Somewhat ironic. You still haven't recognised how it's your viewpoint that restricts homosexual couples the same freedom to celebrate their relationship in public as any heterosexual couple currently has the right to, but feel free to accuse Quyneax of the same crime.

 

Emotional blackmail, projection and now deflection. A substantiated argument would be great for your credibility right about now.

Going back to your definition of progressives and conservatives (@ sees), the current law forces x and doesn't allow y. From your definition, a conservative should be fighting to legalize gay marriage to give people more choice; allow them to choose between x and y.

 

I think you should come up with a better definition/understanding, since when applied to pretty much every social issue on the table right now, your definition is actually ass backwards since the conservatives are legislating to limit freedoms, or resisting legislation that would expand freedoms.

Somewhat ironic. You still haven't recognised how it's your viewpoint that restricts homosexual couples the same freedom to celebrate their relationship in public as any heterosexual couple currently has the right to, but feel free to accuse Quyneax of the same crime.

 

Emotional blackmail, projection and now deflection. A substantiated argument would be great for your credibility right about now.

Going back to your definition of progressives and conservatives (@ sees), the current law forces x and doesn't allow y. From your definition, a conservative should be fighting to legalize gay marriage to give people more choice; allow them to choose between x and y.

 

I think you should come up with a better definition/understanding, since when applied to pretty much every social issue on the table right now, your definition is actually ass backwards since the conservatives are legislating to limit freedoms, or resisting legislation that would expand freedoms.

Reread it again,

A conservative realizes that x is good for them and y is bad for them. They then resolve to do more of x and less of y.

A progressive realizes the same thing, and then petitions to get a law passed that forces people to do x and penalizes people from doing y.

The difference between the two is implementation. Literally what progressives are trying to do is legislate something to change the status quo.

 

I'll give another example of something that isn't such a hot button issue. Poverty. Both conservatives and progressives will say it sucks to be poor, and that we should do something to help the poor. The difference is implementation. A conservative will volunteer their time/talent/treasure to help the poor, a progressive will pass legislation that gets government to help the poor.

Am i only one who thinks Mitt will win the souht states and some major mideastern states?

That's a decent example sees. I think that applies better with your point as well. For issues like marriage where there is no money or anything involved, just rights and freedoms, that hits me as a purely moral issue.

Am i only one who thinks Mitt will win the souht states and some major mideastern states?

 

http://www.270towin....s.php?mapid=oKH

 

This is my map at this point. Pennsylvania is neutral because of the voter ID laws that could end up stopping a lot of people from being able to vote.

Somewhat ironic. You still haven't recognised how it's your viewpoint that restricts homosexual couples the same freedom to celebrate their relationship in public as any heterosexual couple currently has the right to, but feel free to accuse Quyneax of the same crime.

 

Emotional blackmail, projection and now deflection. A substantiated argument would be great for your credibility right about now.

Going back to your definition of progressives and conservatives (@ sees), the current law forces x and doesn't allow y. From your definition, a conservative should be fighting to legalize gay marriage to give people more choice; allow them to choose between x and y.

 

I think you should come up with a better definition/understanding, since when applied to pretty much every social issue on the table right now, your definition is actually ass backwards since the conservatives are legislating to limit freedoms, or resisting legislation that would expand freedoms.

Reread it again,

A conservative realizes that x is good for them and y is bad for them. They then resolve to do more of x and less of y.

A progressive realizes the same thing, and then petitions to get a law passed that forces people to do x and penalizes people from doing y.

The difference between the two is implementation. Literally what progressives are trying to do is legislate something to change the status quo.

 

I'll give another example of something that isn't such a hot button issue. Poverty. Both conservatives and progressives will say it sucks to be poor, and that we should do something to help the poor. The difference is implementation. A conservative will volunteer their time/talent/treasure to help the poor, a progressive will pass legislation that gets government to help the poor.

