’s not everyone except you. Because he would know too. Hung by your own petard, joe.

                    10. I have no indication whatsoever that joe is a real person–just Episiarch’s ravings.

                2. I also don’t care as much because he went from a position I don’t support to one I do.

                  Not everyone shares your vapid and childish approach to politics.

                3. Paul Ryan is not similarly condemned for this obvious political cowardice.

                  How do you know that either decisions were based on political cowardice? I’m willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on gay marriage because I don’t really care about his opinion on it either way.

                  I also don’t really care what religious beliefs Paul Ryan has. It’s irrelevant to me from a political standpoint. Nor do I care why or when he gave up Objectivism for whatever reason he did.

                  All I care about is WHAT ARE THEY DOING/GOING TO DO while in office. Ryan has attempted (albeit unsatisfactorily) to engage the single biggest fiscal problem our country faces. Obama has taken every single economic problem he was presented with and made them all 100X worse.

                  1. So the unemployment rate is like 780% now?

                    1. joe, would you say you’re a mindless partisan, or a moronic partisan? They’re slightly different and I’m curious where you’d place yourself.

                    2. Do I really have to be a type of partisan? I’d much rather be a halberd.

                    3. Proof positive that it’s joe: incredibly ham-handed, moronic attempts at humor, a sense of which joe completely lacks.

                      Every fucking word you say proves it more, joe. Stop being a massive pussy. Come on. I know it’s your nature, but try to man up for once in your life.

                    4. You really only think there’s one person on the internet that makes ham-handed, moronic attempts at humor?

                      Proof positive that you’ll believe whatever you want to believe.

                    5. Everyone knows it’s you, joe. Yet you vainly struggle. How very…you.

                      Maybe you should move some goalposts or change the subject. You know, like you did on your high school debate team.

                      You’re the stupidest troll ever, joe.

                    6. It is in Lowell.

                      (OK, that’s not true. Actually, Lowell has rebounded nicely. Lawrence is still a shithole.)

                    7. So Joe,

                      How’s the telecom industry compare to wroking in the Lowell city government?

                      I can understand why you left; I took the kids to see my ex’s choir sing the national anthem at a Spinners game a few weeks ago and, man, that city is a dump.

                4. Paul Ryan is not similarly condemned for this obvious political cowardice. And I think it’s worse than Obama’s shift because he goes from digging Ayn Rand’s philosophy to hating it because she’s an atheist.

                  OK now you are back to being an idiot.

        2. there’s damn few objectivists here

          Why do you think that is?

          1. None of us would undergo the humorectomy required?

          2. Mary, you’re so pathetic. Pretty much as pathetic as joe.

            1. Maybe they’re… the same person!

              1. Maybe you’re…completely obvious, joe!

    5. Jesus Christ on a crutch Joe. That is even stupid by your low standards.

      The two statements don’t even conflict with each other. It is entirely possible that Ryan was inspired to get into politics by Rand even though he rejects her philosophy. I am in that boat. I totally reject objectivism as a philosophy. But at a political level see Rand as an very keen observer of human nature and politics. I suspect Ryan is in the same boat. I will worry about your pearl clutching over atheists in the Republican party when people who are pro life or object to affirmative action are allowed in the Democratic party.

      You really are the worst Joe. You are the worst most dishonest hack who ever posted her. You come crawling back under a new name pretending we don’t know who you are and won’t notice how loathsome and dishonest you are. Pathetic.

      1. “stupid by your low standards”
        “you really are the worst”
        “the worst most dishonest hack”
        “how loathsome and dishonest you are”
        “pearl clutching”
        “Pathetic”

        I like how you steer clear of invective in your arguments and focus on the essentials.

        1. The essentials are there. You just don’t like them.

      2. I really need to change my screen name.

      3. In 2005 he said: I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are…It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff.

        In 2012 he says: [her philosophy] is antithetical to my worldview.

        Objectivism taught him who he was and what his value system and beliefs were in 2005, but 7 years later it’s antithetical to his worldview. Keep spinning John.

        1. Existentialism taught me quite a lot about who I am and what my beliefs are. Brothers Karamazov and Sickness Unto Death are probable two of the four or five most important books in my life. Yet I am not strictly speaking an existentialist. Hell, I am the most anti-objectivist on this board, but no question Atlas Shrugged did the same.

          I guess because you have never had an honest, non partisan thought in your life, you don’t understand how anyone could be inspired by a philosophy and not be a slavish adherent to it.

          1. He doesn’t make a nuanced argument about Objectivism, though. He doesn’t say “well there’s a lot of good points about economics in there but you know she’s an athiest”. He says “It is antithetical to his world view”.

            Now, if you had gone from having your beliefs informed by existentialism to rejecting it utterly, maybe that would be an appropriate comparison.

            1. Even if he did so what? There isn’t a single openly atheist major politician in either party.

    6. The Republican party will not tolerate atheists, or their admirers.

      The US voter will not tolerate atheists, or their admirers.

      Fixed for you.

  3. On the other hand, Ryan also champions a voucher-style reform and other ideas that are excellent starting points.

    …such as the Wall Street bailouts and the Iraq War? No thanks.

    1. Let’s say the odds of the Cleveland Browns winning 12+ games this season is X. Which person who has a chance higher than X of actually holding the office do you prefer?

      1. I’d prefer someone who didn’t vote for the butchering of hundreds of thousands of people, didn’t vote to radically increase government healthcare spending without bothering to pay for it, and didn’t vote to rob from the poor and give to the rich in the wake of the rich fucking up the economy.

        Am I supposed to be impressed because he decided to start running his mouth about small government when a Democrat was in office?

