TheMatrix31

Not sure why. He has a history of racial comments. It's okay though. He's a lefty and it just get tossed aside as "Biden being Biden".

Pretty cool that many prominent conservatives are denouncing this guy Akin for his stupid comments yet liberals are silent and even look the other way when idiots like Biden say horrendous things or over the Occupy crap or so much of the other heinous crap that they should have denounced and disowned. But that's predictable.

Oh look, it's the Race Card. Hi Race Card, gee you're so cute. How do you stay so fit being used and abused like you are? Come over here so I can pinch your cheeks. You've grown so much since I last saw you 13 minutes ago!

Not sure where you get that I've been prattling off talking points. I've made very lengthy, thorough posts in this thread, complete with examples that guide my thought process, and I even said in one of my lengthy posts for people to feel free to ask me about links or more info if they need help understanding where I'm coming from. Oh well. I'm happy you two are doing better than you were four years ago. Really. I am. A lot of people, including my family, aren't. And neither are the country's finances and prospects to continue being the global hegemon. And I don't appreciate the insinuation that I hate or don't care about the poor because I want Romney and Ryan to win. My family is a lot closer to being poor than we are to being rich. But, as they say, nobody ever got a job from a poor person. Perhaps its time to bow out of this thread.

1. I'm not sure, to be honest. I can see the argument for both sides. It seemed like an inevitable, must-do move at the time, but now GM is in awful, awful shape. I do know that saying other manufacturing industries should be bailed out too is absurd, and, well, uh...pretty sketchy. The whole industry wouldn't have collapsed if they went bankrupt for good. Not a fan of all this just to take care of the unions which drove them to this spot to begin with. 2. I believe women should have a fiscally sound, safe country going forward. ..............THIS is just....just ridiculous. Straight up ridiculous. And offensive as hell. ---> http://times247.com/...-back-in-chains

Well that's good. But it's simply not true. I've had actually a pretty good amount of success discussing issues and talking about what's important and such. Obviously the most partisan partisans aren't going to be swayed, but I've had a decent amount of luck in this regard. So I'll continue to do it. .....as for the "You Didn't Built That" speech. It's literally indefensible. If you take it from a soundbite standpoint, it's bad enough. If you take the "full context", it's even WORSE. It's arguably the single most ridiculous thing he's said in his Presidency. Every time I think about it, it makes me even madder. My family came from the Middle East with absolutely nothing and both my grandfather AND my Dad built very successful businesses within fifteen years of living here. They DID build that. And for this jerk to come and say that "oh, there are other smart people too", "oh, there are other hard-workers too", "oh, roads and bridges"....it's just so offensive and takes a total dump on the entrepreneurial spirit of the country. And the attempt to spin the comments to mean he was talking about "roads and bridges" thing is just so ridiculous. A) He would have said, "you didn't build those". B) Roads and bridges are born out of demand. The mere existence of roads and bridges alone does not cause successful business. You know who else who has roads and bridges? Many third world countries. North Korea. 1930s Germany. Soviet Union. Are those thriving economic bastions? Uh. No. http://www.therights...ong-in-context/ http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/07/18/the-ultimate-takedown-of-obamas-you-didnt-build-that-speech/?singlepage=true The mask slipped. Plain and simple. Just like it did when he said a few days ago that we should bail out other manufacturing industries because of the "success of the auto bailouts", and just yesterday, when he came out and talked about a "new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared." No, jerk. OPPORTUNITY should be shared. Prosperity should NOT be shared. Prosperity is EARNED. The mask keeps slipping. It's like he's dying to let us know exactly what he is with these "slip-ups". Those who have paid attention over the last five years already know.

There already is war in the Middle East. There will always BE war in the Middle East. Barack Obama has perpetuated war in the Middle East, by propping up a radical Egyptian and Libyan government. And he's going to do the same in Syria. Eurotopia doesn't work. It just doesn't. Why?

If you can't see how government getting out of the way will help create jobs, I don't know what to tell you. I really don't. Good post by Taro.