 

But a government IS there to legislate. I can't understand the blank disliking of any government involvement. I mean, I'm from Europe so maybe I'm just not familiar with that mindset (which is why I tend to hold back in this discussion), but...If a government has a decent law to help the poor, it could be so much more effective than individual involvement. I don't understand how legislation in itself is a bad thing.

Vermin Supreme 2012!

Romney made himself look like a twit in Britain - the Olympic inconsistency and referring to Miliband as 'Mr Leader' has aroused universal s[racist term]ing at him amongst the political-types I know.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18995166

On the plus side for those of us in the Labour Party... at least someone's eventually recognised him as a leader.

 

He really did show a lot of characteristics British people like to hate about America, arrogance being the most obvious, but there is an element of opportunism from our own politicians. It distracts attention away from the ban on Taxi strikes and security issues quite nicely. As an aside, I worked at Old Trafford yesterday for the Men's Football and I was slightly concerned about security, though of course my substantiation of Mitt's concerns 1) don't mean a lot--I'm a medic, not a security expert; and 2) don't really excuse the way he handled those comments.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-prepares-pick-ryan_649722.html

http://washingtonexaminer.com/breaking-mitt-romney-announcing-vp-pick-at-the-uss-wisconsin/article/2504626#.UCXUpZ1lTng\

 

It looks like Romney will be picking Paul Ryan for his running mate. He seems like a strange pick to me, him being to the right of Romney when Romney needs to appeal to independents.

Paul Ryan is a good choice. What Romney needs to do is contrast himself with Obama, not appease any specific political group. When the time comes to vote, Romney needs to shape the decision as big government and nanny state, versus freedom and self reliance.

 

Other conventional wisdom says "do no harm," which means the VP needs to be as boring as Romney. If I were ignore that and pick my top 5, they'd probably be Allen West, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Condoleezza Rice, and Bobby Jindal.

I would have chosen Rob Portman were I in Romney's position. Ohio is a must win state for him, and Portman had the traits of not having any conflicting positions and not overshadowing Romney.

 

Ryan will be too conservative for a lot of independents who were leaning Romney because they don't think Obama has done a good job with the economy. I'd say Ryan is appeasing the tea party at the expense of those who may support smaller government but not like the idea of gutting medicare and social security.

 

Obama is going to have a field day with the Ayn Rand stuff too.

Yep, Paul Ryan got the nod from Romney.

Story.

 

Will be interesting to see what campaigns come out of Obama camp now.

http://www.barackobama.com/romney/ryan/?source=em12_20120811_da_nd&utm_medium=email&utm_source=obama&utm_campaign=em12_20120811_da_nd

 

They're already hitting hard. It'll be interesting to see what the polls do over the next week.

Apparently Paul Ryan is unknown in Florida, which is too bad. Tea party is gaga over him though, so he's energized the conservative base.

Risky choice but probably the right one...romney has to appeal to the tea party on some level to have any chance of winning.

They wouldn't have voted Obama, but they might have not voted in protest of the two or gone third party.

I feel that Paul Ryan is also very eloquent with blue collar workers (Ohio and other rust belt states), which is why he's done well in Wisconsin.

Ryan wants to gut medicare and social security, which is a death sentence for Florida. Without Florida, Romney's path to 270 gets really narrow.

Surely the tea party was going to vote for Romney anyway, even if they don't completely agree with him. Put simply, he holds their best chance of stopping Obama, which is what they really​ want. I think it's a bad strategy to appeal to those you've already won over, especially in a democratic system where there's only two real options to choose from: right wing and (what you like to think is) "left" wing.

 

In history, the right has always been more willing than the left to back a candidate they don't fully see eye-to-eye with. Which makes it even more baffling he would choose someone so fundamentally conservative. He needs to win over the 'middle ground', he won't with Ryan.

I hope Joe Biden remains as the VP pick and continues to campaign for Obama.

Not really too much difference between Romney/Obama so I really dont care.

 

Obviously voted for Ron Paul in this.

