Support NeoGAF

[TacticalFox88]

Agreed but Obama began to defeat her in the final debates. She became quite desperate while Obama remained calm and collected. By the time Obama reached the general election debates he had fixed his problems, which IMO revolved around being way too wooden and professor like, plus an inability to make points simple without being long winded. Man, just talking about Hillary makes my hands shake. I miss her

Oh, my PD making an informed opinion and admitting Hillary's mistakes could this be....

Ryan is going to destroy Biden in the debates.

 

[el retorno]

The DNCC is already prepping ads tying Ryan to local races, they smell blood I think at rallying for a lot of local races

I think tying him to local races could actual do the opposite of normal and have an up ticket effect.

Highlighting the Ryan plan in local races will change the way people like at Romney and Ryan themselves.

 

[Izayoi]

problem?

Please tell me you don't seriously believe that the only thing our government should be spending money on is social security and the military. Nobody is legitimately that ignorant, right?

Would it be the first time that the American people voted against their own interests?

He's intelligent, well-spoken, and convincing. If people are stupid enough to listen to someone like Palin then they'll buy what he's selling.

Isn't it sad? I just don't understand.

 

[BrokenEchelon]

Please tell me you don't seriously believe that the only thing our government should be spending money on is social security and the military. Nobody is legitimately that ignorant, right?


Isn't it sad? I just don't understand.

There are millions of registered republicans in this country, so yes.

 

[gutter_trash]

Romney / Ryan
-Regress-

 

[GhaleonQ]

Liberals love the pick. Conservatives love the pick. I've never seen a more bi-partisan move in my life.

Exactly! All this says is, "Fight, fight, fight!" Since the campaign to this point was Obama doing girly slaps and Romney running away, it's best for everyone.

But, yeah, I generally just donate my time, since I do education reform stuff full-time already. This Wisconsinite just donated to a national campaign for the the 1st time, as, really, Ryan's the closest match I'll ever get to a national-level politician. It's still not that close (although his extremely articulate social conservative views are underreported), but I want to reward realistic progress.

The risk and reward are huge. Excitement!

 

[Maxim726X]

Isn't it sad? I just don't understand.

I've come to the realization that people make allegiances at some point early on, form their stance, and look for those that believe what they do. Gives people validation for their beliefs, no matter how ridiculous they may be.

 

[Stumpokapow]

In the last 100 years, here's the record of sitting congressmen in federal Presidential/VP elections:
1984: Ferraro, lost in blowout
1964: Miller, lost in blowout
1932: Gardner (then-speaker of the house), won--FDR's first win as President
1920: Cox, lost in blowout

It's hard to say how many elections you should look to for comparative US politics. You can go to circa-64 for the modern Democrats / Dixiecrats split, you can go back to circa-1900 for the beginning of the post-reconstruction America, you can go to Lincoln/Civil War, or you can go to Washington. I'm reading Theodore Rex, which is a transcendent biography of Teddy Roosevelt's presidency, so I sort of arbitrarily picked 100 years as a cutoff.

 

[Stinkles]

Oh, my PD making an informed opinion and admitting Hillary's mistakes could this be....

My hands are shaking...with laughter.

In the last 100 years, here's the record of sitting congressmen in federal Presidential/VP elections:
1984: Ferraro, lost in blowout
1964: Miller, lost in blowout
1932: Gardner (then-speaker of the house), won
1920: Cox, lost in blowout

Mavericky.

 

[Mandoric]

How about the cuts to everything? From the analyses I've read by 2050 the US government would practically cease to exist the way we know it now. The budget would be squeezed to almost nothing outside of social security and the military.

Most such analyses assume that defense will continue growing at the current rate (an iffy premise unless we continue to start two major wars a decade) and absolutely nothing will be done about healthcare costs or social security funding (when the problem is heavily controlled by steps like allowing the government to negotiate drug costs or raising the retirement age for white-collar workers, and entirely dispensed with by removing the tax exemption for income over $100,000).

