When Irish Go Bad...

[LTS TRN 2]

..it can go very bad. For example, Joseph McCarthy, lunatic power wand from Wisconsin (died in an insane asylum :wink: )--just like the insufferable and utterly disgusting twisted child that is Paul Ryan.

Here we go. Ready?

Really?

Suffice to say, this robot of reactionary reductionism makes a parking meter seem like Jefferson. But..notice how he reflexively repeats his mantra loops, as though perhaps the Area 51 crowd might be right about bundled and branded planted drones.

Do the powers that be actually want Barry to win?

[mvscal]

the insufferable and utterly disgusting twisted child that is Paul Ryan.

Said the cockroach to the kitchen light.



Yes, how "insufferable" and "disgusting" to have a candid discussion of the true cost of the legislation you morons have foisted on the taxpayer.

I can see why he frightens you. He actually knows what the fuck he's talking about.

[Mikey]

ltr: the Republican ticket

[Mikey]

Glad to see Mrs. Romney made it back from London

[Wolfman]

Silly me. I thought this was something to do with Notre Dame. Carry on. BTW--Ryan is of German and Irish ancestry. Then again facts never get in the way of leftist/statist personal destruction.

[R-Jack]

Ryan is of German and Irish ancestry.

[Bizzarofelice]

Ryan is of German and Irish ancestry.

my peoples

[The Seer]

Suffice to say, this robot of reactionary reductionism makes a parking meter seem like Jefferson.

We'd so like to swoon over the intellectual achievements of Barry Sotero, but he's paying tons of money to keep all his collegiate records sealed....denying (us) that opportunity....

[Mikey]

Barry Sotero,

I see what you're doing here. You mean Obama, right?

You're right up there with poptart when it comes to originality.

[The Seer]

I see what you're doing here. You mean Obama, right?

I was referencing his college days...not sure what surname he was using at that point....

[Bizzarofelice]

I see what you're doing here. You mean Obama, right?

I was referencing his college days...not sure what surname he was using at that point....

Barack Obama... pres of harvard law review
the seer... bitter cunt on a messageboard

obama 1
cunt 0

[The Seer]

We'd so like to swoon over the intellectual achievements of Barry Sotero

Swoon away.

Just a tad light on specifics.....

[The Seer]

[quote="Bizzarofelice"][/quote]

[Bizzarofelice]

[quote="Bizzarofelice"][/quote]
you missed



the scoreboard still remains...

obama 1
'98 smack 0

[Screw_Michigan]

Barack Obama... pres of harvard law review
the seer... bitter cunt on a messageboard

obama 1
cunt 0

I'll rack that.

[LTS TRN 2]

That which is utterly disgusting and false about Ryan's simplistic looped mantra-speak is that he is clearly targeting only areas of spending like Social Security and Medicare, while ignoring completely the critical sinkhole of our economy, the military industrial complex. He is nothing but a shill for the lunatic war mongering neocons and industrialists. Of course the Koch brothers love this tool, as do the Zionazis and the insurance companies, the oil industry and the Wall St. shysters, and of course the right wing radio hacks. Everyone that wants an INCREASE in the radical and dangerous shift in wealth which has accelerated with such starkness in the past ten years loves this robot. For his part, none of his radical agenda has come to pass and he has existed as a scarecrow, basically, threatening draconian slash and burn legislation (which will of course cost this heinous ticket from hell the election). As for his being part German, well Ayn Rand wasn't all Irish either, and she died pleading for Medicare.

[Truman]

Question, L-TARD:

So are we better off today than we were $5 Trillion ago?

Let's review:

Under Olawnjockey, 3 1/2 lonnggg years of his "stewardship" has brought us

...An $831 Billion stimulus plan that was supposed to reinvest in America and hold unemployment to 6%. Instead, we've had 43 months of 8%+ unemployment and nothing to show for our "investment". Oyardape's plan? Why, let's do it again! And your take is that Ryan is a whack-job?

