Romney campaign pulls the veil back o...

Romney campaign pulls the veil back on VP selection

There are 21 comments on the Fox News story from Aug 11, 2012, titled Romney campaign pulls the veil back on VP selection. In it, Fox News reports that:

Dulles, VA. - It was a picture-perfect unveiling -- the majestic USS Wisconsin draped in bunting as a backdrop, with a stage surrounded by thousands of cheering supporters.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fox News.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Truth

Minneapolis, MN

#1 Aug 12, 2012
And there was the Bride of Frankenstein, standing next to the Frankenstein Monster.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

#2 Aug 12, 2012
It's been a while since we've had a Vice President intellectually capable of actually doing something and representing the best hopes of America. Ryan empowers the individual to regain control of their life.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

#3 Aug 12, 2012
Anyone interested in knowing how brilliant a man Paul Ryan is... watch this Charlie Rose interview... twice.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/194102
Fed Up Vet

Manassas, VA

#4 Aug 12, 2012
The VP debates should be a hoot this time.
Seattle Slew

Kent, WA

#5 Aug 12, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
Anyone interested in knowing how brilliant a man Paul Ryan is... watch this Charlie Rose interview... twice.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/194102
SO, he hates Romneycare.... you WANT that on the table ???
Bjo

Stockholm, Sweden

#6 Aug 12, 2012
It seems that some morons from this republican party try to ruin this USA and the WORLD.
Ron Paul it is the only real solution, who cares for USA and for the world.
Romney and Ryan are cranky, corrupt, dishonest bastards and pro-war mongers, clowns of israel and global criminal speculators.
Card Carrying Zionist

Twentynine Palms, CA

#7 Aug 12, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
It's been a while since we've had a Vice President intellectually capable of actually doing something and representing the best hopes of America. Ryan empowers the individual to regain control of their life.
Perhaps on entitlement reform -- which is no small issue. But just how did he help you, me, or anyone else reading this posting by supporting No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Patriot Act permanent, Medicare Part D, TARP, auto bailouts, budget continuing resolution, etc.? Congressman Ryan has a long history of supporting -- sometimes quite passionately -- expansion of the nanny state. True, he has attacked socialsitic programs when they have originated from Democrats, but when Republicans find it convenient to betray the free market, he Ryan often jumps into line like a good lap dog. He has no problem with pork, as long as it's fried the way he likes it. If anyone wants to say that Paul Ryan is a good choice for veep because he is young, passionate, and will probably help Romney to steer a clearer course, I will probably agree with them. But I need more reason to vote for a candidate than just the fact that they may not be as bad as the other guy. Romney-Ryan might -- in the short run at least -- take us down the wrong path at a slower pace than Obama-Biden, but the lesser of two evils is still evil, and I am still leaning to voting for a third party candidate this time around.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

#8 Aug 12, 2012
Card Carrying Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps on entitlement reform -- which is no small issue. But just how did he help you, me, or anyone else reading this posting by supporting No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Patriot Act permanent, Medicare Part D, TARP, auto bailouts, budget continuing resolution, etc.? Congressman Ryan has a long history of supporting -- sometimes quite passionately -- expansion of the nanny state. True, he has attacked socialsitic programs when they have originated from Democrats, but when Republicans find it convenient to betray the free market, he Ryan often jumps into line like a good lap dog. He has no problem with pork, as long as it's fried the way he likes it. If anyone wants to say that Paul Ryan is a good choice for veep because he is young, passionate, and will probably help Romney to steer a clearer course, I will probably agree with them. But I need more reason to vote for a candidate than just the fact that they may not be as bad as the other guy. Romney-Ryan might -- in the short run at least -- take us down the wrong path at a slower pace than Obama-Biden, but the lesser of two evils is still evil, and I am still leaning to voting for a third party candidate this time around.
In the short term, I too would probably profit from wasting my vote and giving the election to a Party the CPUSA is complaining stole their platform. I find tomorrow more important than profit and won't be found dead shilling for Commies.
Card Carrying Zionist