I mean, it's entirely -possible- that we'll spike every attempt at reform out of pure spite, but even if we do a controlled devaluation to get the books back in order is historically a lot less wrenching than the past few years have been. It's certainly not the end of the world.

 

[GhaleonQ]

In the last 100 years, here's the record of sitting congressmen in federal Presidential/VP elections:
1984: Ferraro, lost in blowout
1964: Miller, lost in blowout
1932: Gardner (then-speaker of the house), won--FDR's first win as President
1920: Cox, lost in blowout

I wish the sample size was bigger. I know that you're just stating, not projecting, but Garner and Cox are the only 2 that are similar to him (Garner in power, Cox in policy), and those elections couldn't be less relevant to this one.

 

[Kusagari]

it's not what Liberals think that matters, it's what moderates think.

This move just panders to the looneys on the ultra-right, this move probably will keep Florida blue in November

It's the worst scenario possible for Romney in Florida. Now Obama has even more fuel to go to seniors with, thanks to Ryan's medicare plan.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

In the last 100 years, here's the record of sitting congressmen in federal Presidential/VP elections:
1984: Ferraro, lost in blowout
1964: Miller, lost in blowout
1932: Gardner (then-speaker of the house), won--FDR's first win as President
1920: Cox, lost in blowout

If they stood up I bet they would have had a better chance.

 

[ggnoobIGN]

The debates should be interesting. Big 180 from 2008. Biden is definitely the underdog and Ryan should kill him there, but well see how it turns out.

 

[RDreamer]

Exactly! All this says is, "Fight, fight, fight!" Since the campaign to this point was Obama doing girly slaps and Romney running away, it's best for everyone.

But, yeah, I generally just donate my time, since I do education reform stuff full-time already. This Wisconsinite just donated to a national campaign for the the 1st time, as, really, Ryan's the closest match I'll ever get to a national-level politician. It's still not that close (although his extremely articulate social conservative views are underreported), but I want to reward realistic progress.

The risk and reward are huge. Excitement!

Ryan's plan is nowhere near realistic progress. As Krugman puts it, "This isn’t a serious proposal; it’s a strange combination of cruelty and insanely wishful thinking."

Most such analyses assume that defense will continue growing at the current rate (an iffy premise unless we continue to start two major wars a decade) and absolutely nothing will be done about healthcare costs or social security funding (when the problem is heavily controlled by steps like allowing the government to negotiate drug costs or raising the retirement age for white-collar workers, and entirely dispensed with by removing the tax exemption for income over $100,000).

I mean, it's entirely -possible- that we'll spike every attempt at reform out of pure spite, but even if we do a controlled devaluation to get the books back in order is historically a lot less wrenching than the past few years have been. It's certainly not the end of the world.

I think you may have read that wrong. I'm talking about analyses of Ryan's plan. Those solutions you come up with are definitely true and what we could and possibly should do, but Ryan isn't doing them. He wants to up defense, and there's no way he'd want the government to negotiate drug costs or remove the tax exemption.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I wish the sample size was bigger. I know that you're just stating, not projecting, but Garner and Cox are the only 2 that are similar to him (Garner in power, Cox in policy), and those elections couldn't be less relevant to this one.

Yeah I definitely would disclaim that I'm not pulling one of those stupid big-media "In the last 25 elections the guy with more vowels in his name and a larger mustache won the presidency if he carried Montana, but lost if he didn't THEREFOR I CAN DIVINE THE 2012 ELECTION based on this gripping 35 second interview with Cletus 'Big Sky' Morton, Associate County Dog Catcher in Billings!!!!".

I'd basically argue that the strength of picking a representative in modern times is that the HOR generally tilts populist and reactionary more than the Senate, and so a representative gives you a good red meat platform. Clearly that's true here. But it also provides cover for the president to break to the center (IE delegating VP as attack dog). I agree that Garner is probably the closest match in terms of Ryan's position in the current GOP brain-trust, but it's hard to isolate Garner's role versus Roosevelt's and Romney is clearly not even remotely comparable to Roosevelt in stature or perception or, really, gravitas.