...A constitutionally spurious health care entitlement that has already been scored to cost $1.68 Trillion in new spending the first decade alone - not to mention the uncertainty the new law has created impacting the hiring of workers and expansion of business within the private sector.

...A jobs-killing, brain-dead commitment to green energy that will only further cripple our economy. Need proof? Look no further than the drilling moratorium Ochiclets slapped on the Gulf, or his promise to bankrupt the coal industry. And can you say "Keystone"? Oh, and do we reallyneed to bring up Solyndra again?

...And dozens of other foibles that defy coherence and are too ludicrous to list

So Paul Ryan has the cubes to trot out a "path to prosperity" designed to pull America off the mat, and you're advocating four more years of Offirmativeaction?

Ponderous.

[LTS TRN 2]

Let's do a little reality check, Trupid. First, the lunatic GOP Reagan crowd finally succeeded in dismantling Glass-Steagall (with the conniving compliance of Bubba), and under the auspices of the New Pearl Harbor launched the utterly fake and illegal Permanent War. These two drastic acts have led to the world wide economic meltdown as well as the sinkhole of our military industrial complex run amok.

As for Barry's sell-out to the insurance companies in fashioning his health care plan, this is to his great shame. But we as a people--as a First World nation-- deserve universal health care just like all the other developed nations. The perverse simplistic hackdom droning from right wing radio--which is exactly your simplistic and tedious mouthings--is some sort of dog-eat-dog and pass the ammo mindset, and your basic fear and cowardice have completely subsumed your whole act. Which is really nothing to begin with.

Ryan is a shill. Start there and examine just what his puppeteers are aiming for. Consider that military production now constitutes our number one export. Just stop and think about that. And ask the obvious question: what sort of business model would these military industrialists seek to promote?

[Van]

Offirmativeaction

I hate myself for laughing at that, yet laugh I did. That's a good one.

...Truman

[LTS TRN 2]

You are easily amused in your medicated state, Van. From enjoying the tedious noodling of Gopher to the insipid parrotings of Trupid, you could just roll back and forth and watch the horsies in your mind. Well wake the fuck up and start dealing with the fact that over 50% of our discretionary spending now goes to the military--yeah, that's a record, and is in addition to the actual defense budget itself--also at a record high. And why are we at an all-time military spending peak? Are we at war with some great power? Gee...something is horribly criminally wrong with this entire proposition. Surely a budget expert like Paul Ryan would see a a serious problem with an out-of-control military industry, no? What...not a peep from Ryan?

[Van]

You are easily amused in your medicated state, Van.

Easily amused...perhaps. Medicated? Not in the least. Just one Advil in more than a week, and that's it, unless you count B6 and B12 as medications.

you could just roll back and forth and watch the horsies in your mind.

Okay, that was funny! <--------easily amused.

But sure, why not...

[LTS TRN 2]

Enough of your weird wandering digressions. Here, have a big ol' belly laugh at this putrid pile of facts...

WASHINGTON -- As much as $60 billion in U.S. funds has been lost to waste and fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade through lax oversight of contractors, poor planning and payoffs to warlords and insurgents, an independent panel investigating U.S. wartime spending estimates.

In its final report to Congress, the Commission on Wartime Contracting said the figure could grow as U.S. support for reconstruction projects and programs wanes, leaving both countries to bear the long-term costs of sustaining the schools, medical clinics, barracks, roads and power plants already built with American tax dollars.

Much of the waste and fraud could have been avoided with better planning and more aggressive oversight, the commission said. To avoid repeating the mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan, government agencies should overhaul the way they award and manage contracts in war zones, the commission recommended.


Now if some zombie like Ryan is really going to stand up and start quacking about how Social Security is somehow to blame, well you need to start laughing at him, not chortling along like these other clowns. Now get the fuck out of bed.

[Truman]

Let's do a little reality check, Trupid. First, the lunatic GOP Reagan crowd finally succeeded in dismantling Glass-Steagall (with the conniving compliance of Bubba), and under the auspices of the New Pearl Harbor launched the utterly fake and illegal Permanent War. These two drastic acts have led to the world wide economic meltdown as well as the sinkhole of our military industrial complex run amok.