Twentynine Palms, CA

#9 Aug 12, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
In the short term, I too would probably profit from wasting my vote and giving the election to a Party the CPUSA is complaining stole their platform. I find tomorrow more important than profit and won't be found dead shilling for Commies.
I noticed that you did not address a single one of the points that I raised regarding Rep. Ryan. That is certainly your right. The Republican Party keeps nominating big government types (Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43, McCain, Romney). Why should the GOP establishment change if classical liberals (lack of interference in the affairs of the indivudual) never say "enough already!" You are already shilling if you say that it is OK for a president to pursue socailist policies, so long as they are a bit less socialist than the other party. The fact that people who claim to support free enterprise and liberty can be bought off with little more than a lesser-of-two-evils cliche only validates the more extreme socailists, by saying the socialism lite is acceptable. If you support TARP, Patriot Act, NCLB, government interference in healthcare, Medicare Part D, etc., then Romney and Ryan are your men.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

#10 Aug 12, 2012
Card Carrying Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
I noticed that you did not address a single one of the points that I raised regarding Rep. Ryan. That is certainly your right. The Republican Party keeps nominating big government types (Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43, McCain, Romney). Why should the GOP establishment change if classical liberals (lack of interference in the affairs of the indivudual) never say "enough already!" You are already shilling if you say that it is OK for a president to pursue socailist policies, so long as they are a bit less socialist than the other party. The fact that people who claim to support free enterprise and liberty can be bought off with little more than a lesser-of-two-evils cliche only validates the more extreme socailists, by saying the socialism lite is acceptable. If you support TARP, Patriot Act, NCLB, government interference in healthcare, Medicare Part D, etc., then Romney and Ryan are your men.
If you believe pragmatic political realities can,(or ever have) allow(ed) ascendancy of strictly spoken ideals to the Presidency without being effectively neutered by Socialist populism, then immaturity will rule the House and a tyrant will continue in the White House. Much of any promise to effective steering of a country deep in trouble is linked to compromise and subtext. Huge impacts of corporate realities made such as TARP an effective stopgap. Listening closely (see link above) to Ryan shows his conservative economic vision doesn't hold to such as long term solutions outside the proven falsehoods of Keynesian theory. Romney's embrace of his economic policy leadership shows evolution. Ron Paul will support Romney/Ryan because of the leadership and the subtext, especially that of smaller government. Willingness to compromise makes for leaders, which is why Obama has failed. As to "big government types"... look around you. We have a big government.
Card Carrying Zionist

Twentynine Palms, CA

#11 Aug 12, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
...Huge impacts of corporate realities made such as TARP an effective stopgap. Listening closely (see link above) to Ryan shows his conservative economic vision doesn't hold to such as long term solutions outside the proven falsehoods of Keynesian theory. Romney's embrace of his economic policy leadership shows evolution. Ron Paul will support Romney/Ryan because of the leadership and the subtext, especially that of smaller government. Willingness to compromise makes for leaders, which is why Obama has failed. As to "big government types"... look around you. We have a big government.
TARP was an "effective stopgap"? A stopgap between what and what? Between Bush's socialism and Obama's socialism? The idea that if you are big enough, you do not have to face the consequences of your incompetence (i.e. "too big to fail") was the rationalization for TARP. Bush makes clear in "Decision Points" that he expects there to be capitalism without risks. He also claimed that it was only his actions that saved us from another Depression. Like Obama saying that only his "stimulus' saved us from the "Second Great Depression." But even if one were to assume -- for the sake of argument -- that TARP was necessary, why wasn't it financed via budget cuts instead of via $700 billion in deficit spending? Both Obama and McCain were asked this in one of the debates, but they both dodged the issue. And when the funds are paid back, why isn't that used to pay down the debt and/or reduce excess liquidity in the economy.
Your claim that Ryan's "embrace of his economic policy leadership shows evolution" is interesting. Kind of like Obama's views on gay marriage "evolving" back and forth. Ryan was part of Boehner's ridiculous caving to Obama on the continuing resolution. Serious budget cuts over a decade are promised? And just what enforcement mechanism can be used to force future congresses to abide by the plan? But, leaving that all aside, I'll put more stock in Ryan's evolution when he openly admits that he was wrong on the Patriot Act, TARP, NCLB, Medicare Part D, the auto bailout, etc.
The idea that we have no choice but to elect big government types because we currently have big government is as valid as my saying I should look around and because California is currently in a fiscal mess, I have no choice but to vote for candidates who will perpetuate the fiscal mess.
Card Carrying Zionist