Sorry for my concision here, I'm on my phone.

 

[Zzoram]

Romney and Ryan are a decent ticket. While I think it would be better for Obama to win, I can't help but wonder how the US would change under Romney and Ryan.

 

[kkaabboomm]

The debates should be interesting. Big 180 from 2008. Biden is definitely the underdog and Ryan should kill him there, but well see how it turns out.

not sure if serious.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Romney and Ryan are a decent ticket. While I think it would be better for Obama to win, I can't help but wonder how the US would change under Romney and Ryan.

If you are earning million or more you will be awesome under Ryan

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

GhaleonQ's pretty conservative, dude, so it makes quite a bit of sense that he'd call Ryan progress.

 

[ezekial45]

The debates should be interesting. Big 180 from 2008. Biden is definitely the underdog and Ryan should kill him there, but well see how it turns out.

Maybe on the subjects of the economy, but Ryan has no foreign policy experience. At all. He'll just regurgitate campaign talking points. He's got clear strengths in a few areas, way more weaknesses in most.

 

[Mandoric]

I think you may have read that wrong. I'm talking about analyses of Ryan's plan. Those solutions you come up with are definitely true and what we could and possibly should do, but Ryan isn't doing them. He wants to up defense, and there's no way he'd want the government to negotiate drug costs or remove the tax exemption.

Ahh, yeah, misread as analyses of the current budget inflation-adjusted and continued rather than Ryan's.

 

[RDreamer]

Romney and Ryan are a decent ticket. While I think it would be better for Obama to win, I can't help but wonder how the US would change under Romney and Ryan.

This is a future I wouldn't wish upon anyone, least of all myself. I actively fear it like you wouldn't believe.

 

[Kabouter]

In the last 100 years, here's the record of sitting congressmen in federal Presidential/VP elections:
1984: Ferraro, lost in blowout
1964: Miller, lost in blowout
1932: Gardner (then-speaker of the house), won--FDR's first win as President
1920: Cox, lost in blowout

It's hard to say how many elections you should look to for comparative US politics. You can go to circa-64 for the modern Democrats / Dixiecrats split, you can go back to circa-1900 for the beginning of the post-reconstruction America, you can go to Lincoln/Civil War, or you can go to Washington. I'm reading Theodore Rex, which is a transcendent biography of Teddy Roosevelt's presidency, so I sort of arbitrarily picked 100 years as a cutoff.

Garner . Good 'ol Cactus Jack.

Anyway, Paul Ryan is an interesting choice, I hope it will lead to a fundamental debate on the role of (the federal) government and the tasks it should perform, seems to me countries all over the industrialized world keep avoiding having that debate in any major way. Would be nice if one country actually did.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Maybe on the subjects of the economy, but Ryan has no foreign policy experience. At all. He'll just regurgitate campaign talking points. He's got clear strengths in a few areas, way more weaknesses in most.

Although Biden was clearly a foreign policy choice, I'd argue that he was selected not because of McCain's strength in the area, but because of Clinton's--by picking a Democrativ veteran with FP credentials, Obama was able to help keep the democratic party together and heal from the "red telephone" attacks. There's no hard-fast rule that your VP choice needs to have FP strength. Kerry picked Edwards for exactly the opposite reason (although the insider buzz was that the Kerry campaign made early overtures towards McCain for a hybrid SOS/VP slot that would have given him expanded FP klout).

Plus this year's foreign policy issues are pretty simple. Standard talking point "more unilateralism" to get the UN hate points among flyover country Republicans, "<incumbent> isn't doing enough about Iran/North Korea/Nukes and we will do something unspecified and more" "Time to wind down Afghanistan". The most interesting FP issue in my mind is any American exposure to the Eurozone crisis and it's way too erudite for campaign discussion, certainly for the debate, and at any rate plays more as a domestic/economic issue.

 

[Bombadil]

Romney and Ryan are a decent ticket. While I think it would be better for Obama to win, I can't help but wonder how the US would change under Romney and Ryan.