Patented horseshit.

Glass-Steagall provisions didn’t even apply to the banking meltdown, and banks acquiring securities firms actually helped lessen the crisis. Mix in an awareness, you stupid asshat. As for your illegal Permanent War, what part of the Preamble of the United States Constitution defeats your comprehension?

Do you even have a fucking clue what you’re ranting about or do your therapists suggest that parroting leftist platitudes is supposed to make you feel better about yourself?

As for Barry's sell-out to the insurance companies in fashioning his health care plan, this is to his great shame. But we as a people--as a First World nation-- deserve universal health care just like all the other developed nations.

Who says we deserve universal health care? What’s next, LTS FDR2? Do we also deserve a car? A home? A job? Free college tuition? But why stop there? Don’t we deserve free plasma screens and smart phones too?

Just kill yourself, you mendacious fucking twit.

The perverse simplistic hackdom droning from right wing radio--which is exactly your simplistic and tedious mouthings--is some sort of dog-eat-dog and pass the ammo mindset, and your basic fear and cowardice have completely subsumed your whole act. Which is really nothing to begin with.

As opposed to the boot-slap, goose-step leftist harangue we’ve all come to love, know, and expect from you, L-TARD? Gotcha.

BTW, fear and cowardice? For real? Of whom? You people?







Hardly.

Quick question: What do all these people have in common? Answer: None of them work.

Ryan is a shill. Start there and examine just what his puppeteers are aiming for. Consider that military production now constitutes our number one export. Just stop and think about that. And ask the obvious question: what sort of business model would these military industrialists seek to promote?

And Barry is a fraud. Try again, L-Ted:

http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/t ... ports.html

No, the obvious question is why your keepers allow you Internet access.

[mvscal]

Consider that military production now constitutes our number one export. Just stop and think about that.

Needless to say, you are totally full of shit....again.

Meanwhile back in reality, refined petroleum products now constitute our number one export.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... 52298812/1

Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously when just about everything you say can be proven false in about five seconds?

[LTS TRN 2]

As usual you robots are desperately avoiding the basic fact of this whole military industrial predicament: The Pentagon pays an average of $400 to put a gallon of fuel into a combat vehicle or aircraft in Afghanistan. The scope of what constitutes "military exports" goes far beyond simple massive round numbers of America's tax dollars down a hole (hundreds of billions). And with whom are we supposedly enjoined in such hostility that would require the biggest military budget in the history of the planet? An abstract noun? "Al Qaeda"? Does anyone really pretend to believe this even exists?

Meanwhile, Ryan and the lunatic wing of the GOP--which is now at the helm--actually want to increase this monstrosity--callously at the direct expense of America's basic infrastructure. The astonishingly brazen military/corporate agenda since the New Pearl Harbor has proven every bit as corrupt, flailing, and catastrophic as the international banking crisis (you know, the LIBOR scandal which our mainstream media is trying to ignore). We've won nothing in Iraq except to align it directly with Iran. The Afghanistan invasion stands as a special model of rigidly insane disgrace, far exceeding the failures of the British and Soviets.

Now this is the basic problem of our economy. We've shamelessly become a military industrial nation, and these utterly amoral transnational corporations are required by their corporate creed to increase profits, which means fomenting wars, etc. It's a horrid cycle of which Ike duly tried to warn us. Add to this the most ghastly factor, that of the entire congress being in the direct thrall (blackmail) of the ruthless coiled and cornered fake apartheid state--which desperately wants to launch a big one (America strikes Iran's "missile sites" while the IDF hits Syria). This is the crisis beneath the basic problem. Now shut up with your dribbling Hannity-speak and wake the fuck up.

[mvscal]

The guy is extreme personified.

Paul Ryan’s Extreme Abortion Views

Don't try to excerpt his remarks. Include the entire document. It isn't voluminous. Once you're done reading it, highlight the "extreme views" if you would be so kind.