        1. I didn’t ask you to be impressed. I just asked who, with any kind of reasonable chance of getting the position, you think would be a better option.

  4. Yes TARP Ryan. Fuck that guy.

    1. Fuck all of them guys. Unfortunately, none of our guys are getting elected or even the VP slot. Maybe Rand Paul someday. Maybe.

      1. Rand Paul is the only VP pick that would actually move the needle and help Romney win, but there’s no way the powers that be would ever risk it, for obvious reasons.

        1. No, that’s unpossible.

        2. You don’t think Portman could help with Ohio or you don’t think winning Ohio would help?

            1. Queen Amidala.

              1. Neither party would want her, she’s anti-Empire.

            2. Is Natalie Portman 35 yet? Presidents have to be 35.

              1. She’s only 34, so not eligible based on her age this cycle, but the bigger problem is that she wasn’t born in the United States.

                1. Born in Israel. Now that would be fun.

                2. No, she’s 31.

              2. How is this not ageist?

                1. 35 is reasonable because otherwise this happens: Wild In The Streets

  5. In order for this to make sense, one would have to believe Mittens actually wants or intends to discernibly alter course.

    Thanks, Republitards.

    1. Everybody knows that the deal is going to be that Joe Biden becomes the permanent VP.

      1. You mean regardless of which Team wins the White House? Because I could support that policy.

        1. Yes, that’s exactly what I mean. The greatest assassination defense ever devised.

        2. At least it would be entertaining!

      2. Hereditary Vice President for the win.

        “Long has the House of Biden presided over this Senate…”

  6. Joe “One Juggalo to Rule Them All” Biden!

  7. Does Biden sit in on the “Murder Drone Monday” meeting and say, “Awww, c’mon, let me pick one!”?

  8. The left hates him, so I guess there are worse choices.

  9. Politicians need to learn to stop having pictures of themselves taken holding up documents. Makes it easy for someone to photoshop a burning Bill of Rights in there.

    1. Or (a non-burning) Mein Kampf.

  10. I suspect Mitch McConnell would love to see Rand Paul promoted neutered by being made the VP nominee.

    1. Seriously, why would Rand even want to leave the Senate, where he has some power, to be VP?

    2. He’d probably love it less if Rand won, and then decided to preside over the Senate every day.

      1. That would actually get me watching C-Span!

  11. If Mittens wants to win, he’s got to keep the focus on Obama defending the economy. He’s dangerously close to pulling an Al Gore and turning a sure-thing win into a narrow loss.

    Disclaimer: I don’t live in a swing state, so my vote don’t count – and even if it did I wouldn’t vote for Mittens or Obama.

  12. As soon as the VP is announced, the media will commence fire. He will be portrayed as a clown, a bumbler and a fool. If the person is a she, they will be suggestions that she is a slut and a whore.

    1. Since they’ll be a politician, isn’t being a whore implied already?

    2. If it is a she or ethnic minority, they’ll say she’s not really a woman or minority, because real women and minorities aren’t republican.

      1. That would be fun to watch if it was Bobby Jindal, Luis Fortuno, or what’s her name from SC.

      2. But remember, it’s only those EVUL Rethuglicans who are racists, sexists, homophobes, etc.

  13. Considering the Ryan plan is essentially a blueprint for transferring wealth from the poor to the rich while doing nothing to reduce the deficit, it’s odd what’s considered “serious” around here.

    1. Oh you mean Ryan has a plan to expand Medicare and SS (aka the biggest wealth transfer from the poor in the history of this country)?

      1. the biggest wealth transfer from the poor in the history of this country the entire human race

        FTFY

    2. Nobody here really considers Ryan serious, other than the fact that he’s one of few elected officials with the cojones to put entitlement reform on the table.

      If his plan lived even fractionally up to his rhetoric about deficits and spending, and if he didn’t have a track record of supporting corporatist big government programs like TARP, maybe then he’d deserve a modicum of respect.

      1. What’s sad is that you have to give him credit for the very little he’s tried to do, as virtually all of his peers aren’t even doing that little.

        1. I gave him credit for having cojones about entitlement reform. That’s all the credit he deserves, since outside Washington it’s already common wisdom that entitlements need reform.

          1. I know, crazy, isn’t it? I had this brief moment, back when we got downgraded and the budget looked like it was going to blow up, where I thought reality was going to force its way into political discourse. I was mistaken.

      2. The only person’s plan to have passed that cut any of the big entitlement programs is that of Barack Obama–a $500 billion cut to Medicare that cost his party dearly in 2010.

        It’s simply not the case that Democrats are pretending deficits don’t matter, and they’re the only ones offering proposals that actually cut it, since they are not required to bend the knee to unelected anarchist activist Grover Norquist.

        1. He cut medicare to steal it and spend it somewhere else you dishonest moron.

          1. I think you need a bit more coffee today.

            1. That coffee you’re drinking? You didn’t make that.

              1. you forgot the lil dash

          2. And he didn’t even do that. Other than Medicare advantage (which dems always hated anyway, because it gave some level of choice to people), those “cuts” were just promising to pay doctors less int he future while still expecting them to deliver the same amount of care.

            It’s more of a price control than a cut. And yet, that projected “savings” was just spent elsewhere and then some.

        2. since they are not required to bend the knee to unelected anarchist activist Grover Norquist.

          Obama’s proposed tax increase would only generate 70 billion a year in new revenues.

          How do you propose to cover the other 1200 billion a year in deficit spending?

          1. You pay for spending with taxes. Spread the wealth and make more economic growth and more taxable people. Cutting spending like you want to (creating another recession) is counterproductive to that end.

    3. Uh, the poor don’t have any wealth to transfer.

      That’s why they’re called “the poor”.