Hopefully get government and regulation out of the way of job-creators. That's his, Ryan's, the Cabinet's, and Congress' job starting January 2013 if it so happens like that. Today's battleground IS the internet, man. The times are changin'.

And under the Obama plan (wait, what?) millions of Americans would pay no federal tax either because they wouldn't have jobs.

Actually, it happens quite often. Many conservatives I know are former liberals. If I can get even one person to realize the path we're on and that convinces them to vote for Romney/Ryan, then all the words and time I'm putting into it is worth it.

http://viralread.com...tack-ryan-plan/ SMH. This is the second time Soledad O'Brien has been caught in a controversy like this in the last three or four months. Couple that with that loser Fareed Zakaria getting in trouble last week, and it's LOLs all around.

Who takes "Jezebel.com" seriously? I mean, c'mon man. Really. I feel dumber for even scrolling through that trash. The chick who wrote that is straight up unhinged. LMFAO.

Well, I don't usually say those things when I talk about politics but the turn for the worse from guys like Obama and members in his Cabinet, Pelosi, Reid, Wasserman-Schultz, etc is just too much to bear. You have the most visible of Democrats nowadays openly pining for Eurotopian garbage and using Chicago-style politics to get there. Too much for me. I can deal with "normal" Democrats, as they're just people I have differences in policy with. They're very few and far between though. I have personal problems with people who want to knock America down. EDIT: Thanks for the link, TB.

I'm not sure where you get that. Today's left is FILLED with far-left types. The three most prominent Democrats in the United States today are hardcore statists. Not to mention so many others. Are there ridiculous people on the right? Sure. Nowhere near the status quo of today's Democratic party though. Wish there was a way to quantify such a thing.

Too much to respond to in the time betweem my last post and now. Here's a link with some early returns post-announcement-----http://townhall.com/...nts_and_seniors I don't put too much faith in polls in general, but in cases where a major campaign event happens, it's a bit of an easy way to get a quick snapshot of things. Also, when looking at polls in general, LOOK AT SAMPLING DATA. Many news outlets are releasing polls that have sampling that is ridiculously skewed. EDIT: If you don't think MSNBC/NBC in general is participating in "wholesale spin", I don't know what to tell ya. I don't watch any TV news. Far quicker to get news and opinion online. By the time something shows up on TV, it's already "old" on Twitter. Media bias is a huge deal, but less so because there is a ton of new media out there now. A TON. Twitter is arguably the single biggest thing to happen to the conservative movement in years. Also a note about something I saw when scrolling through responses.....someone said that they won't vote for Romney/Ryan because they're "too right". Well, a lot of conservatives have major reservations about Romney because he's not exactly a right-wing extremist. He's about as middle-of-the-road as you can get. Typical blue state Republican. Picking Ryan pulls him to the right, sure, but that doesn't pull him to the "omg TOO right" portion of the spectrum, lol. I also like this whole thing about Romney being "so elite" just because he has money and Obama somehow representing the people even though he ALSO has money, AND has ties to radicals, and racists, and acts like a petulant child every time he doesn't get his way, and this and that and this and that. Lest we forget all the bundlers Obama has. He's the one going to multiple 30k-a-plate dinners a day. How Obama is viewed as "likeable" and "not elite" is straight up beyond me.

I think it's all connected, anyway. Can't talk about economic health without talking about what is severely threatening our long-term viability as well. The vast failure of an economic record is a RESULT of Obama/Jarrett/Pelosi/Reid/etc vision, and the Romney/Ryan camp is now offering a different vision now and for the future. But yeah, definitely ballsy. Apparently the pick came around 10 days ago. I don't think Romney "needed help" exactly. I'm of the thought that the campaign doesn't TRULY start until the VPs are named and the conventions are held, and the general public only really starts paying attention around then and even a couple weeks AFTER conventions. Always believed Romney was pacing himself. That upset me, because there's so much to hammer Obama about that he needs all the time he has, but if this weekend's vigor by him is any indication, I think he viewed this as the jumpoff point for the rest of the campaign.