The Cause of Life Can’t be Severed from the Cause of Freedom
by Representative Paul Ryan

September 20, 2010
Published in the Heritage Foundation's Indivisible, February 2010

I write as an unswerving proponent of both free market choice and the natural right to life. It is unfortunate that “life” and “choice” were ever separated and viewed as alternatives. This is a false dilemma. Logically, each implicates the other.

I am deeply committed to capitalism, the “system of natural liberty,” as Adam Smith called it. Free markets create unparalleled prosperity and have a moral basis in freedom and choice. Under capitalism, people exercise their right to choose products and services they prefer, to pursue the job or career they desire, the business they wish to establish or deal with, the kinds of investments and savings they favor, and many more options. These choices reflect individuals’ hope to improve their lives and to develop their full human potential. While freedom of choice alone doesn’t guarantee happiness, it is essential to the pursuit of happiness.

As a champion of capitalism, I strongly support every person’s right to make these economic choices and to fight against government efforts to limit them. Freedom and the choice it implies are moral rights which Americans are granted, not from government but from the principles that have made this a great and prosperous society. These principles uphold the equal natural rights of all human beings to live, be free, and pursue happiness, insofar as the exercise of these rights does not violate the corresponding rights of others. Individuals grow in responsibility, wisdom, intelligence, and other human qualities by making choices that satisfy their unique needs and by avoiding things that do not. Government helps maintain the rule of law that makes all this possible, but government’s role is very limited when it comes to our specific choices. Under our Constitution, government’s job is to guarantee the universal human rights of its citizens. By virtue of its mission in this social contract, government cannot possess unlimited power.

Yet to ensure that this guarantee is consistently provided, the government first needs to determine whose rights should be protected—that is, what the concept of a human being entitled to natural rights denotes. The rights of any entity that qualifies as “human” must be protected.

The car which I exercised my freedom of choice to purchase is not such an entity and does not “qualify” for protection of human rights. I can drive it, lend it, kick it, sell it, or junk it, at will. On the other hand, the widow who lives next door does “qualify” as a person, and the government must secure her human rights, which cannot be abandoned to anyone’s arbitrary will.

Rights and Personhood
Yet, identifying who “qualifies” as a human being has historically proved to be more difficult than the above examples suggest. Twice in the past the U.S. Supreme Court—charged with being the guardian of rights—has failed so drastically in making this crucial determination that it “disqualified” a whole category of human beings, with profoundly tragic results.

The first time was in the 1857 case, Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Court held, absurdly, that Africans and their American descendants, whether slave or free, could not be citizens with a right to go to court to enforce contracts or rights or for any other reason. Why? Because “among the whole human race,” the Court declared, “the enslaved African race were not intended to be included…[T]hey had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” In other words, persons of African origin did not “qualify” as human beings for purposes of protecting their natural rights. It was held that, since the white man did not recognize them as having such rights, they didn’t have them. The implication was that Africans were property—things that white persons could choose to buy and sell. In contrast, whites did “qualify,” so government protected their natural rights.

Every person in this country was wounded the day this dreadful opinion was handed down by this nation’s highest tribunal. It made a mockery of the American idea that human equality and rights were given by God and recognized by government, not constructed by governments or ethnic groups by consensus vote. The abhorrent decision directly led to terrible bloodshed and opened up a racial gap that has never been completely overcome. The second time the Court failed in a case regarding the definition of “human” was in Roe v. Wade in 1973, when the Supreme Court made virtually the identical mistake. At what point in time does a human being exist, the state of Texas asked. The Court refused to answer: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” In other words, the Court would not “qualify” unborn children as living persons whose human rights must be guaranteed.