It might be hard to postulate this because Romney seems like a man who will change his position repeatedly in order to win office. Once he gets to office, what will he do? I don't know. Maybe that's when he'll put aside his right-wing hat and become a moderate president.

Isn't that what Obama did? Wasn't Obama's running platform more liberal than what he ended up being in office?

Still, I don't think that Romney would make a good president for the people as a whole. He doesn't think very highly of us little people.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Garner . Good 'ol Cactus Jack.

Autocorrect.

 

[zero_suit]

This is a future I wouldn't wish upon anyone, least of all myself. I actively fear it like you wouldn't believe.

Yeah, no thanks.

 

[DR2K]

Romney and Ryan are a decent ticket. While I think it would be better for Obama to win, I can't help but wonder how the US would change under Romney and Ryan.

What's there to wonder. Rich people will have more money they don't need. Middle class will be virtually extinct. That's their ultimate goal.

 

[GhaleonQ]

Ryan's plan is nowhere near realistic progress. As Krugman puts it, "This isn&#8217;t a serious proposal; it&#8217;s a strange combination of cruelty and insanely wishful thinking."

GhaleonQ's pretty conservative, dude, so it makes quite a bit of sense that he'd call Ryan progress.

Yeah, obviously, it would be impossible to find middle ground with NeoGAF, but I would like the national DISCUSSION to progress here. Obviously, Republican talking points about "restoring welfare to work" and Democratic talking points about "gutting entitlements" is all that's going to happen this year. However, I hope that continued discussion will get Americans to take budgets seriously. Obviously, I would hate for the liberals to win the discussion, with modest middle class taxes/high upper class and budget cuts for stuff that I might like, but I would prefer 1 side winning to putting change off until we're doomed.

Is that reasonable? I hope so.

Garner . Good 'ol Cactus Jack.

Anyway, Paul Ryan is an interesting choice, I hope it will lead to a fundamental debate on the role of (the federal) government and the tasks it should perform, seems to me countries all over the industrialized world keep avoiding having that debate in any major way. Would be nice if one country actually did.

And so does Kabouter, who's smart AND holds sway.

I mean, from my point of view, the religion-health care clash is enough for me to be active on all electoral fronts. It's just that I don't think the national discussion is going to progress on 1st Amendment religious freedom, despite Romney and Ryan both being quite thoughtful about it. I do think the country could be more responsible on budgets long-term, though.

Yeah I definitely would disclaim that I'm not pulling one of those stupid big-media "In the last 25 elections the guy with more vowels in his name and a larger mustache won the presidency if he carried Montana, but lost if he didn't THEREFOR I CAN DIVINE THE 2012 ELECTION based on this gripping 35 second interview with Cletus 'Big Sky' Morton, Associate County Dog Catcher in Billings!!!!".

I'd basically argue that the strength of picking a representative in modern times is that the HOR generally tilts populist and reactionary more than the Senate, and so a representative gives you a good red meat platform. Clearly that's true here. But it also provides cover for the president to break to the center (IE delegating VP as attack dog). I agree that Garner is probably the closest match in terms of Ryan's position in the current GOP brain-trust, but it's hard to isolate Garner's role versus Roosevelt's and Romney is clearly not even remotely comparable to Roosevelt in stature or perception or, really, gravitas.

Sorry for my concision here, I'm on my phone.

No worries. "Bob LaFollette lost in 19-dickety-doo, so Paul Ryan is doomed!"

All good points. Again, this is bold for exactly the election tactics you mention. Great thought.

 

[metalslimer]

How can a conservative even be happy that Ryan is on the ticket? His plan would actually raise the deficit. So basically the only way you could be happy would be if screwing over the poor really made you giddy.

Democratic talking points about "gutting entitlements" is all that's going to happen this year.

How is that a talking point when its exactly what he's said he wants to do? I mean you could make this argument for Romney who's remained extremely vague about his plans, but Paul Ryan's plan is on paper for everyone to read.