I don't put much water in the obstructionist Senate argument, to be honest. They have and have HAD a majority in there for so long. When the Democrats controlled the House too, they could have done anything they wanted, and they pretty much followed their agenda. Instead of doing things to actually get out of the way of job creation and such, they pushed stimulus bills, and most importantly Obamacare through. When tons of productive bills from the House are sitting there being ignored by Reid to put them up for vote or discussion, I just don't see how they're obstructing things. To address your second point, it's interesting how people see the Palin pick differently. I used to be a huge Palin fan. I still like her some, but not nearly as much as I did. I followed her for about a year before she was "shockingly" named McCain's VP. Whereas people think Palin sunk McCain's chances I think McCain was (and continues to be) worthless and impotent in general, and Palin actually gave some help and energy. They handled her poorly by muzzling her, and she was and continues to be run through the ringer even worse than Bush was. Hurt among independents or whatever. Oh well, water under the bridge at this point. Ryan pick IS bold. And a stroke of genius. He's a champion of a cause, can articulate things very simply for those who are generally uninitiated, is good looking, young, and fresh. He appeals to both establishment types and tea party types. He fights with a calm, confidence, and optimism that is really refreshing, honestly. Above all, picking Ryan means that Romney is going all-in and is actually SERIOUS about fixing things. One of the main criticisms (true or not) by so many was that Romney "wasn't offering specifics" and that he wasn't showing balls. Well, now he's got specifics, and apparently he's got the balls. Shows in how fired up he's been since the announcement. Romney wasn't my first choice to be the nominee, and as many questions as I've had about him, things like picking Ryan help assuage those fears immensely. Frankly, I'm shocked that they actually went with the guy who can articulate conservatism and the American ideal better than pretty much any other elected official in the country. They complement each other VERY well, and you can see it. Chemistry is off the charts, which is something that was non-existent between McCain and Palin, between Barack and Biden, Kerry and Edwards, and quite a few other Prez/VP candidate over the years. The rally in Wisconsin was something to behold. You can tell that both these people believe in and love America above all else. I don't think Ryan will overshadow Romney. I mean, we're all energized for Ryan and for good reason, but I think he knows his role. I don't think it'll just be about entitlement reform either. I think it's about the economy and economic future of the country as it relates to issues such AS entitlements and such.