Since the Court decided there was no “consensus” on when fetuses become human persons, it struck down abortion restrictions in all 50 states that thought they had reached a “consensus.” Only those already born “qualified” for protection. Moreover, the already born were empowered to deny, at will, the rights of persons still in the womb. The Court did not say that, given the lack of consensus, the matter ought to be left to the states. It did not choose to err on the side of caution, since human lives might be at stake. Nor did it choose not to rule on the matter. These options would seem to be rational courses in light of the Court’s stated agnosticism. Instead, the Court used the lack of consensus to justify prohibiting states from protecting the life of the unborn.

Like the Dred Scott decision, this opinion has wounded America and solved nothing. It has set good people on all sides against each other, fueled a culture war, split churches, soured politics, and greatly strained civil dialogue. A recent Gallup poll showed that 51 percent of Americans consider themselves pro-life, 42 percent are pro-choice, and 7 percent not sure.1

President Obama has done nothing to bridge the gap. During his campaign last year, he was asked when a “baby” has “human rights.” He answered by practically repeating the Supreme Court’s confused response: “[W]hether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” God alone, he implied, knows whether babies are human beings!

Now, after America has won the last century’s hard-fought struggles against unequal human rights in the forms of totalitarianism abroad and segregation at home, I cannot believe any official or citizen can still defend the notion that an unborn human being has no rights that an older person is bound to respect. I do know that we cannot go on forever feigning agnosticism about who is human. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.” The freedom to choose is pointless for someone who does not have the freedom to live. So the right of “choice” of one human being cannot trump the right to “life” of another. How long can we sustain our commitment to freedom if we continue to deny the very foundation of freedom—life—for the most vulnerable human beings?

At the core, today’s “pro-choice” liberals are deeply pessimistic. They denigrate life and offer fear of the present and the future—fear of too many choices and too many children. Rather than seeing children and human beings as a benefit, the “pro-choice” position implies that they are a burden. Despite the “pro-choice” label, liberals’ stance on this subject actually diminishes choices, lowers goals, and leads us to live with less. That includes reducing the number of human beings who can make choices.

In contrast, pro-life conservatives are natural optimists. On balance, we see human beings as assets, not liabilities. All conservatives should find it easy to agree that government must uphold every person’s right to make choices regarding their lives and that every person’s right to live must be secured before he or she can exercise that right of choice. In the state of nature—the “law of the jungle”—the determination of who “qualifies” as a human being is left to private individuals or chosen groups. In a justly organized community, however, government exists to secure the right to life and the other human rights that follow from that primary right.

Conservatives can bridge the gap on issues of life and choice by building on the solid rock of natural rights, which belong, not just to some, but to all human beings.

Paul Ryan represents the 1st District of Wisconsin in the U.S. House of Representatives.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

pie

"GET THE FUCK OUTTA MY WAY! OM-NOM-NOM-NOM..."

Sincerely,

:rumple:

[LTS TRN 2]

Here's a chart tard - are you smart enough to see the slices of the pie?

What's your point here? That the Defense chunk isn't huge enough? Well don't worry because that simple pie chart doesn't include "discretionary" spending. In fact your pie is total bullshit. It's the auto-spurt from Hannity hacks like Mall Cop. Check this out.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm


As for Ryan's insane and fascist approach to women's rights, he sounds exactly like some bible thumping zealot from the Middle Ages. Every sperm is sacred. Wasn't that a Monty Python skit? How dare he assume the right to impose his religious doctrine and philosophy upon others? This kind of ignorant and intolerant aggression is exactly what America has been formed to oppose.

[poptart]

The guy is extreme personified.

Good job, Romney.

Paul Ryan’s Extreme Abortion Views

Any Republican vice-presidential candidate is going to be broadly anti-abortion, but Ryan goes much further. He believes ending a pregnancy should be illegal even when it results from rape or incest, or endangers a woman’s health. He was a cosponsor of the Sanctity of Human Life Act, a federal bill defining fertilized eggs as human beings, which, if passed, would criminalize some forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization. The National Right to Life Committee has scored his voting record 100 percent every year since he entered the House in 1999. “I’m as pro-life as a person gets,” he told The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack in 2010. “You’re not going to have a truce.”