      Unless you mean not transferring wealth from the rich to the poor is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

      Which is sheer idiocy.

      1. Shhh, he’s rolling.

    4. Considering the Ryan plan is essentially a blueprint for transferring wealth from the poor to the rich while doing nothing to reduce the deficit

      Considering medicare is essentially a blueprint for transferring wealth from the poor to the rich while ballooning the deficit into the stratosphere

      Fixed for you.

  14. “If that’s the case, why not pick a politician who actually speaks about reforming entitlement programs in a serious way?”

    Ryan’s “plan” leaves Social Security untouched and makes no change in Medicare for the next ten years. If you had a fat friend who promised to go on a diet in ten years, would you believe him?

    Ryan is not a “wonk.” He is a bullshit artist.

    1. Sadly that shitty plan is the “most serious” one to be published by anyone in a major party. 🙁

      Rand’s plan for deficit reduction was great, but iirc it didn’t touch entitlement reform.

      1. At least Ryan recognizes there is a problem even if his solution is not perfect or even adequate.

        1. Or even a solution.

          1. It is a start. We didn’t get into this position by a single program or decision. And we are not getting out by a single decision. I know you guys all want someone to demand some truly radical plan. But you are kidding yourselves. Such a plan wouldn’t even be considered at this point. It is going to take years to get the public to understand what must be done.

            That is why liberals are so successful and libertarians such miserable failures. Liberals are relentless and will always take whatever they can get knowing they will come back later and get more. Libertarians in contrast demand everything at once and when they don’t get it give up and give the field to liberals. In the end, liberals are horribly wrong but know how to win. And Libertarians are right but seem to be born losers.

            1. “In 10 years, somebody should do something” is not a start. It’s talk. You want to be deceived, and so you are. I don’t want to be and am not.

              1. If you want to live in a dream world where the whole country is just dying to embrace libertopia if only they had the chance, have fun. But don’t expect to ever beat the liberals or the big government conservatives at anything.

            2. In the end, liberals are horribly wrong but know how to win. And Libertarians are right but seem to be born losers.

              Liberals win because they are liars and cheaters.

              If libertarians weren’t honest then they might win, but then they wouldn’t be libertarians anymore.

              1. All if fair in love, war and politics. And understanding what people are willing to hear and what can be done in the current political environment is not lying. It is just being realistic, which I suppose precludes you from being a libertarian.

                1. In John’s world, talking about what someone else is going to do in 10 years is a realistic solution to an immediate problem. Quality thinking, sport.

                2. A plan that counts on Congress doing something in the future is not a plan.

                  It’s wishful thinking at best, and downright dishonesty at worst.

                  I suppose you are right in that expecting Congress to do something now or for that matter ever is indeed unrealistic.

                  1. So you guys honestly think that Congress will just do it all at once? If you think that, you need to stop calling liberals stupid.

                    1. Calling “bullshit” on a plan that expects Congress to do something in ten years is not the same as demanding that everything be done all at once.

                      Wanting something to be done now instead of a promise to do something ten years from now is not the same as demanding that everything be done at once.

                      You’re bludgeoning a straw man.

                    2. Again Sarcasmic, any plan that doesn’t solve the problem all at once necessarily depends on future Congresses to solve it. Since no plan can bind future Congress, you are saying any plan that doesn’t solve it all at once is bullshit.

                    3. Way to mischaracterize the argument again.

                      Wanting to see something done now is not the same as wanting to see everything done now.

                      something != everything

                      A plan to promise to do something in ten years is a promise to do absolutely nothing in the present or immediate future.

                      Some days you’re worse than Tony.

                    4. But sarcasmic the Ryan plan does do something now. It just doesn’t do enough or even most. But again, what would Ryan have to say to get you to consider him serious?

                    5. But sarcasmic the Ryan plan does do something now.

                      No it doesn’t. It promises to do something in the future.

                      But again, what would Ryan have to say to get you to consider him serious?

                      I dunno. Cut more than a fraction of a percent of federal spending?

                    6. I’ll settle for a plan that takes a concrete step now, not X years from now.

                    7. I’ll settle for a plan that takes a concrete step now, not X years from now.

                      Exactly.

                    8. As much as I hate to admit it right John is right here. It’s not politically feasible to do what needs to be done. Not now, and unfortunately, probably not ever.

                      History is littered with the corpses of once great societies. Ours is simply the next to rise and inevitably fall. All we can hope for is that we’re not around anymore when it happens, because the odds of anything resembling a free society rising from the ashes are close to 0. Hopefully I’m just suffering from a severe case of cynicalassholeitis.

                    9. The liberals spent 70 years mercilessly and single mindedly getting us into this mess. We will get out of it. But it is not happening over night. It is going to take decades of relentless work and probable hyper inflation and national bankruptcy to get us out of it. That is just the sorry facts.

                    10. Not just liberals.
                      Didn’t Medicare Part D come from a Republican president and Congress?
                      Didn’t Reagan set the precedent for future presidents borrowing more than all their predecessors combined?

                      It’s not just liberals, it’s the cumulative nature of government.

                      And no we’re not getting out of it.

                      We’re going to go the same way as all societies before us.
                      Looted by government before falling into chaos.

                    11. ^This.

                      The TEAM REDISM by John on this thread would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad.

  15. http://www.theblaze.com/storie…..ing-women/

    New Dem Alan West Ad shows him beating up an elderly white woman. Nothing racist about that. My God these people are getting desperate.

  16. why not pick a politician who actually speaks about reforming entitlement programs in a serious way?

    Because Romney has no interest in reforming entitlement programs. Paul Ryan for VP would be nothing more than a minor nod to the fiscally conservative wing of the GOP base and fiscally conservative moderates.