There is so much wrong with your statement, I'll attempt to cover as much of it as I can in as organized a fashion. 1) I do agree there's an energy crisis in this country. Pumping stimulus money into green energy companies that are disasters waiting to happen doesn't help one bit. Not ONE supposed "green energy" stimulus recipient has succeeded. Solyndra, A123 Systems, Solar Trust, Abound Solar, Nevada Geothermal, and on and on and on. All these companies are propped up on a house of cards and greased with taxpayer money and what happens when they fail? Nothing. Where does the money go? Where does OUR money go? What's it DOING for us? Greasing the pockets of Obama-backers? Speaking of stimulus, a general point----the Obama administration said that by July 2012, unemployment would be 5.6% if Stimulus was passed, and 6.0% if it WASN'T. It's 8.3%, and if the labor force was the same size as it was in January 2009 when Obama was sworn in, the unemployment rate would be 11.0%! If Obama and the left truly cared about the energy problems we face, then everything truly WOULD be on the table. But it's not. Massive regulations intended to bankrupt the coal industry (Obama stated this was a goal and that prices would "necessarily skyrocket" back in his 08 campaign----go check it, this quote is readily available), increase difficulty for overall energy production and drive up costs are a FEATURE, not a bug. I don't know about you but European levels for gas and energy (again, a DIRECTLY stated goal of Steven Chu, Energy Secretary) are disastrous for the economy. I don't care about these systems that may or may not work over the next 70 years and suffering massive economic impact because of it. We can't afford it. It would stifle economic growth in unimaginable ways. Of course, for those who want to chase this greentopia, that's what they want. The EPA needs to get scrapped. I want cheap oil and gas. I want shale deposits. I want to crack open the reservoirs of all of this so we don't have to deal with the tyranny of other nations having us by the balls on this front. I want to build the Keystone XL pipeline, the one from Canada through the continential US because I don't want Canada to just turn around and sell it to China instead, thereby defeating any "environmental" purpose we have for not doing such a thing AND helping our biggest economic rival at the same time. 2) Nobody cares about contraception at a time when people are having the most difficult time making sure food is on the table, a roof is over their childrens' heads and clothes are on their backs. Seriously. This whole "war on women" crap has GOT to stop. You want to talk about detrimental to women? How about 1.5% GDP growth in Q2 2012? How about nearly 16 TRILLION dollars in debt with many more TRILLION in unfunded liabilities? How about 42 STRAIGHT months of 8%+ unemployment where the 60 years PRIOR only experiened 8%+ for 39 months TOTAL? How about the fact that women in the Obama White House get paid significantly less than the men? How about the fact that women are losing jobs at a higher clip under the Obama economy? How about insulting them by acting like they need to have condoms and birth control pills paid for by someone else? Contraception is not a "fundamental right", lol. And you can go to any clinic and get condoms or whatever for free if you need to. Like this idiot Sandra Fluke, who came out as some "innocent Georgetown student", later we find out is an official operative for radical feminist groups and the Obama campaign. You can get birth control from Target for like 9 bucks a month. Is that what we want women to do? Create a culture of dependancy? I thought those on the left were about freedom. What says freedom like having to depend on the government and other people to pay for stuff? Are women only uteruses and vaginas? How offensive is THAT. And you wanna talk about religious freedom? The whole contraception thing would force religious institutions (Catholic schools like Georgetown, for example) to cover contraceptives and such under their insurance plans. As you may or may not know, Catholics are against those things. What kind of religious freedom is it to FORCE religious institutions to pay for and provide things they don't believe in? And why is it bad that Paul Ryan, a devout Catholic, stands by his beliefs? Does THAT make him a religious extremist? A shitload of people are Catholic, dude. Besides. Paul Ryan is running for VP. He doesn't have the ability to ban abortions. He doesn't have the ability to do ANYTHING on that front. He can't sign things into law. He can't veto things. And besides, his main talk about abortion as it pertains to things that are actual and tangible and not just "beliefs and values" is making sure there's no public funding for it. Your concerns on this front are THOROUGHLY unfounded. Anyone who thinks primarily about "women's rights" as a reason to hate Paul Ryan where the country is literally headed to hell in a handbasket in every way imaginable is selfish, delusional, and downright misguided. 3) I'm not sure where you get the idea that the economic disaster was Bush's fault. Seriously. If that's the idea you have, you're under a COMPLETE misapprehension. Bush (and McCain, interestingly enough) called for reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae MULTIPLE times throughout both terms of his administration, only to be met with cries by people like Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, John Kerry, Barney Frank, etc that nothing was wrong. Well, something WAS wrong. Community Reinvestment Act under Carter, tweaks by Clinton, etc led to this bubble and it burst. To blame it on Bush is seriously downright unfathomable and its a myth that HAS to be shot down. Oh by the way, a bubble to keep an eye on? Student loans. Surely this will be met by denials from the usual suspects as well. Contrary to popular belief, Obama HAS fulfilled many of his promises, and has fulfilled his main one---to fundamentally transform this country. If you think his policies have "kept the country running", I'm not sure what to say to that. As I said before, record unemployment numbers at this point. Record debts. Record deficits. Sooner or later, it's not "Bush's fault" anymore. Reagan's recovery in the early 80s DEMOLISHED this supposed recovery, providing an average of 6.7% GDP growth per quarter in the first nine quarters of his recovery. Obama's? Only FOUR quarters of growth at or above 3%! And Obama has absolutely nothing but shallow rhetoric and more "ism" politics garbage. Gender, class, race, sexual orientation, etc. Only distractionary crap. I'm not sure what you mean that "Obama has kept the big picture in mind". What picture is this? His vision of America no longer being exceptional and of America being a European-style failure? If that's the big picture, then I agree, he's kept it in mind. I guess I'm just confused as to how you can talk about the house of cards, prosperity for college graduates, fiscal health long term, taxes, balancing budgets, etc and talk about Obama positively and Ryan and Romney negatively. I just don't get it. With CONSTANT Obama's demonization of business, it's no surprise that businesses are scared to develop, invest, and grow demand so that hiring can happen, and the economy remains awful as a result. Did you know that the Senate under Barack Obama's tenure as President has not passed or even proposed their own budget, even though they're obligated to? That's Harry Reid for ya, who hasn't done anything on a budget OR job/growth proposals that have started in the House. Did you realize that Obama's "budget" has not received ONE VOTE OF SUPPORT from EITHER SIDE in the House OR Senate? How can you talk about all of these things and not see this? Ryan is the only one who HAS a plan. When Ryan and Treasury Sec Geithner were talking a few months back, Geithner literally said that they don't have a plan and all they know is that they don't like Ryan's. All these points aren't even TOUCHING on disastrous scandals like Fast and Furious, horrendous foreign policy, etc. I DO wish Ryan had more foreign policy experience, but I guess if Romney gets elected, I'll have to trust he'll appoint the right guys as Secretary of State and Defense. Romney's foreign tour a couple weeks ago was pretty good, IMO. A house is divided. You're right. There's one side constantly pushing to divide us into groups and there's another side constantly talking about all of us as Americans. I guess it's up to you to figure out which side is which. Feel free to ask me for links if you're unclear on something. Left them out to keep it simple, if not long still haha.