Twentynine Palms, CA

#12 Aug 12, 2012
"A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itseff." -- Milton Friedman
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

#13 Aug 12, 2012
Card Carrying Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
TARP was an "effective stopgap"? A stopgap between what and what? Between Bush's socialism and Obama's socialism? The idea that if you are big enough, you do not have to face the consequences of your incompetence (i.e. "too big to fail") was the rationalization for TARP. Bush makes clear in "Decision Points" that he expects there to be capitalism without risks. He also claimed that it was only his actions that saved us from another Depression. Like Obama saying that only his "stimulus' saved us from the "Second Great Depression." But even if one were to assume -- for the sake of argument -- that TARP was necessary, why wasn't it financed via budget cuts instead of via $700 billion in deficit spending? Both Obama and McCain were asked this in one of the debates, but they both dodged the issue. And when the funds are paid back, why isn't that used to pay down the debt and/or reduce excess liquidity in the economy.
Your claim that Ryan's "embrace of his economic policy leadership shows evolution" is interesting. Kind of like Obama's views on gay marriage "evolving" back and forth. Ryan was part of Boehner's ridiculous caving to Obama on the continuing resolution. Serious budget cuts over a decade are promised? And just what enforcement mechanism can be used to force future congresses to abide by the plan? But, leaving that all aside, I'll put more stock in Ryan's evolution when he openly admits that he was wrong on the Patriot Act, TARP, NCLB, Medicare Part D, the auto bailout, etc.
The idea that we have no choice but to elect big government types because we currently have big government is as valid as my saying I should look around and because California is currently in a fiscal mess, I have no choice but to vote for candidates who will perpetuate the fiscal mess.
Ryan is not a big government type, but is realistic, having to work with many of different mindsets. An approach to letting the country fall into a severe depression is not realistic. We won't know if Obama's actions can be reversed until we try. Saying we shouldn't try is nonsense. We do know that TARP was paid back. Fed policy is stupid. Obama won't change it and is dependent upon printing money. Romney/Ryan says that it will be changed and there are a few Democrats smart enough to support that attempt. I get the impression you haven't watched the Charlie Rose interview, or didn't listen to it.

Medicare Part D was in response to a severely challenged senior class on drugs. Criticisms such as yours says let them suffer with no attempt at a social safety net. Government programs are not perfect answers, but Ryan has an answer to Medicare, which he offers to start a conversation and fix a problem, whose core problem is the theft worked into the system by Democrats creating it to benefit the providers on the taxpayer's backs. You have no answers, only suffering. Your gambits on the other programs are simply designed to slam Ryan, but not acknowledge many other representatives also thinking they were appropriate responses to real problems. Perfection has always been a human direction, not a reality. Impatience has its place, but can be egotistical.

The Patriot Act hasn't affected you, unless you're an idiot. It can be dismantled, as other government programs. The entry into Congress and the Senate of many striving for less government and sound fiscal policies happened two years ago. For your sanity, I suggest you involve yourself in increasing their numbers, as Congress controls the purse. However, I get the impression you don't want a workable system, but a destroyed system and a suffering people. That's a deficient view of American history and strengths.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

#14 Aug 12, 2012
Card Carrying Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Your claim that Ryan's "embrace of his economic policy leadership shows evolution" is interesting.
...
Something I missed... I didn't say what you say I said. I said Romney's embrace of Ryan's economic policy leadership, etc., which has absolutely nothing in common with embracing sexual deviancy, nor the inherent childishness of Obama/Pelosi policies, which the CPUSA thinks they stole.