I hope Joe Biden remains as the VP pick and continues to campaign for Obama.

 

The quote wasn't even that bad, assuming that's what you're referring to.

The calls for Joe Biden to step down are empty. That man has had many worse pseudo-gaffes. He's an imbecile, but he knows how to own that role and uses it to divert attention to himself from Obama. Clever bit of politicking if you ask me.

Tbh, I actually want Romney to win. Certainly not because I like him, but just because I don't think it's going to make a difference, and I want to say I was around for x number of administrations.

Tbh, I actually want Romney to win. Certainly not because I like him, but just because I don't think it's going to make a difference, and I want to say I was around for x number of administrations.

 

Correct it wont make a difference.

 

The following are 40 ways that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are essentially the same candidate….

 

1. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney

TARP.

 

2. Mitt Romney supported Barack Obama’s “economic stimulus” packages.

 

3. Mitt Romney says that Barack Obama’s bailout of the auto industry was actually his idea.

 

4. Neither candidate supports immediately balancing the federal budget.

 

5. They both believe in big government and they both have a track record of being big spenders while in office.

 

6. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both fully support the Federal Reserve.

 

7. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both on record as saying that the president should not question the “independence” of the Federal Reserve.

 

8. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both said that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke did a good job during the last financial crisis.

 

9. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both felt that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke deserved to be renominated to a second term.

 

10. Both candidates oppose a full audit of the Federal Reserve.

 

11. Both candidates are on record as saying that U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has done a good job.

 

12. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both been big promoters of universal health care.

 

13. Mitt Romney was the one who developed the plan that Obamacare was later based upon.

 

14. Wall Street absolutely showers both candidates with campaign contributions.

 

15. Neither candidate wants to eliminate the income tax or the IRS.

 

16. Both candidates want to keep personal income tax rates at the exact same levels for the vast majority of Americans.

 

17. Both candidates are “open” to the idea of imposing a Value Added Tax on the American people.

 

18. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the TSA is doing a great job.

 

19. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the NDAA.

 

20. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act.

 

21. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the federal government should be able to indefinitely detain American citizens that are considered to be terrorists.

 

22. Both candidates believe that American citizens suspected of being terrorists can be killed by the president without a trial.

 

23. Barack Obama has not closed Guantanamo Bay like he promised to do, and Mitt Romney actually wants to double the number of prisoners held there.

 

24. Both candidates support the practice of “extraordinary rendition”.

 

25. They both support the job-killing “free trade” agenda of the global elite.

 

26. They both accuse each other of shipping jobs out of the country and both of them are right.

 

27. Both candidates are extremely soft on illegal immigration.

 

28. Neither candidate has any military experience. This is the first time that this has happened in a U.S. election since 1944.

 

29. Both candidates earned a degree from Harvard University.

 

30. They both believe in the theory of man-made global warming.

 

31. Mitt Romney has said that he will support a “cap and trade” carbon tax scheme (like the one Barack Obama wants) as long

.

 

32. Both candidates have a very long record of supporting strict gun control measures.

 

33. Both candidates have been pro-abortion most of their careers. Mitt Romney’s “conversion” to the pro-life cause has been questioned by many. In fact, Mitt Romney has made millions on Bain Capital’s investment in a company called “Stericycle” that incinerates aborted babies collected from family planning clinics.

 

34. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the Boy Scout ban on openly gay troop leaders is wrong.

 

35. They both believe that a “two state solution” will bring lasting peace between the Palestinians and Israel.

 

36. Both candidates have a history of nominating extremely liberal judges.

 

37. Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney also plans to add “signing statements” to bills when he signs them into law.

 

38. They both have a horrible record when it comes to job creation.

 

39. Both candidates believe that the president has the power to take the country to war without getting the approval of the U.S. Congress.

 

40. Both candidates plan to continue running up more government debt even though the U.S. government is already 16 trillion dollars in debt.