Well, that ends up being what matters anyway. The aesthetic stuff is what got Barack in office to begin with. Certainly not on issues or background. He had the words crafted well-enough and was able to deliver it well enough to get people charged up. Maybe this time people want some substance too. Ryan's got the well-spoken, handsome, and connecting thing down AND an actual message to go with it. We'll see what happens. Should be interesting. I think the message will resonate because of the way he is. Mild-mannered yet charismatic. His (and Romney's) speech/rally today in Wisconsin was REALLY good. Haven't seen anything like that from him or Romney thus far (meaning over the years, not since the announcement).

Ryan's plan was written with very "progressive" Ron Wyden from Oregon. He's made tons of compromise over the years, actually pointing fingers at both sides for being so crappy on this issue. Always talks about how this is an issue that effects all of us and that we need to work together. He's demonstrated it often. Aside from your unhinged far-left Obama/Pelosi types, he's pretty well regarded. That's the good thing about Ryan. You said that they don't know, understand, or care about long-term fiscal health but like I said, his ability to communicate those problems AND solutions for them will end up being a positive. He keeps it simple and easy for the unitiated to understand. If it comes across as me being a homer, please don't take it as such. I've just followed his career for quite a while now BECAUSE of these reasons.

The left isn't gonna vote for Romney anyway, so I couldn't care less if THEY'RE not impressed. Those who are somehow-undecided should not have any problem being impressed with him considering he is the only person that is able to articulate conservatism in a plain-spoken, relatable manner. It's about time an adult comes in to have an adult conversation. We're not doing well as a country and people need to hear it. When it comes to elections, people vote with their wallets. Only obstacle is trying to fight the idiocy trying to tear him down. A big task but readily combatable considering all those who try to do such things read from the same manual.

I'll be happy that the funding would be stopped in such a situation, because every "energy investment" made via stimulus funds from the Obama administration has been an unmitigated disaster. Not sure how people aren't impressed by Ryan. Hes been the only person to consistently sound the alarms for long-term fiscal health AND offered SPECIFICS on how to work towards edging back to sanity. Been doing it for years and years now. Though, I'm not sure how anything works anymore. I also can't take anyone seriously when they say there's no difference between Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan. That's just insanity and ridiculous. That's saying "contrarian" stuff just to say it. No basis in reality. The difference is monumental and plainly clear when watching them speak and act. Romney wasn't my main choice, but Ryan pretty much was, and I'm glad he's found himself on the ticket.

Wow.

A female Sabres fan living in Phoenix? Are you a Suns fan as well? Hmmm.... /Off-Topic, lol