Also, your Friedman quote is copied incorrectly, or Friedman's an ass. Methinks its the former.
Card Carrying Zionist

Twentynine Palms, CA

#15 Aug 12, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
Something I missed... I didn't say what you say I said. I said Romney's embrace of Ryan's economic policy leadership, etc., which has absolutely nothing in common with embracing sexual deviancy, nor the inherent childishness of Obama/Pelosi policies, which the CPUSA thinks they stole. Also, your Friedman quote is copied incorrectly, or Friedman's an ass. Methinks its the former.
You're partly right. I misread part of you're posting -- you did refer to Romney and I thought that you meant Ryan. For that I apologize. The reference to evolution sounded quite similar to Obama's referrng to his views on gay marriage 'evolving."
Card Carrying Zionist

Twentynine Palms, CA

#16 Aug 12, 2012
You make excuses for intrusive government programs when they're perpetuated by Republicans. Not only that, but when Ryan's inconsistencies are pointed out, you attack the messenger. I don't expect you to agree with me -- you apparently are too emotionaly invested in the Romney/Ryan ticket to evaluate it objectively. If you think that an anyone-but Obama approach is what this country needs, fine, but when you say that I "have no answers, only suffering" because I point out Ryan's support for Bush's prescription payoff (Medicare Part D), you seem strangely reminiscent of the DEMs commercial claiming that Ryan wants to push old ladies off cliffs. You're free to oppose the Obama welfare state policies, but anyone who opposes the Bush/Romney welfare state policies must want people to suffer.
Saying we shouldn't try to reverse Obama's policies is nonsense. That's why I never said that.
What seems to be nonsensical to me is claiming that the solution to Obama's socialism is a return to Bush/Romney socialism lite. It was Bush who set the stage for Obama -- just like it was Romneycare that set the stage for Obamacare.
You claim that Obama is dependent upon printing money, yet Bush printed $700 billion to bail out those deemed "too big to fail" and Romney and Ryan supported it.
Rationalizing TARP with the claim that doing otherwise would let the country fall into a severe depression is a clever argument. It is a clever argument also when Obama claims that his stimulus program is the only thing that kept the US out of a severe depression. The reason why it's such a clever argument is because ut is logically non-disprovable.
You say that I want "a destroyed system and a suffering people". Ryan's Democratic opponents make the same claim about him regarding his Entitlement reform plan -- which is one of the thing that I like about him. Would you say the same about the many members of Congress who voted against TARP and other big government programs? Do Michele Bachmann and Jim Bunning want "a failed system and a suffering people." But if you can succeed in convincing people that anyone who doesn't drink the Romney/Ryan cool-aid wants failure and suffering, I give you credit for your rhetorical skill. It's similar to Rick Perry claiming that when Romney and others found fault with his policy towards illegal immigrants that they didn't "have a heart."
I give you credit for having chutzpah, but your socialist vision (even if it is a milder form of socialism than that advocated by Obama) does not impress me. I may vote for Romney/Ryan -- or I may vote third party -- but I will not vote for someone solely because he is "not as bad as the other guy." Leading the country off a cliff is wrong, even if it is done at a slower pace.
The economy is lousy, and may get worse. Romney/Ryan may be able to win as is, but if they adopt your policy of labeling libertarian-leaning conservatives as desirous of failure and suffering, they may dilute some of the enthusiasm that Ryan will inspire in the conservative base.
Card Carrying Zionist

Twentynine Palms, CA

#17 Aug 12, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
... Your gambits on the other programs are simply designed to slam Ryan, but not acknowledge many other representatives also thinking they were appropriate responses to real problems. Perfection has always been a human direction, not a reality. Impatience has its place, but can be egotistical...
Poor baby. Romney picks Ryan and not everyone who is skeptical of their welfare state vision immediately falls into line. If you think that my raising facts about Ryan's history is slamming him. just wait till he faces the mainstream media. Romney and Ryan may be able to win without dealing with questions about their respective histories, but I'm not so sure. To quote a great American: "You can run but ypu can't hide."
Card Carrying Zionist