    1. Because Romney has no interest in reforming entitlement programs.

      How do you know that? Seriously? Have you read his mind? Has he said entitlements are off of the table? Or is it the case you don’t like what he has to say so you just say he is not interested rather than engage his actual views?

      1. Because he isn’t, john.

        Get over his red tie. He’s about as as substantially “Republican” as Alex P. Keaton was in real life.

        1. http://www.mittromney.com/blog…..government

          Here is his plan. If you don’t like it, say why. But I don’t see how just saying “he can’t be serious” and putting your Pelosi face on is really helpful.

          1. I heard he’s totally against Obamacare too.

            but this shit is laughable:

            “Under my administration, we will level with the American people about what it will take to truly cut spending and balance our budget,” said Romney. “We’re going to set honest goals and present a credible plan to achieve them.”

            Of couse, he rapidly makes sure to use the expression, “preserve entitlements”…just to make sure that he isn’t like, *scary honest* or credible…

            In between, look! He’s slashed the NEA: that ever so *enormous drain of public resources* that people love to complain about…and foreign aid…

            Come on, John. it takes an inordinate amount of imagination to pretend this pinata has anything inside. The entire thing is a rewarmed pastiche of vague GOP selling-points of the last 20 years.

            Oh, but ROMNEY will be the one with the balls to finally produce! Yessiree. Man of character…conviction… great haircut…. decent teeth…

            The best case you can make John is, “not Obama”. That’s it. Trying to inspire actual attraction to the sockpuppet that is Mitt Romney is asking a bit much.

            1. I don’t know if he will produce. But even saying something about it and advocating things like vouchers and raising the age for Social Security is a start.

              You guys want someone to come out and plan to end all entitlements the day after entering office. That may be a noble goal. But it is not something that will ever happen and would just doom the person proposing it to be called a nut.

              You don’t think Romney is serious. Okay. Tell what he would have to say for you to consider it serious. And then explain to me how that plan would not either solve everything at once with a magic wand or depend on future Congress to solve the problem?

              1. He could propose a budget plan that includes immediate cuts in year one and balances the budget by year four. Kinda like Ron Paul’s plan.

              2. You don’t think Romney is serious.

                It’s not just Romney that I don’t take seriously, I don’t think any of the politicians we currently have are serious. I’m extremely cynical when it comes to politics. Nobody is going to fix anything. And anything that can be feasibly done is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. This country is going down. Period.

                Any plan that would even start to take concrete steps now, like, say, to start means testing SS and convert Medicare into a voucher program, and Medicaid into a block grant program immediately, not 10 years from now, would never pass. And anyone proposing such a plan would never get elected. That’s what I would consider “serious”, but there’s no reason to believe Romney or anyone else would propose something like that, or even secretly desire it, because he wants to WIN.

              3. For me to take Romney seriously, he’d have to go build a time machine, go back in time to 2002 and government Massachussetts closer to Gary Johnson than Ted Kennedy.

                Seriously, did you finally jump on the Romney bandwagon as MNG and everyone predicted you to and you vehemently denied at the time?

                1. “govern” Massachussetts

                2. He would also have to pick someone who didn’t vote to expand Medicare to help GWB get elected in 2004.

            2. The best case you can make John is, “not Obama”.

              Admittedly that’s not a bad case…

              1. Admittedly that’s not a bad case…

                Same case for Obama against Bush. Look where that got us.

                The problem with the “not” vote is that the lesser evil you perceive doesn’t think of itself as the lesser evil. It takes the vote you made while holding your nose as enthusiastic support of every ignorant fucking thing they want to do.

                It’s exactly why Obama when elected as not-Bush claimed a mandate on Obamacare, and the state-level Republicans that got in on a not-Obama/anti-Omabacare vote are flooding us with their usual so-con bullshit.

                1. Oh I agree. I was just being snarky. I have no intention of voting for Mitt Romney. I held my nose and voted for McCain in ’08 as a “not Obama” vote mainly because I didn’t see any decent 3rd options on the ballot (I suppose I could have voted Barr as a protest vote against both McCain and 0). It didn’t matter, 0 still won my state and the presidency. In previous elections I didn’t even bother, and in hindsight I’m not sure why I bothered in ’08 either.

                  This time around I plan on voting for Johnson, not as a protest vote, but because I think he’s actually the best option available out of all the candidates running.

      2. Social Security: Preserve It. Strengthen It.

        Medicare: Preserve it. Strengthen It.

        These don’t strike me as the words of a man committed to meaningful entitlement reform. His only proposal for SS is raising the age and means testing.

        Medicare it looks like he wants to transition to a voucher program. I leave it to others to determine if that’s really a solution.

        1. That strikes me as reform. By your measure “reform” means “end”. That is one definition. But I don’t think it is one many people share.

          Again, you have to start somewhere. You guys seem to think that anyone who doesn’t propose immediately ending all federal entitlements is not serious. And that is why liberals always win and Libertarians always lose.

          1. You guys seem to think that anyone who doesn’t propose immediately ending all federal entitlements is not serious.

            Um, no?

            I believe the argument being made, the one that you are misscharacterizing, is that anyone who puts forth a plan that expects Congress to do something ten years from now, a Congress that the person making the proposal may not even be a member of, is not serious.

            1. If that is not what you think Sarcasmic, then tell me what you do think. What would Romney have to say to get you to believe he had a serious plan to deal with entitlements.

              1. What would Romney have to say to get you to believe he had a serious plan to deal with entitlements.

                Start reforms now instead of ten years from now.

                But that would guarantee the loss of the election, which is why he’ll never say it.