[Dr_Phibes]

The Cause of Life Can’t be Severed from the Cause of Freedom
by Representative Paul Ryan

So he hasn't any historical background, nothing in sociology and no belief in subtlety. He's got a reductionist notion of liberty and a blurry, ahistorical concept of government.

This tells me he's a lazy cunt or stupid, don't vote for this guy, he's bad news.

[poptart]

Question, L-TARD:

So are we better off today than we were $5 Trillion ago?

Let's review:

Under Olawnjockey, 3 1/2 lonnggg years of his "stewardship" has brought us

...An $831 Billion stimulus plan that was supposed to reinvest in America and hold unemployment to 6%. Instead, we've had 43 months of 8%+ unemployment and nothing to show for our "investment". Oyardape's plan? Why, let's do it again! And your take is that Ryan is a whack-job?

Ryan...

- Voted YES on TARP (2008)
- Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
- Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
- Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)


Oops.

...A constitutionally spurious health care entitlement that has already been scored to cost $1.68 Trillion in new spending the first decade alone - not to mention the uncertainty the new law has created impacting the hiring of workers and expansion of business within the private sector.

...A jobs-killing, brain-dead commitment to green energy that will only further cripple our economy. Need proof? Look no further than the drilling moratorium Ochiclets slapped on the Gulf, or his promise to bankrupt the coal industry. And can you say "Keystone"? Oh, and do we reallyneed to bring up Solyndra again?

...And dozens of other foibles that defy coherence and are too ludicrous to list

So Paul Ryan has the cubes to trot out a "path to prosperity" designed to pull America off the mat, and you're advocating four more years of Offirmativeaction?

Ponderous.

Ryan's Path to Prosperity blueprint doesn't call for a balanced budget ---> for 30 years.

lol

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html


Don't we sort of need to speed that up a bit?




These are our fiscal conservatives??

:|

[Truman]

Twenty years, but then again you've been run out of every thread you've posted in this week.

So you prefer the fiscal liberals currently in charge? Oops, indeed.

Uncle Kim can't nuke your stupid ass fast enough...

[poptart]

By 2040, the CBO estimates that this budget (Ryan's) will produce
annual surpluses and begin paying down the national debt

So you prefer the fiscal liberals currently in charge?

No.

But don't be confused into imagining that by voting for Romney/Ryan you will be asking for anything other than more fiscal liberalism.

I choose not to encourage and validate the GOP by voting for more of their dogshit.


I give Ryan some props for at least trying to engage with the current administration in an adult manner about our very serious budget problems, but offering a paln that balances the budget 30 years from now doesn't cut it.

And we can't ignore what he has voted for, can we?

He is what he is.

More establishment who's there to pull the wool over the eyes of gullible idiots.

[LTS TRN 2]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/1 ... 67766.html

Look, slopfart, your entire paradigm is a pile of leaves. Ayn Rand is one of the greatest frauds in the history of American pop culture, and this weird robot is juuuust about ready to run off the rails grammatically as well as logically. He's a simplistic immature fixated twirp who should be on some watch lists instead of the big ticket. And by the way, Romney is 100% Irish. :wink:

[poptart]

What's my paradigm supposed to be?

You're making no sense at all.

[R-Jack]

And by the way, Romney is 100% Irish. :wink:

Alright, I'll give some head to the ni66ers and chinks, but I don't want the Irish.

~LTard~

[smackaholic]

....unlesstheir name is Kennedy.

And they're "good catholics".

[BSmack]

Ryan is of German and Irish ancestry.

Well, let me tell you something, my kraut-mick friend, I'm gonna make so much trouble for you, you won t know what hit you!

[Bizzarofelice]

And by the way, Romney is 100% Irish. :wink:

I thought his grandfather and grandmothers were mexican.

[LTS TRN 2]

C'mon guys, wake up and keep up. It's true that several of Mitten's parts were manufactured in Mexico (thanks NAFTA), but assembly was completed right here in the U.S. (non-union workers in a garage). He's American, okay?

Robots are people, my friend...I like firing humans...