Twentynine Palms, CA

#18 Aug 12, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
...The Patriot Act hasn't affected you, unless you're an idiot. It can be dismantled, as other government programs...
I'd be an idiot to not be concerned about it's limitations upon our liberties -- just because I have not yet been directly affected by it. On this one, I think that the ACLU has a point. But we wouldn't need to dismantle it if people like Ryan had not fallen into line to support it.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

#19 Aug 12, 2012
Card Carrying Zionist wrote:

<cut for ability to respond>
... I give you credit for your rhetorical skill. It's similar to Rick Perry claiming that when Romney and others found fault with his policy towards illegal immigrants that they didn't "have a heart."
I give you credit for having chutzpah, but your socialist vision (even if it is a milder form of socialism than that advocated by Obama) does not impress me. I may vote for Romney/Ryan -- or I may vote third party -- but I will not vote for someone solely because he is "not as bad as the other guy." Leading the country off a cliff is wrong, even if it is done at a slower pace.
The economy is lousy, and may get worse. Romney/Ryan may be able to win as is, but if they adopt your policy of labeling libertarian-leaning conservatives as desirous of failure and suffering, they may dilute some of the enthusiasm that Ryan will inspire in the conservative base.
The prominent problem in our communication skills here is that you've accepted the Democrat meme of Bush, Bush. How many times must I sneak it in on you, that Congress is the purse and Congress during the Bush years was Democrat and reactionary Republican. Bush taking the advice of his advisors to sign TARP is not enough reason to call it Bush's TARP, or Bush's Socialism. Bush was never the ideological leader of his Party and was confronted with Democrats inclined to trash the White House and undermine troops and America to bash Bush, i.e. regain control by dumbing down the populace into confusion and bitterness... which just so happens to be what you're doing with this focus. Yes, there is political maneuvering Romney has done, which might put him in good company with Fabians; yes, that causes concern. However, to have the ACTUAL ideological leader of the Republican Conservative arm as his running mate gives a strong message of Romney starting to understand the severe danger this nation is in because of the Obama/Pelosi team, again challenged by the Communist Party itself as a thief of their platform.

Listen to Ryan. It'll raise your IQ twenty points up front. He and I recognize you will not get Americans to vote extremist rhetoric, but effective policy changes can be had if explained clearly. You will never get a firebrand in the White House and if you did, it would be dangerous.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

#20 Aug 12, 2012
Card Carrying Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor baby. Romney picks Ryan and not everyone who is skeptical of their welfare state vision immediately falls into line. If you think that my raising facts about Ryan's history is slamming him. just wait till he faces the mainstream media. Romney and Ryan may be able to win without dealing with questions about their respective histories, but I'm not so sure. To quote a great American: "You can run but ypu can't hide."
Crap. There is no Romney/Ryan "welfare state vision." The current maintenances and planned necessary dismantling of that obscenity is a political REALITY, which a Communist invaded Democrat Party put in play over the last four decades. You will not get the 50% of voters in this country inclined to vote for some big teat in the sky to vote for a firebrand even slightly mimicking your extremist speech. The renewed education of a nation must happen alongside reasoned approaches to upgrading the nation's character through implemented law put in play by a CONGRESS representing the good efforts of people capable of speaking to them clearly without necessarily calling them the selfish, thieving, lying pigs they are. To make it work in the way ultimately benefiting your children, etc., there has to be representation in both Houses and the White House to proffer and then sign the legislation. Work toward that, not setting the nation up for believing it must fail first.

This is seventh grade civics stuff... why in hell am I having to explain it to you?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Leesburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Chiro Kent Clark Aug 22 for real 2
News Rubio calls Trump a con artist, mocks a small h... Aug 8 Happy Virgin 140
News Who Would Jesus Deport? (Jul '14) Aug 8 Draft dodgers 133
News NBC boss: We're not to blame for launching Trum... Aug 4 Auction Block 1
howdy folks trump Aug 2 trump a loser 2
how do you hatch eggs faster on pokemon go? Jul 26 steve621 1
Heroin Users and dealers. (Jan '16) Jul '16 George 2

Leesburg Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Leesburg Mortgages