              2. John, I don’t know if you’ve been following the news, but Romney’s most recent policy proposal is to put of sequestration… he wants a ‘runway’ of another year before any major spending plans are reduced. And he cloaks in all in the need to protect ‘ defense spending’. (bullshit spin)

                A ‘runway’. We’ve run up multitrillion deficits, and they’re talking about “needing more time to plan eventually cutting”. What did they decide last year? “We need a year or cuts automatically kick in”. 1 year later, the bold Republican romney… “we need another year”.

          2. No, I don’t mean end. I’m bright enough to realize that won’t work. I’ll take any plan that a) doesn’t increase the number of people on the program and b) starts transitioning the programs to honest-to-god safety nets instead of entitlements. Even if you can’t call it that, that’s what I’d like.

            Personally, for SS, I’d like an opt-out. Let the .gov keep taking the half the company provides but let me keep my contributions in exchange for me not signing up later.

          3. John| 8.9.12 @ 1:39PM |#

            That strikes me as reform. By your measure “reform” means “end”.

            No john = that strikes me as a repetition of feel-good GOP dishonest bullshit that has repeatedly sold itself as fiscally prudent, then goes on political giveaway-spree when in office.

            The idea that libertarian “reform” means “end” is a reductio ad absurdum: you’re suggesting that Romney’s claims only seem weak to us because we’re “extremist”? They seem weak because they are weak, he is weak, and the only sincere ‘reformers’ in the GOP a la Paul Johnson are loathed by the mainstream.

            1. Who’s Paul Johnson?

              1. A conservative English historian.

              2. Commas were mislaid

                (Ron) Paul , (Gary) Johnson

                I presume you gathered that anyway

  17. Many liberals already believe that Republicans wouldn’t mind seeing children (poor, minority and handicapped children, at least) contracting deadly bacterial diseases…

    This is unfairly characterized.

    What is more accurate:

    ALL liberals already believe that ANYONE OTHER THAN THEM BUT PARTICULARLY LIBERARIANS ENJOY seeing poor, minority and handicapped children contracting deadly bacterial diseases HOPEFULLY AS BIPRODUCTS OF THEIR EVIL CORPORATE DEPRADATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND DESPOILATION OF OUR BODIES WITH THEIR POISONOUS CAPITALIST CHEMICALS

    1. “HOPEFULLY AS BIPRODUCTS OF THEIR EVIL CORPORATE DEPRADATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND DESPOILATION OF OUR BODIES WITH THEIR POISONOUS CAPITALIST CHEMICALS”

      Gold-leaf toilet paper isn’t going to *poof* just up and make itself.

      1. I personally would hate to see poor, minority and handicapped children contracting deadly bacterial diseases when they could be otherwise laboring productively in my diamond mines or operating machinery in my sweatshops.

        1. You don’t have them wax your plane?

          1. Is that what they call it these days?

          2. I would never let their soiled, infected hands near the learjet. Although I don’t have a problem rendering their corpses into an extremely effective high-gloss wax. i strongly believe in recycling resources.

            1. I hear they makes a nice monocle polish as well.

    2. It’s true; librarians are terrible people.

      1. Liberarians support the ressurection and totalitarian dictatorship of Liberace.

        1. And is brother George?

  18. Review the platforms of the various Greek political parties. They all say things like:
    Social Security: Preserve It. Strengthen It.
    Medicare: Preserve it. Strengthen It.

    It’s all just whistling past the graveyard. Just like the fine D-State and R-State parties here. The only consolation is that they’ll probably blame Liberterians when it all comes down.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

  19. Many liberals already believe that Republicans wouldn’t mind seeing children (poor, minority and handicapped children, at least) contracting deadly bacterial diseases…

    That’s the thing about liberals: nothing is explicit or simple, everything is subtle, and only them, them, with their superior intellect and education can see the subtext of what a non-liberal says. So if you mock Obama for having zero real-world experience prior to becoming president, you are subtly exposing your racism and contempt at a half-black man becoming president. If you say you favor limited government, a government that respects the Constitution, you are subtly saying you support Jim Crow and other civil rights abuses because you are racist.

    I really think the Democratic party and liberalism in general should be studied as a fascinating example of mass narcisscism and delusion manifesting itself in political action. It’s really only gotten worse because of the internet allowing them all to congregate and double down on their stupid in groupthink.

    1. i think the internet has made it better, not “worse” as you claim.

      ideologies like libertarianism etc. have benefited more from the internet than the CW belief systems – republican/democrat.

      think about it. how much more access do people have in general to alternatives to the dem/repub hegemony now that they are just an URL away?

      how many more people are at least exposed to reason vs. if it was dead-tree only?

      imo, the internet has increased access to, and acceptance of heterodox viewpoints.

      just like the advent of cable meant that the 3 network oligarchy could no longer control the message, the advent of the internet means the local paper, etc. can’t do so

      it benefits us ALL. but it benefits the heterodox/minority viewpoints more, because of greater exposure

      1. Does it allow for exposure, or just allow people to find people and information that confirms their biases?

        I’m not a libertarian because of Reason.
        I’m a libertarian because I’ve seen government in action and seen how utterly inept and wasteful it is at everything that it does.

        1. i think both.

          i mean i have read a WAY more diverse set of viewpoints because of the internet.

          i’m certainly not going to BUY mother jones. but i read mother jones and the nation because of the internet.

          people who even have a passing interest in a heterodoxical idea now have access to resources on it just a “click away”.

          i think that history has proven that the advent of cable news had a substantial impact on people’s political beliefs.

          i think the internet has done the same thing.

          fwiw, if there was no internet, i strongly doubt such movements as “trutherism” would have gained any traction either.

          there have ALWAYS been the CW outlets – major newspapers, but what access did people, regardless of ideology, even HAVE to minority viewpoints unless they went to the library (and really how many adults with jobs go to the library and pore through mother jones)?