 

[Measley]

Romney and Ryan are a decent ticket. While I think it would be better for Obama to win, I can't help but wonder how the US would change under Romney and Ryan.

 

[Suikoguy]

What's there to wonder. Rich people will have more money they don't need. Middle class will be virtually extinct. That's their ultimate goal.

No, they actually believe that such plans would make the middle class better off due to trickle down.

 

[ggnoobIGN]

This is a future I wouldn't wish upon anyone, least of all myself. I actively fear it like you wouldn't believe.

You sound like a paranoid psycho dude, haha. Lighten up, Francis.

 

[GCX]

No, they actually believe that such plans would make the middle class better off due to trickle down.

reaganomics.jpg

 

[Kusagari]

I like how this basically makes the election Obama vs. Ryan.

Romney's the flip-flopping blank slate he always is, so this makes the election Obama's vision vs. Ryan's vision.

 

[Bombadil]

No, they actually believe that such plans would make the middle class better off due to trickle down.

21 trillion gallons of trickle-down are being prepared for this monumental event.

They gonna make it rain.

 

[Vire]

Paul Ryan on the Issues:

Civil Rights

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)

Energy and Oil

Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. (May 2011)
Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)
Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009)
Drill the Outer Continental Shelf; & license new nuke plants. (Mar 2011)

Health Care

FactCheck: No, Medicare cost doesn't exceed national defense. (May 2011)
FactCheck: costs go up just a bit; jobs go down just a bit. (Jan 2011)
FactCheck: No evidence that healthcare reform explodes debt. (Jan 2011)
Open-ended healthcare entitlement moves US toward bankruptcy. (Jan 2011)
Washington Way: closed-door deals & one-party votes. (Sep 2010)
ObamaCare passed with no GOP support & split Democrats. (Sep 2010)
For tax credits; high-risk pools; & regulatory reform. (Sep 2010)
Medicare is a $38 trillion unfunded liability--add vouchers. (Jan 2010)
Road Map: buy health insurance from any state in the country. (Jul 2009)
Replace Medicare with $9500/year private insurance payment. (Jul 2009)
Voted YES on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts. (Apr 2011)
Voted YES on repealing the "Prevention and Public Health" slush fund. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Apr 2009)
Voted NO on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)
Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
Voted NO on giving mental health full equity with physical health. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on Veto override: Extend SCHIP to cover 6M more kids. (Jan 2008)
Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Oct 2007)
Voted NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)
Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on small business associations for buying health insurance. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on allowing suing HMOs, but under federal rules & limited award. (Aug 2001)
Voted YES on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
Rated 11% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Repeal the Job-Killing Health Care Law. (Jan 2011)

Voted YES on terminating funding for National Public Radio. (Mar 2011)

Voted NO on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan. (Mar 2011)

More here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/

This guy is everything that's wrong with America.

Fucking disgusts me.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Paul Ryan on the Issues:

dat baggage

Oh wow, Romney has an uphill battle against that huge list. Like, every single one of those is a hot button issue.

And Ryan brings little, if any, advantages to Romney.
This was a terrible choice, even terrible if the GOP heads did it. It could jeopardize the entire party's chances for all people running this year, not just Romeny! They better know for a fact Ryan is winning 2016, because this is a huge gamble. Especially since in 2016 Ryan will have been on the losing side of history for many of those social issues.

 

[metalslimer]

Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)

He can go fuck himself. Character my ass.

 

[Oracle Dragon]

No, they actually believe that such plans would make the middle class better off due to trickle down.

I've often wondered if this is actually true. Do you think they actually BELIEVE in "trickle down", or are they just pulling a fast one to make themselves and their buddies even more money? If America ultimately failed due to the extinction of the middle class and the financial wealth of the top 1% shifted to be 98% of the wealth, would these guys be laughing all the way to the bank, or would they be scratching their heads in perplexity wondering where it all went wrong?

 

[Stumpokapow]

He can go fuck himself. Character my ass.