          1. I suspect your point is the same, but conclusion different.

            I personally think the internet hasn’t ‘diversified’ people, so much, as provided vast resouces for people to reaffirm their existing biases. I was ‘libertoid’ before I ever found Reason… I just wasn’t sure what it was called.

            1. right. i don’t deny the syndrome you are claiming

              i think it DEFINITELY happens.

              but i also think that there is a nontrivial #of people who are exposed to viewpoints they never would, without the internet, and SOME of those people will change their viewpoints (incrementally at a minimum) over time due to such exposure.

              i think the primary problem with the internet in this regards is the low signal/noise ratio

          2. How many people really seek out things that do not conform to their own biases, and if they do seek those things out do you honestly think they will be that influenced by them?

            I would agree that this vast amount of information can play a role in people forming opinions, but even then I think it’s more a matter of “yeah, that’s what I always thought!” than “oh wow, you’ve convinced me!”.

            1. i think a small but NONtrivial # do.

              i mean, even here people check out jezebel etc. if only to ridicule same or out of the “it’s like a car crash and i can’t look away ” syndrome.

              i even recall at least one poster HERE saying that exposure to reason.com moved them TOWARDS libertarianism

              i am the FIRST to proclaim that many people here are primarily interested in a circle jerk. they will never REALLY consider viewpoints that run counter to their own. their only response is ridicule. there are close minded people within every ideological camp

              but i think there are open minded people too. they exist. and i am sure there are people reading this blog RIGHT NOW who are MORE libertarian because of exposure to reason.com

              1. and i am sure there are people reading this blog RIGHT NOW who are MORE libertarian because of exposure to reason.com

                I hope so.

            2. oh, and anecdotally, exposure to the writing of balko, which i likely never would have seen w/o the internet have certainly left me better informed and have resulted in a reconsideration and/or change in some viewpoints on my part.

              balko is imo a perfect example of a biased advocacy journalist, but he engages in such journalism with a sense of fairness and rationality

              i remember when he (correctly) agreed with the verdict in the BART shooting. i also recall the sputtering from the people here over his (correct) analysis

              that analysis in particular showed me that first and foremost, he is evidence, not ideology based.

      2. Dunphy (the real one)| 8.9.12 @ 2:06PM |#

        i think the internet has made it better, not “worse” as you claim.

        Dan Drezner @ Foreign Policy wrote about this recently =

        “Does the Internet Cure Falsehoods?”

        http://drezner.foreignpolicy.c…..falsehoods

        His conclusion: ‘internet = good for fact-checking, bad for myth perpetuation’

        He argued that people tend to cluster and echo their shared biases until they no longer trust any other sources as ‘fair’.

        um.

        We don’t do that of course. Nope.

        I think he means people like Democratic Underground… or, I don’t know… Birthers.

        1. as will rogers said, it’s not the things we don’t know, it’s the things we “know” that aint true (paraphrased).

          iow, good post. i agree

          1. Mark Twain not Will Rogers. Or if Will Rogers said it he stole it from ole Sam.

    2. You might consider taking joe and Mary as primary examples of the phenomenon. I mean, that describes them to a T. And then they project the whole thing on anyone who disagrees with them. It’s glaringly obvious to everyone…except them.

    3. Well, there are a lot of liberal academics hwo spend a lot of time teaching people to read subtext in other people’s political speech. Problem is that sometimes subtext is more of a Rorsharch test than anything else. What people see in the subtext of other people’s speech often reveals more about themselves than others.

      And the constant reading of “subtext” often leads one to ignore the text, ignore the argument, and results in an argument that isn’t based on good faith, but on attempts ot “catch” the other side saying something wrong. Instead of addressing one’s opponents arguments in good faith you just parse them looking for the racism and sexism that you assume is there.

  20. Paul Ryan may “talk” about reforming entitlement bills, but when has actually had the chance, he has actually done the opposite, and participated actively in the ballooning of the Federal Budget and Deficit.

    He has “talked” about the need to reform Medicare, but he voted for it’s largest increase (Medicare Part D) since it was originally created.

    He has “talked” about stopping Crony Capitalism, but he voted for TARP and helped architect the auto-bailouts.

    He has “talked” about state’s rights, but he voted for No Child Left Behind, which helped to centralize even more power in Washington with regards to children.

    Like many Republicans, he has “talked” about a great deal of Small Government Federalism, but when he was part of the majority and could actually affect change, he did the opposite of what he “talked” about. Like most Republicans, Paul Ryan only “talks” about shrinking government when he is not in a position to have his words put into effect.

  21. Hope he picks Jindal.

  22. Paul Ryan 2005: The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.

    Paul Ryan 2012: I reject her philosophy. It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas, who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. Don’t give me Ayn Rand.

    Maybe the fact I’ve never been a fan of Ryan, as a bailout guy he deserves a place on up against the wall when the revolution comes, but I don’t get the reaction people are having to Derider pointing this out.

    Ryan went from proclaiming Rand’s philosophy to being at the center of his being to being hostile to it. You know damn well it is a ‘Paris is worth a mass’ moment. Any denial of that is bullshit.

    1. Probably everyone just want to talk shit to the derider.

      1. Understandable, but with a point that big, and it is a pretty big fucking deal underlying the soc-con/libertarian split in the GOP, it looks like a dodge to concentrate on the person making the argument.

        1. Do you think Ron Paul has Ayn Rand’s epistemology “pasted” to him? The two comments are not in the same context. Not even close.

          1. You would be surprised how often I don’t think about Ron Paul. Most times it is a daily occurrence. I don’t see any relevance to Paul to this discussion, neither he, nor Obama, nor Biden, etc. This is Paul Ryan giving in to an organization that makes socialist demands on the GOP to not hurt the po’ and the children during budget talks, and if they weren’t the Catholic church they would be laughed out the door. But because it is them, we’re not going to get serious budget cuts because they are a significant power center in the GOP.

            1. It’s irrelevant to me. I give Ryan a little bit for the entitlement cut proposals. Even talking about that is significant. After that, I don’t see much to make me happy. Certainly, he’s no libertarian.

            2. “I don’t see any relevance to Paul to this discussion”

              But Ayn Rand is relevant to the discussion?

            3. “Ryan went from proclaiming Rand’s philosophy to being at the center of his being to being hostile to it”

              “but I don’t get the reaction people are having to Derider pointing this out”

              Please explain the difference in someone being and inspiration for your work and holding the same epistemology in 500 words or less….go!

  23. Speaking of the rampant evils of budget-cutting right-wingers… =

    Austerity Makes Europeans Abandon Their Babies in Special Government Baby-Hatches

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/…..25z;_ylv=3

    The rise in the abandonment of infants across Europe is most visible in the spread of “baby hatches” or “boxes” across Europe, where unwanted infants are left anonymously.

    The hatches are sensor-activated so when a baby is placed, an alarm is activated and a carer comes to collect the child. Despite the practice being widely viewed as contravening the 1953 European Convention on Human Rights, of the 27 EU member countries, 11 countries still have “baby hatches” in operation, including Germany, Italy and Portugal.

    The author does not explore the obvious question of whether the existence of an all-pervasive, cradle-to-grave welfare state has any influence on people abandoning their children with authorities. No – the argument is made, ‘more benefits need to be provided’ so that people *stop* doing this.

    1. What the heck is inhumane about providing a place for women to leave unwanted children?

      1. HazelMeade| 8.9.12 @ 3:03PM |#

        What the heck is inhumane about providing a place for women to leave unwanted children?

        Who used the word inhumane?

        I pointed out thatits possible the convenience of drive-thru automated baby-dropoffs are perhaps symptomatic of a society that feels that they arent’ responsible to take care either of themselves or their children. Not quite the same thing.

    2. How is it, they don’t get the fact there are a lot of people who just don’t want to be around kids? You can dangle all the stolen goodies you want to in front of most teenage mothers but it is still not as valuable as the free time to party that the kid would be costing them. Unless she is a lazy ass day time television watching whore with zero motivation in the first place, you are not going to get a compliant citizen to do the dirty non work that makes your perfect welfare state function as you think it ought.

  24. Ryan strikes me as a slightly-less-opportunist-than-average Republican politician.

    As in, he says all the right things to keep christian conservatives behind him (denounce Ayn Rand), so he can keep getting elected.

    Ryan doesn’t go far enough with his reform proposals. And he might be doing this to position himself as a leader. But he did choose entitlement reform as the thing he wanted to “lead” on, when many Republicans would run the other way. he had the balls to take a few bullets for the sake of entitlement reform. That shows that he’s got some guilding principles, and they include small government.

    I don’t know if Ryan is really an Objectivist or a Social Conservative. Maybe neither. He’s probably malleable on any subject that isn’t dear to his heart like any other politician, willing to say whatever he thinks will please his audience.

    The only clear thing is that he departed from the mold by saying a few things about entitlements that he knew would be unpopular. He toned it down, and tried to make the bitter pill more palatable, but at least he had the balls to try to get people to take it anyway.

    1. The depressing thing is, you’re right. Ryan is the closest thing to someone who is willing to stand up and talk about entitlement reform and budget cutting in the GOP, yet his position is no where near what is needed to actually accomplish what is necessary to reverse the prosperity lapse of which the debt is now burdening us.

      1. And libertarians hate his guts for even having the nerve to try to come their way a little bit. Since he once was wrong, even being sorta right and trying to come to their side does him no good.

        And libertarians wonder why no one takes them seriously and no one ever comes around to their views? Liberals in contrast have made a living out of turning traitors to the other side into pragmatic heroes.

        Think about this. If you are some politician looking to stay in office and live the good life, which pretty much describes all of them, who would you turn coat for? The liberals who will tell you how wonderful and pragmatic you are for coming to their side or the libertarians who will constantly remind you what a statist piece of shit you are and how you didn’t come over enough to their side?

        You guys wonder why you are such political losers. In the end I think most libertarians want to be losers. The last thing they want is to win an election and have anyone agree with them in even the slightest way.

        1. You don’t even realize the set up he is leading you into. Ryan is making the same mistake Thatcher made. Now she is blamed for the failure of the British pension system when her reforms only put off the date of failure. In the decade after Ryan reforms go through, the GOP will be similarly blamed and be unelectable as a result.

          I don’t expect any politician to kiss libertarian ass. That is the game of the two party system and has nothing to do with us. I expect them to kiss the ass of the unavoidable power bottom of reality. If they don’t the fall of the United States will do it for them.

          1. If they don’t the fall of the United States will do it for them.

            And don’t pretend like that is hyperbole. The Carter years were not just a bad dram, they really happened.

        2. John’s Double Standard:

          Republican pays marginal lip service to libertarian ideas, it’s evident that all libertarians need to join, praise and support Team Red.

          Democrat pays marginal lip service to libertarian ideas, cosmotarians that praise them obviously just want to be loved by their liberal hipster friends and any libertarian that joins Team Blue is scum of the earth.

        3. john, you couldn’t be more wrong.

          libertarians are like girls who meet guys who say they won’t cheat, but always do.

          then when you get a guy who says he won’t cheat, but shows some signs of being like the rest, you have little patience to be proven right yet again.

          its called cynicism, and it is well earned.

  25. The problem is that all of Ryan’s nuance will be lost on the public, and it will all get mixed into the simplistic arguments Romney would make. Also, when Romney goes back to crony capitalism, were he to win, Ryan will be conflated with him and more damage will be done to any good arguments he makes.

  26. Paul Ryan, huh? Pretty thin fucking gruel for a libertarian publication.

    1. Pretty sure we are talking about best of the worst of possible VP candidate choices for the Republican party.

      Can we do that or does even mentioning it force us to hand over our monocles?

    2. Right on, Mr. Strider.
      Ryan…the guy who voted for Bush’s unfunded, unpaid for Medicare D program, and could not wait to send troops to Iraq for a war that would cost 4000 American lives and $1T. And a war that turned out to be for false pretenses, and which the end result was creating one of the few countries willing to be an ally with Iran.
      Yeah, he’s real libertarian and real prescient.

  27. Liu Xiang arrived at the hospital wholesale shoes nike about 10 minutes later, his parents also have arrived. Mother Kat powdered flowers after seeing Liu Xiang, could not help but shed a

    tear, while his father constantly smoking a cigarette. Several media have repeatedly tried to enter the hospital, were politely requested to go out. “If you didn’t make an

    appointment is not coming in. “At about 12 o’clock noon, there have been nearly 20 journalists around the hospital door. And for media, hospital security taken against Under the ask, didn’t know very well … …. He actually treasure very much the Olympics, also enjoyed the process. Doesn’t matter what medals, best would be nice. What he was saying to me, mainly in order to participate in,nike wholesale shoes he did not expect foot injury to such a degree, because he did not want to give up. “

  28. And then came out from the hospital field Centre a short cross-group leader Li Guoxiong also nike wholesale shoes briefed reporters on the situation after Liu Xiang’s injury, “he now spirit

  29. Yea, well those of us who cannot vote for Romney ain’t gonna change our mind because of a half-libertarian like Ryan. He might as well pick Angela Davis to balance the ticket.

    1. Nah…Angela Davis never approved of blank checks to the Pentagon.

    2. Now that I think about it, there is no difference between Ryan and Cheney.
      Oh wait, there is…Cheney believes in full rights to the gay community.

  30. sarcasmic responded to: and i am sure there are people reading this blog RIGHT NOW who are MORE libertarian because of exposure to reason.com

    with: I hope so.

    That would be me in the in just the last 6 weeks. Still trying to shake off the permanent warfare state now too.

  31. I favored jindal for experience and competence, but Ryan fares well on those counts. What intrigues me about this choce is that it will direct the debate (Obama vs Romney; anything with Biden in it will be but a circus) to issues. Let the democrats assail Ryans proposals, and the answer will of course be: “What have you done? what have you proposed? etc” Perhaps he will bring gravitas to the debates, a sorely lacking quality among the mudslinging.

  32. Oh yeah.. I consider myself a Libertarian. This ain’t it but it moves us a few millimeters in the right direction.

    1. No it doesn’t. This just proves that libertarians are just apologists for Republicans. And you will do just what you probably did when Bush and Cheney were stomping all over anything libertarian…sit on your hands.
      Like I said above, Ryan is just Cheney (unfunded and unpaid for wars, unpaid for tax cuts, increases to an already bloated military budget). Just one exception…Cheney was more libertarian for the gay community, so Ryan is worse.

      1. LMAO “This just proves that libertarians are just apologists for Republicans.” You are a troll for Obama. Got it. Check.

        1. And you my friend are just a lackey for the Republicans. You played that part to great acclaim during the disastrous Bush administration, and you will do so again.

          1. Team Reds sucks. Team Blue sucks as well. If you actually read what is written here, you would see a place dripping with scorn for the Statists of Team Red. Since you are a troll, you seek to be fed, this is your last crumb. Now go and give fellatio to your Blue masters.

  33. Democrats will accuse this person of crimes against common decency and fairness. This person will, you can bet, be indicted as someone hellbent on “dismantling” Social Security, sacrificing Medicare to the gods of social Darwinism and “slashing” the safety net into worthless tatters.

    1. Yeah, Democrats should have the decency to be just as professional as Republicans always are.
      Right.

      1. Niether ‘team’ is worth a damn. However, are you will to say that Blue hell is as bad as Red? Really?

        1. Really.

          1. OK. I will bite. Describe blue and red hell for me.

            1. Good for you…go bite.

              1. Like I thought – a team Blue troll. Wipe the spew off your chin bitch.

  34. Picking Mr. Ryan as VP will not change the steep downward trajectory the USA is on even if Obamny/Ryan win.

    I keep reading posts such as: “If [we] dont win in Nov then all will be lost.” And “We will pass the point of no return if [we] dont win in Nov.”

    BULLSHIT!

    We all ready crossed the point of no return in 2008 when the fake economy collapsed for real. A trillion bucks of fake money will keep the appearance of things being afloat for a few years, but its already over.

    My non professional advice? Be prepared to fend for yourself in the near future. Expect nothing from the govt. And watch out for Zombies.

    1. I think the collapse was earlier than 2008, but you are right, at this point we are on our way. Hell awaits. Either Red hell, or Blue. Recent article in ‘Small Wars’ appears to intimate that the US military is considering how to go about violating posse comitatus

      http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/
      full-spectrum-operations-in-the-homeland
      -a-“vision”-of-the-future

      Past the three together – FIX THE CHAR*50 LIMIT REASON –

      So I think Blue hell it will be.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.