Without defending Ryan's no-doubt orthodox Republican anti-gay-rights positions, you should be very skeptical when you read anything about DC-related voting. there's a really elaborate long-game related to congressional stewardship of DC and bickering back and forth with the DC council. a lot of tit-for-tat withholding and vote games. DC council does X, Congress disapproves by doing Y totally unrelated thing. Pretty gross on both sides.

If there's a gay rights fight to be had, the best way to frame it ought to be on national recognition of gay marriage (and possibly sexual orientation as a protected class under existing antidiscrimination laws)--there's a stark dichotomy between Obama and Romney's expressed public positions on this issue.

 

[WowBaby]

RobMeRyan2012...There goes Florida's 29.

 

[Zzoram]

Paul Ryan on the Issues:

Civil Rights

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)

Energy and Oil

Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. (May 2011)
Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)
Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009)
Drill the Outer Continental Shelf; & license new nuke plants. (Mar 2011)

Health Care

FactCheck: No, Medicare cost doesn't exceed national defense. (May 2011)
FactCheck: costs go up just a bit; jobs go down just a bit. (Jan 2011)
FactCheck: No evidence that healthcare reform explodes debt. (Jan 2011)
Open-ended healthcare entitlement moves US toward bankruptcy. (Jan 2011)
Washington Way: closed-door deals & one-party votes. (Sep 2010)
ObamaCare passed with no GOP support & split Democrats. (Sep 2010)
For tax credits; high-risk pools; & regulatory reform. (Sep 2010)
Medicare is a $38 trillion unfunded liability--add vouchers. (Jan 2010)
Road Map: buy health insurance from any state in the country. (Jul 2009)
Replace Medicare with $9500/year private insurance payment. (Jul 2009)
Voted YES on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts. (Apr 2011)
Voted YES on repealing the "Prevention and Public Health" slush fund. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Apr 2009)
Voted NO on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)
Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
Voted NO on giving mental health full equity with physical health. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on Veto override: Extend SCHIP to cover 6M more kids. (Jan 2008)
Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Oct 2007)
Voted NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)
Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on small business associations for buying health insurance. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on allowing suing HMOs, but under federal rules & limited award. (Aug 2001)
Voted YES on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
Rated 11% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Repeal the Job-Killing Health Care Law. (Jan 2011)

Voted YES on terminating funding for National Public Radio. (Mar 2011)

Voted NO on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan. (Mar 2011)

More here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/

This guy is everything that's wrong with America.

Fucking disgusts me.

Oh, I guess Ryan is pretty awful after all. Romney has no values, Ryan has bad ones. Seriously, he doesn't even believe that mental health is important? WTF

 

[Aylinato]

He can go fuck himself. Character my ass.

+10

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Oh, I guess Ryan is pretty awful after all. Romney has no values, Ryan has bad ones. Seriously, he doesn't even believe that mental health is important? WTF

Ryan has always been a right wing hack dressed as a serious wonk (he isn't one if you actually follow his budget)

 

[Redux]

I think Paul Ryan will do much better after he goes through puberty.

 

[RDreamer]

You sound like a paranoid psycho dude, haha. Lighten up, Francis.

I'm the psycho? Romney picked a verifiable nutbag with Randist wet dreams who believes we're metaphorically living in a Rand novel right now.

Excuse me for not wanting a guy that would increase inequality even more than its astronomical high in this country.

Excuse me for not wanting a guy that would bring us back to Bush's foreign policy and very very likely stir a war with Iran.

Excuse me for not wanting my social security privatized and medicare turned into a voucher system.

Excuse me for not wanting guys who advocate for extreme austerity measures during a recession.

Excuse me for not wanting the only progress we've made on healthcare in the last few years repealed for purely political reasons. And excuse me for not wanting people with pre existing conditions to just die or go completely bankrupt.

If that future doesn't look appalling and/or scary to you then I just don't know what to say. They're both frauds, snake oil salesmen, and wolves in sheep's clothing.

 

[-COOLIO-]

paul ryan is a rapid fire jaw clencher

 

[Redux]

Obama's reaction when he heard Romney is picking Paul Ryan for VP: