Romney Taps Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan As Running Mate

Shortly after 9 a.m. Eastern time Saturday, Republican candidate Mitt Romney officially announced (via phone app) his selection of 42-year-old Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as running mate for the 2012 U.S. presidential race. Ryan's selection was announced by the Romney campaign to various media outlets earlier this morning. Ryan is considered popular among a wide range of Republican voters, being a budget hawk who favors less liberal laws concerning abortion. Ryan's lauded popularity among Tea Party voters is mixed; some reports describe him as a Tea Party favorite, others as a far-right imposter.

Comments

Re:News for Nerds???!!

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck is this news for nerds?? Its not remotely related to tech or topics that slashdot normally covers.

This does not belong on slashdot. Stop using this as your personal blog, timothy.

Now I expect this to turn into a left-wing bashfest. Commence.

neither is your comment, but you posted it anyway. Stop using slasdot as your personal rebuttal space.

Re:Was that from Armageddon

[Anonymous Coward]

Mitt Romney introduces Paul Ryan as the "next President of the United States"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTzssn6JQVQ

Focus Will Be On Economy

[ScentCone]

No matter how much the left will want to make this about Ryan wanting to kill little old ladies (as in their ad showing him literally throwing one off a cliff), what this will really do is force people like Biden (in debates, with Ryan) to directly address some specific things that the current administration would really, really rather not talk about. Which is good for everyone, no matter how the voting goes.

Re:Focus Will Be On Economy

[Anonymous Coward]

Your country doesn't have a left wing.

Re:Focus Will Be On Economy

[the_B0fh]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-15/poor-census-low-income/51944034/1

Apparently you feel that making the very poor pay more in taxes is a good thing.

And no, you really don't understand what is left wing, you only know how to parrot Fox News talking points.

Re:Focus Will Be On Economy

[Entropius]

The problem is that any discussion of voting reform has to be somewhat academic, since there is math involved, and somewhat philosophical, since it's not about any issues per se but in how we decide what to do about the issues.

The American people are too uneducated, it seems, to have this discussion -- our political conversations basically come down to "How can I get more cookies from the government at someone else's expense?"

Re:Focus Will Be On Economy

[dgatwood]

Sure it does. That's the wing that thinks that one group of people should permanently, structurally, be taxed in order to provide social spending for the 50% of the country that pay no income taxes at all.

I think you misspelled socialist. We have neosocialists. We do not have a left wing. There's more to being liberal than socialism. It must be balanced with libertarianism in ways that make sense.

Our president just reflected on the move he made to take General Motors away from the people who owned it, and while keeping a large share of the company for the government, gave the rest to labor union supporters on the left.

For example, that. That is not left-wing. That's way, way far to the right. It is putting the desire to keep a business artificially running above the rights of the stockholders. That's a corporatist, fascist way of doing things. It means that the people who put money into the company by buying its stock lose their investment, while the big corporations that the company owes money don't lose their investment. They spin off a shell company that holds the company's debts without any of its assets, and the working class get screwed, while the rich get richer. If they had allowed the company to fold, the working class might have at least gotten back some of their investment instead of ending up with worthless stock certificates. Instead, they chose the rights of a few big companies over the rights of the majority.

... The Nanny Staters

Those people are also not on the left. Someone truly on the left is typically in favor of greater personal freedom, not bigger government for government's sake. True left-wing politics requires government to interfere in the lives of individuals only when those individuals hold undue power over others.

Note that this is not the same thing as libertarianism, where the government never interferes. Nor is it socialism, where the government always interferes. Both of those are skewed politics that don't represent the true political left.

The group that is focused on the government as the source of personal comfort, sustenance, housing, medical services, etc., using funds removed from a small group of people who will be the beasts of burden providing all of those things.

You're kidding, right? You just described the political far right, except for the "small" bit. The far right consists mostly of investors who make their money by using funds and effort removed from the masses, who are beasts of burden providing all those things. Most of those people contribute little, if anything, to society other than loaning money, and for that, we reward them with a life of luxury while almost everyone else has to work like slaves just to afford basic healthcare.

Yet even the far left does not want them to become beasts of burden. They merely want those people to pay their fair share. While the rest of us are paying 30% in taxes, they pay 15%. They do less work to earn their money, yet they get to keep more of it. By any reasonable and sane standard, they're cheating the system, and that's wrong.

Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. At most, there should be a one-time homeowner exemption so that people can afford to change houses once in a while. Only if we treat unearned income with the same level of taxation as earned income can we legitimately say that nobody is using anyone else, treating anyone else as beasts of burden.

Re:Focus Will Be On Economy

[Fwipp]

There exist taxes beside income taxes. If they purchase goods, they pay sales tax. If they drive a car, they pay gas taxes. If they buy cigarettes, they pay "sin" tax. Income tax is not the only tax that exists.

Re:Focus Will Be On Economy

[tmosley]

Actually, Marxism and Fascism fall in the "Authoritarian" corner of the political compass. The left and the right have been creeping down to the bottom of said compass for the last hundred odd years at least.

Free market capitalism, being an economic policy, is on the side between the "Right" corner and the "Libertarian" corner. The difference between the two being the level of government intrusiveness allowed/demanded in people's personal lives.

The left/right paradigm is a part of the problem.

Re:Focus Will Be On Economy

[Toonol]

Not always true. That's only the case if the supporters of the next-to-worst guy flock to third parties more than worst guy's supporters do. For instance, if Obama is the worst guy in the election, but more of his supporters flock to the green, communist, or whatever parties than Romney's do to the libertarians, than third parties helped get the better guy elected. (Reverse Obama and Romney if you think Romney is the worst of the lot.)

Much of the election will depend on which candidates' supporters are more fractured... but if the worst candidate is the most fractured, hey, we're all better off.

Re:Focus Will Be On Economy

[canadian_right]

Your premise has been tried, and it failed. It turns out that people who cooperate to build roads, sewers, armies, and the other trappings of modern states have much better standards of living than those living in the state of nature you advocate. Just look at Somalia.

If every person on the planet was, good, kind, intelligent, and hard working then the anarchy you proposed would work great, but that is not how the real world is.

Re:Focus Will Be On Economy

[dgatwood]

Instead of "Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income", a better step would be to have ordinary income taxed at the same rate as cap gains.I'd be happier with that compromise. Wouldn't you?

No, I wouldn't. I make a fair chunk of my income from capital gains, and even still, I think the capital gains tax rate is too low. Most first-world countries have top income tax brackets over 50%. For the United States, a significant percentage of the people who earn the most money are paying 15%. That's basically third-world territory. Governments can't usefully function with such a low income tax rate, with the possible exception of tiny nation states.

Here's a reality check for you: political stability and economic stability require that the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" be kept in check. When this doesn't happen, eventually the people at the bottom get tired of being shat upon by the people at the top, and there's a violent revolution. That's reality, and there's no ecaping it. Sure, some of the people at the top can flee to other countries, but with their money becoming almost immediately worthless, their homes captured by revolutionaries, etc., even in the best case scenario, they end up as a poor shadow of what they were before.

And even if you ignore that reality, there's still the fact that the people at the top got where they are because of the support of all the people at the bottom. You can't become a billionaire in a vacuum. You either get there by hiring people to work for you or by getting lucky on the stock market, in which case you're basicaly loaning money to people in the hope that they'll give you more money later. Either way, your success is almost entirely caused by other people doing the work. And that's true at every level of the economy. I'm successful as a programmer in part because I got a good education from public universities, and in part because lots of other people got acceptable levels of education that enabled them to get jobs that produced economic output, which in turn paid them money to buy the things that my employer produces. Even a grocery store employee is only employed because there are people buying groceries. No matter how far down the economic food chain you go, we are all interconnected, and anyone who claims otherwise is either a complete fool or a liar.

What this means is that when the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" grows too big, there's nobody left to buy that MP3 player, and the economy falls apart. The economy is only capable of functioning as long as there is enough money getting poured back in. Right now, the rich are amassing fortune. They aren't pouring it back into the economy by buying things, by hiring people, etc. And as long as that is true, the economy will continue to suffer. Income taxes are not the only way to cause money to flow back into the economy, but they are one way, and more to the point, they are the only way that cannot be avoided.

Re:Focus Will Be On Economy

[emaname]

@dgatwood -- THANK YOU!!!

I've been challenging the don't-tax-the-wealthy crowd with that question re the gap between the wealthy and everyone else. I ask them to point out one time in history when it ended well. So far nobody has been able to answer. That's because it has never happened. Actually most of the time they try to change the subject because they know what the answer is.

You've stated the case re distribution of wealth quite well.

Here are two more important details being ignored re this debate.

1. Some people say increasing taxes has been tried and it has not worked. False. Prior to the Crash of '29, the wealthy got a healthy tax cut in 1925 from 73% to 25%. Four years later the market crashed. Three years after the market crash, the tax rates for the wealthy went back up to over 60%. Rates remained high and a few years later we were recovering but headed for WWII. During and after WWII, the rates stayed high as we paid for the war. The national debt did not become an issue until the wealthy were given a series of tax cuts and a variety of loopholes. Basic accounting says if income goes down while cost of ops remain steady or go up, debt will increase. History shows while taxes on the wealthy were higher, we did pretty well as a nation. ie, We managed our debt. And an interesting point to remember, even while the wealthy were paying these higher taxes, they were still wealthy; they were still living in comfort.

2. Redistribution of wealth is presented as though the common, hard-working American is going to be forced to give his/her money to some indigent who has no intention of ever trying to work. False. Redistribution will occur through the elimination of tax loopholes and an increase of taxes for the wealthy. The wealthy are trying to portray the redistribution effort as though it's going to come directly out of the wallets of the middle class (what's left of it). And when I say "wealthy," I include our "owned" politicians; left and right.

Re:Focus Will Be On Economy

[Pfhorrest]

So voting 3rd party only helps (in this immediate election) if the guy you would otherwise have voted for would have been worse than the guy you were never going to vote for anyway. That's the problem: voting 3rd party helps 'the other guy' win, and so only does you immediate good (aside from any long-term goods voting 3rd party might accomplish) if it turns out you were going to vote for the wrong guy otherwise. And obviously nobody thinks they were going to vote for the wrong guy (by what standard of wrong, anyway?), so a 3rd party vote, without some serious chance of them actually winning, will always seem "wasted".

I am fortunate enough to live in an area where my preferred of the two major parties is virtually guaranteed to win whether I vote or not, so I can vote my conscience whichever way it swings without worrying about letting any of my least favorites win. But not everybody is so lucky.

Re:Focus Will Be On Economy

[dgatwood]

Check the numbers dipshit; the difference between the haves and have nots is increasing under the current government bloat.

Yes, which is why we have to fix the imbalanced tax system that is causing it.

And until threats of cap gains increases and dollar de-valuation came along they would invest it (which creates jobs) or put it in a bank (which then has more reserve money to loan out also leading to more jobs). ... Now rich (and not so rich) people are putting their money into precious metals (not just as a hedge against the dollars instability) instead of investing because of impending cap gains increases.

Wrong at pretty much every level.

• Nobody sensible is putting money into precious metals right now. The economy is turning around, which means the value of precious metals is going to go down as the value of the dollar goes up. Haven't you heard all the ads for precious metals lately? You don't really think they're telling people about it to help the buyers, do you?
• Even if I'm wrong about that, the rich people will eventually have to sell those precious metals in order to do anything with the money, at which point it will be taxed. Or when they die and it gets sold as part of their estate. Either way, like stock, it isn't really worth anything until they sell it, at which point they take a capital gain just as they would if they bought and later sold stock. Therefore, there is exactly zero advantage of precious metals over putting the money into stocks or bank accounts. In fact, last time I checked, capital gains on precious metals were taxed at 28%, which although slightly lower than ordinary income for the wealthiest Americans, is much, much higher than capital gains on stocks (15%). And when I talk about increasing capital gains, I'm including precious metals.
• If people truly don't invest the money at all, short of things getting so badly broken that we have a deflationary period, the value of their money is going to decrease over time. Therefore, only a complete idiot would choose to pout and take all their money and play over in the corner rather than investing it.

Thus, the argument that raising taxes on the rich would discourage investment is absolutely absurd beyond belief. You pretty much have to have zero understanding of economics to believe that drivel. Even somebody who just took high school econ should know better.

Re:Focus Will Be On Economy

[jamstar7]

Great in theory, not so great in reality. We're not looking at a true 'free market'. Too many corporations have taken over writing the regulations and legislation for their 'industries'. That's not laisse faire capitalism, that's economic royalism. That's wonderful for the handful of corporations that can afford to fund their pet politicians, but not so much for the rest of us.

Re:WTF is this doing on MY slashdot?

[O('_')O_Bush]

I think this falls under the, "stuff that matters", bit.

Using a battleship as a symbol?

[Mspangler]

Fine message to send. "My Party is an obsolete old rustbucket that went aground so hard it was laid up for years as they patched it together again. Oh by the way, it uses so much oil to get anywhere we can't afford to run it anymore."

On the other hand, maybe it is an appropriate message after all. And I say this as a Navy veteran and former resident of Wisconsin.

Re:News for Nerds???!!

[TheRaven64]

Its not remotely related to tech or topics that slashdot normally covers

Seriously? Have you been on a deep space mission and not read Slashdot since 2000 or something?

Pro Move, Romney

[Anonymous Coward]

So Romney, who has attacked Obama for having "no private sector experience" taps a career politician to be his VP. One with less executive experience than Sarah Palin, and one who has advocated for what Newt Gingrich called "right-wing social engineering".

Nice one, Mittens.

Re:Pro Move, Romney

[icebraining]

Criticizing Mitt Romney makes one automatically an Obama fan?

I guess that's what happens when your mind is distorted by a de-facto two party system, though thankfully not every American has succumbed to this.

Re:Pro Move, Romney

[sydbarrett74]

then bumbled his way to a $2 trillion dollar a year deficit

You conveniently ignore his predecessor's tenure, during which spending spiked to its highest-ever levels with two unfunded wars and more military and security spending than even at the height of the Cold War.

the U6 unemployment rate didn't spike up to 16% until after Obumbles was in office.

A delayed reaction to the financial meltdown which, again, happened on his predecessor's watch.

But don't let facts get in your way.

Re:Pro Move, Romney

[SternisheFan]

Bush Junior inherited a budget surplus from Clinton's term. Obama inherited the mess of a deficit from Bush Junior. 1. We spent 804 billion dollars in Iraq and didn't even get a "thank you card"..or a drop of oil 2. We spent 90 billion dollars on reconstruction in Afghanistan to "win hearts and minds"...and they hate us 3. We spent 2.5 billion dollars sending CURIOSITY to MARS, a technological feat that set space exploration ahead 50 years, sent a message to the world that the US is still the leader in technology.... and will provide us with a wealth of scientific data for years to come. PLUS not a single life was lost, no buildings were destroyed, and no refugees had to flee their homes. It's time the US started spending MORE money building a positive image, making new discoveries , and advancing human achievement ........and spend LESS money trying to become the policeman of the world.

Re:Pro Move, Romney

[fustakrakich]

...though thankfully not every American has succumbed to this.

Only about 98% of them, according to the numbers anyway.

Re:Pro Move, Romney

[Eskarel]

Obama has been a useless sack(though most of the problems aren't actually his fault except in not actually doing anything about them). Health Care is about the only thing he's actually done right, and even that's not what it should have been.

Problem is, the Republicans don't actually want an election about the economy(mostly because their plan is going to do two tenths of fuck all to help anyone except the very rich and they don't need the help), instead they've made this election about a level of ideological war which hasn't been waged, since Jefferson put in the Alien and Sedition acts more than 200 years ago.

This election isn't about the economy, the economy is fucked, cutting taxes isn't going to change that and it's probably too late for any serious stimulus even if the economy was healthy enough in the first place to stimulate back to life.

Romney made this election about extreme right wing ideology in the primaries, and by choosing the poster boy of everything wrong with the Republican platform as his running mate he's made the general election about it. Now of course the ironic thing is that there is pretty much nothing he could have done to make it easier for Obama to win reelection than picking this knucklehead to run with, so who knows why he's done this. There's no President etch-a-sketch with Paul Ryan on the ticket.

Re:Pro Move, Romney

[bjdevil66]

Bush Junior inherited a budget surplus from Clinton's term.

Along with that surplus, however, Bush Jr. also inherited an economy from Clinton that was fizzling at the very end of Clinton's administration in 2000 as the dot-com bubble popped and the economy was starting to slide downwards. By 2001, the country was primed for a recession, and the 9/11 attack - less than a year into his presidency - pushed the economy over the edge.

Also, the undoing of the Glass-Steagal Act - a major deregulation of the banking industry which directly led to the financial collapse in 2008 - was passed under Clinton's watch.

It's time the US started spending MORE money building a positive image, making new discoveries , and advancing human achievement ......... and spend LESS money trying to become the policeman of the world.

We'll never really know what good those wars have done (vs. what would've happened with inaction), but in general I do agree that Bush's wars are a hard sell - especially the 2003 Iraq occupation. The price for forcibly putting a deomcracy up there was extremely high. And it is time to wind down the Afghanistan operations - that country's a mess. You can't force freedom and education on a people too afraid to stand up for themselves.

With that said, that excuse is several years old now. Look at now... 2012... and the balance sheet of the country. Regardless of the circumstances, the Obama administration has added $5,000,000,000,000 in debt in FOUR YEARS, and the economy - due to bad decisions by people over the last generation of business leaders and politicians - is as brittle and hollow as ever. When are people going to realize how much in perpetual debt service (i.e. interest-only payments FOREVER) was added during these four years that could've been going towards that "building a positive image, making new discoveries...", but will now going into international bankers' coffers? And what happens when those investors finally tire of the super-low interest rates government debt is currently paying out, and the rate HAS to go up? That's HUNDREDS of BILLIONS more... every year.

If Obama would've taken even a half-hearted swing and curbing the annual, national deficits, I'd listen, but his administration (and Congress) are not taking them seriously.

How many more years is this guy going to get a "it's Bush's fault" mulligan before just look at the budget numbers? They're unsustainable... If Obama is re-elected, and we go thorugh four more years of trillions more added to the debt, and still no long-term fixes to Social Security, Medicare, etc. is he going to still blame Bush and ask for a 3rd term - perhaps because that's what FDR needed? "Make no mistake... By 2020, I'll have the American economy evolving back into the superpower that it once was. China, India, and Brazil will once again fear our economic might... "

Re:Pro Move, Romney

[Toonol]

One with less executive experience than Sarah Palin

So about the same amount as Obama had when he assumed the presidency?

Re:Pro Move, Romney

[fahrbot-bot]

If Obama would've taken even a half-hearted swing and curbing the annual, national deficits, I'd listen, but his administration (and Congress) are not taking them seriously.

On the other hand... The passing the actual budget is the job of Congress and it's impossible to do anything to reduce the debt and annual deficit and maintain a responsible community when one party chants only "more tax cuts - for the rich; less support - for the poor". Granted the Democrats are incompetent and uncoordinated, but the Republicans are evil and uncaring (unless your rich).

Both parties and all the Congress Critters should remember that their duty is to the Country first, all the people second, their respective constituents third and then their individual supporters. And by "people" I don't mean Corporations; I mean actual people. Sorry Citizens United, you're a bad law. In addition, Congress should do their job instead of letting Lobbyists doing it for them.

Of course, I could be wrong and everything is actually "peachy".

Re:Pro Move, Romney

[sleigher]

Really? The media consistently shows us that their are 2 parties and never even talks about the other parties out there. Maybe if they did they would become what you refer to as "legitimate." I suppose Ron Paul is not a legitimate candidate? The media wrote him off and treated him as a joke long before the primaries were over. The media presents 2 parties that are almost identical and calls it "Americas Choice $YEAR". They perpetuate the NO choice system that Americans live in today.

Re:Pro Move, Romney

[yester64]

I just wonder. If Romney wins and he repeals the Healtcare bill, what will come in its place? I hadn't heard anything concrete from Romney on that.

Doesn't make sense

[Ogive17]

Why pick a guy that appeals to those on the far right of the spectrum when you already know none of those people would ever vote for Obama....

Maybe Romney will try to paint himself as more of a moderate now?

Re:Doesn't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more about getting the far right to bother to show up on voting day. American politics is really more about energizing the base rather than trying to convince the near-extinct creature that is the swing voter.

Re:Doesn't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Why pick a guy that appeals to those on the far right of the spectrum when you already know none of those people would ever vote for Obama....

To help give them motivation to go vote at all. Plenty of conservatives look at Obama and look at Romney and don't see a lot of difference (from their point of view). If it doesn't matter (to them) who wins, why bother voting?

Re:Doesn't make sense

[Rostin]

More of a moderate? I think the problem he's trying to fix is that he's already perceived as too much of one. Hell, as far as I'm concerned, Romney and Obama are practically the same, once you strip away all the silly campaign rhetoric. You're right that there's no danger of those on the "far right" voting for Obama, but that doesn't automatically mean that they'll turn out to support Romney, either.

Re:Doesn't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Why pick a guy that appeals to those on the far right of the spectrum when you already know none of those people would ever vote for Obama....

Maybe Romney will try to paint himself as more of a moderate now?

I always thought that Romney (or McCain the last time) had chosen Colin Powell it would have been a much better strategic decision to fight the Democrats. You'd also be showing people that you were planning a split from Bush in many ways.

Of course that'd be logical, and not something the crazies that have taken over the Republican party would listen to. I think the GOP needs to go full retard/crazy and get their electoral asses handed to them a few times for sense to come back to them—I'm just worried that the lesson they would learn is not that they've gone too far, but haven't gone far enough.

Thankfully I'm Canadian so I only have to worry about the secondary effects of all this madness.

Re:Doesn't make sense

[fm6]

Yeah, the far right will never vote for Obama. But if they think they're being ignored they might not vote at all.

There's also the matter of mending fences with the party leadership and other power brokers, who control money, volunteers, etc. All of them are solid far right these days. They were the ones that wouldn't let McCain have a moderate running mate.

Re:Doesn't make sense

[gtbritishskull]

Colin Powell would have been a terrible choice. He has lost most of his credibility because he was the Secretary of State under George W. Bush who helped to get us into Iraq (he claimed to the UN that they had weapons of mass destruction). So, either he is dishonest or was manipulated. I personally believe the latter, but either way he is not someone you want to be next in line to be POTUS (especially if POTUS is McCain because he would be more likely to die of natural causes because of his age). Though, he was MUCH better than Palin, but that is a pretty low bar.

Re:Doesn't make sense

[SolemnLord]

Yeah, the far right will never vote for Obama. But if they think they're being ignored they might not vote at all.

There's also the matter of mending fences with the party leadership and other power brokers, who control money, volunteers, etc. All of them are solid far right these days. They were the ones that wouldn't let McCain have a moderate running mate.

Those are all good reasons, and I just want to add one more: Ryan looks like he has a plan.

I might think that Ryan's policies would be about as effective as literally setting fire to the entire United States, but the fact remains that he's worked hard at outlining his plan and putting it out there. Romney has been on the defence his entire campaign, ever since he came out as the "one to beat" in the Republican primary. Bringing Ryan into the fold might make it look like he has an actual vision for his presidency now, and puts something up that Obama will have to respond to.

Re:Doesn't make sense

[gtbritishskull]

From hearing what the Ron Paul camp was planning, I think it is possible that the candidates that are pledged to Romney could "show up late" or possibly just not vote during the first two votes. Regardless, I do not know the rules but I can't imagine Republicans would set up their system so that they would be stuck with a candidate that they do not want. Just in case something comes out after the delegates are already pledged.

I hope that someone reads these comments who actually knows (and responds), because I would like to know for sure.

Re:Doesn't make sense

[painandgreed]

Plenty of conservatives look at Obama and look at Romney and don't see a lot of difference (from their point of view). If it doesn't matter (to them) who wins, why bother voting?

Plenty fo liberals feel the same way.

As a Wisconsinite

[AngryDeuce]

I fine this particularly lulzy. I don't think he could have picked a less likable running mate.

Re:As a Wisconsinite

[Trepidity]

I think part of the reason she seems more harmless and amusing now is that the likelihood of her ever occupying the Presidency has declined. Palin as political pundit vs. Palin as a person one McCain health problem away from the Oval Office are pretty different scenarios.

Re:As a Wisconsinite

[Yeechang Lee]

Ah yes, the man who routinely wins a two thirds margin despite his district not having voted for a GOP president since 1984 is disliked by his constituents.

Re:As a Wisconsinite

[brokeninside]

Yeah, even the man who put Palin on McCain's radar, Steve Schmidt, has apologized for his role in the affair and has obvserved that some things are worse than losing such as putting someone as obviously as unfit to hold office as Palin in a position where she could conceivably end up in the oval office.

This will energize both sides

[Tony Isaac]

Republicans will be (mostly) pleased with Romney's choice, since Ryan has built up some street cred with them through his knock-down, drag-out fight with Democrats in Wisconsin. But Democrats see Ryan as a monster who must be stopped at all costs, and will likely be motivated to come out and vote against him. It should be an interesting election.

Re:This will energize both sides

[Sponge Bath]

...likely be motivated to come out and vote against him.

I hope so. Reading some of the comments on The Washington Post is disturbing. There seems to be a vocal group that thinks president Obama can now just cruise to victory. That's the kind of complacency that loses elections.

Re:Diversity

[RLiegh]

. I think a presidential election is something that matters.

And you're wrong. The whole plan for the republicans is to lose the presidency, but remain an obstructive (or destructive) legislative force in the senate, congress and supreme court.

The whole race is just bread and circuses; even more so once you consider that both parties are right wing by any sane standard...

Wikipedia analysis was wrong

[Milharis]

Looks like the story from the other day about knowing Romney's VP from Wikipedia edits was wrong.
Wikipedia Edits Forecast Romney's Vice Presidential Pick

Re:Wikipedia analysis was wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The premise behind it actually seems like it has some truth to it. Just the wrong prediction.

Paul Ryan's page was edited 39 times on August 8 and 27 times on August 9. Before this, he was averaging about 20 edits per month for all of 2012.

Re:Diversity

[ScentCone]

So you think that skin color or gender is what makes a person correct for a given job? Do you understand how absurd that actually sounds? I guess not.

Re:Diversity

[polar red]

consider that both parties are right wing by any sane standard.

+1 informative.

Re:Mitt Romney introduces Paul Ryan as the next Pr

[Trepidity]

Perhaps Romney is simultaneously announcing his choice of running mate and his plan to commit suicide if elected.

Re:News for Nerds???!!

[jamstar7]

Well, these maroons are liable to cut funding for any nifty science-y type stuff to zip zed zero, so I guess there's a geek hook in there someplace.

And yeah, I spelled 'morons' 'wrong', I'm channeling Bugs Bunny this morning. Need more coffee before these bozos make it illegal...

Re:Was that from Armageddon

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Paul Ryan was picked because stupid people will think that he's Ron Paul.

Ryan is an Ayn Randroid! just like Greenspan!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ayn Rand also nearly worshipped a sadistic child murderer and mutilator. She called this man "ideal".... Ayn Rand's Early Inspiration: A Child Killer

This certainly belongs in the "you can't make this stuff up" category. As J. Brendan Ritchie, who flagged it for me, wrote: "Apparently Ayn Rand was heavily inspired by (and admired) a psychopath. Incidently, objectivism now makes a lot more sense to me."

The best way to get to the bottom of Ayn Rand's beliefs is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged , John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market , Rand was so smitten with Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation -- Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street -- on him.

What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"

Re:Diversity

[LocalH]

Anyone who votes for any candidate at any level of government because of the color of the candidate's skin does not deserve to vote. Of all the criteria out there, skin color is the least important (and gender is right down there on the same level, not more nor less important).

Re:WTF is this doing on MY slashdot?

[icebraining]

The US is not the world, but they do have a huge influence over it.

Romney introduces Ryan as the next President

[frank249]

Video of Romney introducing Ryan as the next president here. Later he comes back, puts his arm around Ryan and says he has been know to make a few mistakes. Great start.

Re:Romney introduces Ryan as the next President

[SternisheFan]

If Romney gets (s)elected like Bush jr. was, than like Bush jr., Romney will disappear from public view for his terms first several months, in order to be taught how to speak in public without sounding like a jackass. And I predict that, like Bush jr., it won't work.

Great choice for Democrats

[HangingChad]

Now the Dems can segue from pounding on Romney about not releasing his tax returns to pounding on Republicans about wanting to turn Medicare into a voucher program so rich people don't have to pay more in taxes.

Whoever decided to release this on Saturday should be beat with sticks. Had the announcement gone out on Monday, they could have owned the news cycle. Now the Dems will have their surrogates ready with a simple talking point that they can just keep hammering all the way to November.

The best thing I can say about picking Ryan is it was better than picking Sarah Palin.

Re:Great choice for Democrats

[Howard Beale]

Sarah was easier on the eyes, particularly if you muted the TV.

Challenge Ryan's economics

[Anonymous Coward]

Austerity is a death spiral that creates needless suffering at a time when govt should be fulfilling the Constitutional mandate to "provide for the general welfare."

Re:Challenge Ryan's economics

[mc6809e]

Austerity is a death spiral that creates needless suffering at a time when govt should be fulfilling the Constitutional mandate to "provide for the general welfare."

Providing for the general welfare isn't the same thing as providing individual welfare.

Re:Challenge Ryan's economics

[RoccamOccam]

Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current.analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that "a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year." Source: http://theclevelandcurrent.com/

Re:Challenge Ryan's economics

[MLease]

Never mind; it wasn't on the Current, it was at examiner.com

Re:Challenge Ryan's economics

[LordKronos]

Assuming you are talking about the link that MLease posted to the examiner:

The first thing I see is that a big chunk of that minimum wage person's "income" is $16.5k for Medicaid and CHIP. That's not disposable income, as it never gets to the individual in the form of cash. It's merely the amount the government pays on behalf of the individual for that individual's health care. If you want to count this, then you also need to account for the employer paid portion of the $60k family's health care. His employer may be paying $10k or more for this.

And while we are including employer paid benefits, then let's also count any 401k matching paid by the employer for the $60k individual (whereas the minimum wage person probably doesn't have a 401k, and couldn't afford it if he did).

Next, I'm fairly certain that when we see "Payroll and Federal Income Taxes", that is going to include social security tax payments. Well, the $60k person is going to be paying a lot more than the min. wage person. Larger SS contributions while working is going to end up giving you larger SS payouts at retirement, so that's another advantage the $60k person has (though it is a deferred advantage).

So it's not nearly an equal situation after all, and those are just a few of the things I could think of after looking at the chart for 30 seconds. I'm sure there's a lot more wrong with it than this.

Re:Diversity

[DNS-and-BIND]

By what standard? The far-left standard? Jeez, if you're to the right of Mao Zedong you get tarred and feathered these days. Not to mention your bizarre opinions of the Pubs aspiration for the Presidency. How, pray tell, does losing help in the supreme court? The sitting President nominates new members. Of course, if you're a Euro-leftist (the only sane people left in the world), you likely have no idea of how the American system works. Give the Constitution a glance, it's a good read. Influenced by Europeans, it was, that should make everyone happy.

Re:And you thought the Win8 UI was ugly....

[gishzida]

Michelle Bachmann is that you?
"Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas." -Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009

or is it Sarah Palin?

  "But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." --Sarah Palin, after being asked how she would handle the current hostilities between the two Koreas, interview on Glenn Beck's radio show, Nov. 24, 2010

or Paul Ryan?

“The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” Ryan said at a D.C. gathering four years ago honoring the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”

but in April 2012 he said

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan told National Review on Thursday. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. Don’t give me Ayn Rand.”

Politicians... gotta love 'em...

Wisconsin's policies were disproven.

[Bananenrepublik]

Interestingly the fight in Wisconsin lead to Wisconsin being distanced by the rest of the USA in what concerns job performance. See this graph which shows the total number of nonfarm employees in Wisconsin (blue) vs. the entire US (red). Note how in early 2011, when Wisconsin's job creation policies were enacted Wisconsin stopped following the upwards trend of the country. (Details: the graph is normalized to the 2009 numbers, any other pre-2011 normalization wouldn't change the picture; nonfarm to not be distorted by seasonal variations; employment numbers instead of unemployment to accoutn for people leaving the state).

I don't know how much of Wisonsin's policies Ryan could claim for himself, but it certainly looks like he shouldn't at all.

Far right? Oh please

[INowRegretThesePosts]

hy pick a guy that appeals to those on the far right

"Far right"? Don't demonize your political adversareis. This causes polarization, hatred, alienation and isolation. It also makes collabortation almost imposssible.
Paul Ryan is not "far right" any more than the DEM is "far left".

Re:Far right? Oh please

[blahplusplus]

" Don't demonize your political adversareis."

Actually they've demonized themselves, they hate anything to do with helping other people. They are demonized correctly. You Americans live in a bizzaro world of misinformation and propaganda, in short, you don't know which end is up. Anyone out-side your country knows your right wing politicians are fucking mad. The fact that you can't see what the world does is why the world is so weary of you people.

Re:Far right? Oh please

[Seraphim_72]

He is far right, get over it. You don't get to drag the marker of the middle to the right until you get to claim the middle. "This causes polarization, hatred, alienation and isolation. It also makes collabortation almost impossible."

You have never seen the left at all. Ever. I voted for every time and I happily told people that though I didn't agree with him even 80% he was as far left as I could vote.

"Don't demonize your political adversareis." You first. Call Rush and a sundry.

Deep Space

[neoshroom]

If he was, I think Ryan has decided to not being him back.

Paul Ryan proposed an additional 6% budget cut for NASA in the Ryan Budget so that he could increase DOD spending.

Sorry, it's more important that we kill each other than understand our place in the universe. Have a good day.

Re:Deep Space

[ArcherB]

If he was, I think Ryan has decided to not being him back.

Paul Ryan proposed an additional 6% budget cut for NASA in the Ryan Budget so that he could increase DOD spending.

Sorry, it's more important that we kill each other than understand our place in the universe. Have a good day.

Good thing that the president, and especially the vice president don't allocate spending. That's the job of Congress, which happens to be where Ryan is today.

So, the obvious solution to save NASA's budget would be to get Ryan out of Congress and into a position where he can not vote on funding. The quickest and easiest way to do that would be to elect him as Vice President.

Re:Deep Space

[neoshroom]

Your post makes no sense.

Romney would be much more likely to sign a Ryan Budget or a Ryan-like Budget than Obama would and Romney has endorsed the Ryan plan.

Re:Deep Space

[Lost Race]

Sorry, it's more important that we kill each other than understand our place in the universe. Have a good day.

Understanding our place in the universe doesn't cost billions of dollars. Just open the bible!

/satire
(not serious)

Re:Deep Space

[wispoftow]

All financial bills must start in the House of Representatives. If you want to know who to blame for a particular era's problems, start there.

Yes, the President can submit a budget to Congress (the House). However, Congress can, in principle, totally disregard it and give the President something totally different.

What I have found is that the Democrats and Republicans are so often doing the same thing, that precisely which party is in control of the House doesn't matter.

Re:Diversity

[Anonymous Coward]

By the standards that exist in all other nations on this planet. Republicans are being attacked and losing primaries for being moderates and compromising.

Re:Diversity

[SomeKDEUser]

Obama's politics place him -- from the European point of view -- somewere around Merkel, probably somewhat left of Cameron. Clearly to the right of Hollande. He is between the European Aliance of Liberals and Democrats and the Eropean Popular Party.

In Europe, to his left, you will find the German Socialist party, parts of the UK Labour, all the other members of the Organisation of European Socialist Parties. All the mainstream parties from the Nordic countries (except the nationalists, who used not to be mainstream).

Yet more to the left, and sometimes a significant force in national politics, there are Ecologists, Marxists, unreformed Communists.

Further to his right, basically, you have the fascists/ultra-nationalists. Which is where the GOP is.

So from the point of view of every one else outside the US, Obama is a somewhat right-of-center candidate, and Romney is basically Hitler. So yeah, we root for Obama.

His intellectual hero is Ayn Rand.

[erikwestlund]

Ryan is the so-called "intellectual leader" of the Republican party. According to him, his intellectual hero is Ayn Rand. That is all.

Re:Diversity

[anagama]

If you don't consider Obama to be right winger, you must then agree that GWB was not a right winger. Their policies are practically identical although in some ways, Obama is even more far right, for example, he just murders people by drone rather than indefinitely detaining them. Solves the whole pesky trial problem.

Here's my list of the similarities: nothingchanged.org

Compared to the Lilly Leadbetter Act that he signed (which was basically passed unanimously and is a one page tweak to existing law), there's some serious shit to explain if you are going to say Obama is NOT a rightwinger.

Re:And for the other 73% of non-Americans?

[deanklear]

The United States has 700 military bases in over a hundred countries, far eclipsing the military presence of any other nation. The rest of the world has no choice but to pay attention to the elections inside the empire.

Re:Diversity

[jmorris42]

But I really don't think any of those names would survive even if they were hard core pro-lifers. We in the Party ranks are already swallowing hard to choke down another shit sandich forced on us by the establishment. A double RINO ticket would make it an easy decision for a lot of the base to stay just home. Seriously, we oppose Obamacare; so we are fired up for they guy who pushed the prototype?

And no, Ryan is loved by the base for taking on the budget problem. Other than being a 'businessman' what has Romney actually done on the budget problem? What has he even really said on it? Ryan has passed two actual budgets that show where he is wanting to lead. And we have seen it and saw that it is good. Pretty safe bet there is general satisfaction today out in the Republican base. Maybe not the sort of 'yee hah!' reaction from four years ago, but they should be ready to mobilize now.

> Oh, and Ryan is Roman Catholic, not Jewish.

You are right. I try to keep up with this stuff but there is just too much trivia to remember. Should use Google more. Oh well, still a 'minority' pick in that I don't think we have had one of them since JFK. Not that I particularly care about the personal trivia like that, I care more about their ideas and position than their biography or religion... unless they are the sort who make a big public thing about that sort of thing.

Re:And you thought the Win8 UI was ugly....

[_Sharp'r_]

So your point is that he was influenced by Ayn Rand's ideas to get into politics, but that he's decided to stick with some of her ideals, but reject her overall personal philosophy?

Since I know of hundreds of other people, including public figures, that could describe, I'm not really sure what your point is. There isn't a contradiction in not being a Randian Objectivist while still thinking Any Rand made some good points about government.

Re:And for the other 73% of non-Americans?

[mister2au]

Don't kid yourself ... 99% of the non-US population couldn't tell you which party Obama represents let alone what his policies are. There is that little difference between the left and right of US politics (in a global context) that the whole event is meaningless to us.

Likewise 99% of Americans couldn't tell you anything about foreign politics.

So thats a wash ... except 3 out 4 Slashdot readers are not American and not caring about US politics.

Interestingly have a look at TIME most influential list ... at a quick glance I see Bashar Assad, Vladimir Putin & Aung San Suu Kyi all more influential than Barrack Obama. And in case the penny hasn't dropped yet Shakira, Lady Gaga and Adele are also all more influential.

I don't know if your president are effectively hamstrung by congress or their own party or the electorate when it comes to international policy - but military aside, who was the last president to have real impact on the world stage?

Re:Don't demonize opponents

[gtbritishskull]

I do believe that racism does play a part, but I do not think it is intentional racism. Some people are just uncomfortable with Obama because of his skin color, but I think most of them try very hard not to be racist. That is why the whole birther thing gained so much traction. It was a reason for them to feel uncomfortable with him that they did not think was morally wrong. Basically, I am saying that people do not want to be racist, but subconsciously they are. So, when the birther thing popped up they latched on to it as a way to explain their feeling of discomfort that was not racism. And, I believe this all happens subconsciously. Which I think is actually very significant progress. The racists (and I am not trying to use the term derogatorily but as a statement of fact) realize that racism is wrong and don't actually want to be racist. But, they can't help it because that is what they grew up with.

As an example, my fiance's grandmother is racist as hell. She just doesn't trust black people. But, if you call her out on it then she will realize that she is being racist and try not to be. But it is so ingrained in her that she will probably be a racist till the day she dies. It is one of those things that only time will fix (basically the old generations need to die and the new generations, who did not grow up to be racist, will take their place).

But, I do agree with you. There is no point in telling these people (closet racists) not to be racist because they are already doing their best. Really, the only way to fix this problem is to elect a few more black presidents. Because, over time, people will get used to it. Actually, the best thing would be for Republicans to elect a black president. Currently, any racists (against black people) in the Democratic party would have dealt with it (at least mostly) because they would have supported President Obama and had to come to terms with any discomfort. So, if the Republicans elect a black President, a lot of the racists will have to face their racism and will most likely get over it.

Re:News for Nerds???!!

[tmosley]

Having supported TARP and government bailouts of car companies, I don't really know how you can claim that he advocates Ayn Rand. Perhaps you mean he invokes Rand and her vision of small government while actually taking on the role of a Randian villain?

Re:News for Nerds???!!

[AngryDeuce]

Nope, he rejects her because she was an atheist. He's always rejected her, didn't you know? All those words of praise in the past never happened, we all imagined it! We've always been at war with EastAsia!!

Re:And for the other 73% of non-Americans?

[mister2au]

For which I'm sure all the people without jobs, homes & healthcare are very grateful.

Anyway that brings the people that care to maybe some of 27% Americans + whoever is from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Uganda, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Georgia, Lebanon, Haiti, Liberia, Ivory Coast, Afghanistan, Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania, Cambodia, Sierra Leone, Panama, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Honduras, Grenada, El Salvador & whatever 3rd world country is lucky enough to be next on the list.

http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/25/decline-and-fall-of-the-american-empire.html

"Most great nations, at the peak of their economic power, become arrogant and wage great world wars at great cost, wasting vast resources, taking on huge debt, and ultimately burning themselves out." We sense the "consummation" of the American Empire occurred with the leadership handoff from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush.

Unfortunately that peak is behind us: Clinton, Bush, Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and all future American leaders are merely playing their parts in the greatest of all historical dramas, repeating but never fully grasping the lessons of history in their insatiable drive for "economic progress," to recapture former glory ... while unwittingly pushing our empire to the edge, into collapse.

As you sow so shall you reap !!

Actually the battleships are useful ...

[drnb]

Fine message to send. "My Party is an obsolete old rustbucket that went aground so hard it was laid up for years as they patched it together again. Oh by the way, it uses so much oil to get anywhere we can't afford to run it anymore." On the other hand, maybe it is an appropriate message after all. And I say this as a Navy veteran and former resident of Wisconsin.

Actually they are not so rusty. The battleships are quite useful in one of their historic roles and some of these "museum" ships are required by law to be maintained at a level that would permit them to be recommissioned should the need arise.

The role is shore bombardment. There is nothing like those big 16-inch guns for bombardment. Battleships basically own anything within 25 miles of the coast. Ask any U.S. Marine contemplating an amphibious assault on a contested beach, or who needs artillery support. Or consider a Syrian General in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley that made the mistake of firing on U.S. aircraft. A U.S. battleship put 16-inch shells into his command post. The Syrian officers who replaced this general and his staff moved the command post farther inland.

Regarding vulnerability. Consider that these ships were designed to slug it out with other ships of their class. Modern weapons were designed for ships with much thinner armor. After an Exocet missile took out a British ship during the Falkland Islands war the commander of a U.S. battleship was asked about his ship's vulnerability to the Exocet, Silkworm and other similar anti-ship missiles. The commander pointed out that the ship has 12 inches of steel armor and would take about 30 minutes to repaint the dent from an Exocet hit.

In her niche of shore bombardment the battleship still rules.

Re:Diversity

[CptPicard]

A small point about Nordic nationalist parties; at least here in Finland, the "Finns" party (formerly "True Finns") is clearly leftist economically... they tend to be social-conservative otherwise.

The welfare state model is rather sacrosanct here, the only people seriously questioning it are genuine classical liberals, and they are not in parliament.

Re:WTF is this doing on MY slashdot?

[dgatwood]

There's a different between ignorance and apathy.

Okay, I'll be the straight man and set up the joke. What's the difference between ignorance and apathy?

Re:WTF is this doing on MY slashdot?

[jmorris42]

> If the tea party wasn't so dead stuck on tax cuts for the wealthy

And if YOU could get away from the Soros/Think Progress/CAP/Kos talking points you might realize we aren't for 'tax cuts for the wealthy' we are for either keeping rates WHERE THEY ARE AND HAVE BEEN FOR A DECADE or for a major overhaul of the tax code to reduce rates across the board in exchange for eliminating deductions, carveouts and loopholes such that it is revenue neutral on the static CBO scoring but will actually produce MORE revenue to the treasury, almost all from the 'wealkthy', from a growing economy.

> but when you want to cut medicare/medicaid, funding for schools and teachers

We are spending over a trillion more than we are taking in and Obama plans to do that into the forcastable future. That isn't a sustainable plan. And most of the spending growth is in the welfare state. Taxes at all levels (fed, state, local) are almost certainly on the side of the laffer curve where raising rates won't bring in more actual revenue and my team isn't into 'redistributive justice' so why in the name of hell would we want to raise tax rates? So that leaves cutting spending untl it matches revenues or making the tax base grow until it can support the spending. So lets hear YOUR plan. What do you want to cut? Or do you want to try inflating our way out? Or what? There aren't many choices available so please stop bitching about our choices and pick something to be for.

And screw the teachers. We have more than doubled per pupil spending in the last generation and test scores have went down. The best thing we could do for the students is fire the lot of em and sell off the infrastructure to private entities. At least some of them would succeed.

Re:Of course stupid people think Ron Paul

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Which is laughably wrong. Everybody knows that Almond Joy was made by that guy who sings "Puff the Magic Dragon" and "Leaving on a Jet Plane".

I think he also sang "Wreck of the Almond Fitzgerald", too.

Re:Don't demonize opponents

[volmtech]

Uh, wasn't Herman Cain a black person? The Chicago machine trumped up sex charges against him, just like they did to Obama's previous opponents. Romney's so squeaky clean all they can do is make false accusations about his tax records. Besides that Obama is not African American, his father was pure East African, no American slave ancestry at all. And exactly who paid for his collage education and what where his grades like? He gets his opponent's records unsealed, maybe the Romney campaign can do a little unsealing themselves.

Or maybe Europe is leftist?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

So from the point of view of every one else outside the US, Obama is a somewhat right-of-center candidate, and Romney is basically Hitler. So yeah, we root for Obama.

That could also mean that Europe is dominated by leftism? When you find it normal to arrest a person for saying that "homosexuality is a sin", then you are quite leftist, yes?

People forget that the Left nowadays if very focused on feminism, abortion, affirmative action, immigrants; people think that a country is "right-wing" because it has private banks... They have missed the whole New Left development.

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896
3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7952526/Last-Catholic-adoption-agency-faces-closure-after-Charity-Commission-ruling.html

Re:Or maybe Europe is leftist?

[iluvcapra]

Actually, a lot of Catholic blood was shed there; not to mention marginalization and huge fines. Their tradition of religious freedom is not deep-rooted; it is recent.

Recent on a geological timescale, but the Catholic-Protestant conflict in England proper has been pacific since at least the time of the US founding. America didn't have a Catholic persecution in 1600s because it didn't exist in the 1600s, not because it's better or different. The American colonies systematically practiced anti-catholic discrimination, and this actually continued in the US long after the issue in Britain was basically settled. Ireland's a whole other thing though ;)

What makes you think that?

Just an inkling. It's not really a part of my point, though, except maybe that in the UK, you're just as unlikely to find many who would defend the right of someone to obnoxiously defame a passerby with sin and damnation. Englishmen have a healthy anti-clerical streak Americans seem to lack.

Re:Or maybe Europe is leftist?

[Xest]

Ah yes, extrapolation, what fun. Obviously by the same measure, because America now decided everyone should have healthcare, it'll be communist by 2018.

It sounds like your beef is that you feel you should be free to be openly homophobic, but this is identical to suggesting you should be free to be openly racist, be free to be openly anti-semitic. That's fine if you believe that, but you're a far right minority, and your viewpoint isn't one shared by the vast majority of the population.

Note that every country outlaws some speech, some do it explicitly (like Germany and nazism, China and Tianamen square), some do it implicitly (like America bankrupting the Phelps, going after Assange/JÃnsdÃttir, abducting foreign Islamic preachers to guantanamo, ICE DNS seizures etc.). Ultimately America censors much like everyone else, it just has to pussy foot around it because it has to pretend it still cares about the constitution absolutely, whilst everyone else doesn't have this rather obscure situation, so they just explicitly state it instead.

In the UK we outlaw hate speech that is offensive based on race, disability, and interestingly, religion. It only makes sense therefore that homosexuality is equally protected, as it is, like race and disability, extremely natural, and certainly not something someone chooses like religion (which is why plenty of people change their religion without problem, but no one genuinely manages to change their sexual desires). For what it's worth homosexuality doesn't have the same degree of protection in the UK as religion, but it hopefully will soon as homosexuality is simply the latest fight for equal rights, just as there was a fight for gender and race equality beforehand.

For what it's worth regarding your original question "Perhaps Europe is just leftist?" the answer is no, because when you also look at countries like China, India, Japan etc. it's most certainly the US that is far to the right compared to Europe and the rest of the world, than Europe being far left compared to the US and the rest of the world. You can effectively use other nations as your point of reference and the idea that America is far right is the only thing that makes sense using a global frame of reference. Europe being much more leftist doesn't really make any sense, as where would that leave the genuinely leftist nations like Argentina and Venezuela, or the far left like Cuba and North Korea? In contrast, there aren't many nations that are particularly more right wing than the US nowadays, and certainly not to the degree that say Argentina and Venezuela are to the left compared to Europe.

Re:Diversity

[SomeKDEUser]

Yes, and I was also unfair to Hitler: he actually had a sensible social plank to his programme (not the part which involved indiscriminate torture and killing, obviously). In fact, aside from the classical liberals, of which there are representatives everywhere in Europe, no party in Europe would dare have the economic and social policies of the GOP.

BTW, the so-called "classical liberals" in Europe are for some reason always focussed much more on the "keep gvt out of business" side of liberalism, and much less on the "keep gvt out of the bedrooms" plank. They are all-around hateful jerks, and thus never get elected anywhere. I guess they could follow the GOP lead and go all the way to "have the gvt tell you very intrusively what to do with your sexual organs", and thus become mysteriously more popular, despite being even more hateful jerks.

Re:

[SomeKDEUser]

And they like intra-vaginal ultrasounds. Keep telling yourself lies, buddy: the US right is libertarian like I am turnip.

Clinton gave us econ crisis, Bush MSL Curiosity

[drnb]

Bush Junior inherited a budget surplus from Clinton's term. Obama inherited the mess of a deficit from Bush Junior

Actually Jr inherited the fake prosperity of the Internet Bubble and its popping, a popping that began under Clinton. Jr was then immediately hit with 9/11. Clearly the economy took hits that were not Jr's doing.

And despite this Jr managed a recovery of sorts within a few years. Something Obama seems incapable of. However then the Housing Bubble popped. And who authorized those Credit Default Swaps so critical to the current economic crisis? It was Clinton. Clinton not only authorized these financial WMDs but he also made it illegal for states to enact state-level laws that would regulate them.

It seems Clinton had far more of a role in the current economic crisis than Jr. Jr did not help with his spending however Obama is going far beyond Jr in terms of spending and that is also contributing to the ongoing crisis.

1. We spent 804 billion dollars in Iraq and didn't even get a "thank you card"..or a drop of oil 2. We spent 90 billion dollars on reconstruction in Afghanistan to "win hearts and minds"...and they hate us

And Obama continued Jr's war policy and exited Iraq on Jr's timetable.

3. We spent 2.5 billion dollars sending CURIOSITY to MARS, a technological feat that set space exploration ahead 50 years, sent a message to the world that the US is still the leader in technology.... and will provide us with a wealth of scientific data for years to come.

And the Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity mission began and hardware and software mostly completed under Jr's term.

Re:Diversity

[SomeKDEUser]

Unlike the US, we actually got the whole continent in ruins during WWII, Had a whole generation wiped out WWI, had a pretty horrible ware in 1870, and Napoleon invented the whole concept of world war. And yes, we also did the whole colonisation and genocide thing.

Basically, historically, we are the worse bastards ever to grace this not-so-peaceful Earth. So we know, deep in our bones, all the horrible mistakes you can make. We've been there. You want an absolute yardstick of what not to do? Look at us. We are that absolute yardstick.

And if you are trying for worse, well, I sure hope you fail.

Re:WTF is this doing on MY slashdot?

[newcastlejon]

What's the difference between ignorance and apathy?

Don't know, don't care.

Re:WTF is this doing on MY slashdot?

[iluvcapra]

And if YOU could get away from the Soros/Think Progress/CAP/Kos talking points you might realize we aren't for 'tax cuts for the wealthy' we are for either keeping rates WHERE THEY ARE AND HAVE BEEN FOR A DECADE

A decade of tax cuts which the cutters in question promised to end in 2010, because otherwise they totally raped the deficit, and doing so it was the only way to get them past the Byrd rule and passed under Reconciliation rules. And at that, only after Trent Lott had the first senate parliamentarian fired for not accepting their fairy-story economic growth projections (which didn't pan out, either).

We are spending over a trillion more than we are taking in and Obama plans to do that into the forcastable future. That isn't a sustainable plan.

See this is what the election is going to come down to. The Republican platform is now "Vote for us, or else we will become Greece." And whenever someone voices and disagreement, factually or otherwise, Paul Ryan will do what he's done his entire career: he'll climb up on a cross, demand the spikes be hammered, and declaim from on high "They are doing this to me because I dared tell the Truth!"

And I bet this will work. American folk history is filled with valorizations of people who are persecuted for speaking out, even when the guy speaking out is lying through his teeth.

Re:

[TheRaven64]

The left wing in the USA thinks that the government should control every aspect of your lives. The right wing thinks that this can be done more efficiently by the private sector. Both are authoritarian, it's just that your left wants to retain the illusion that you have some influence over your oppressors via elections, while the right wants to retain the illusion that you have some influence over your oppressors via marketplace competition.

Hypocrisy

[INowRegretThesePosts]

OK, I'll bite.

Don't pretend that the original poster was flamebait. It wasn't.

That does sound absurd. But then explain why politicians are _overwhelmingly_ white

Not because of any active racism (which is quite small nowadays), but because African-Americans are less than 13% of the population and, additionally, they are still (probably due to inertia) under-represented in the upper classes.

male

Partly due to inertia, and partly because women are naturally (due to child-rearing) less likely to have stellar careers*, and people with mediocre careers are less likely to win an election in this money-focused society.

christian

They identify as Christians, but many of them don't practice.

. Why is it that you can _accuse_ a politician of being muslim?

The Left makes a huge hatefest when some politician is accused of having read some Josemaria Escrivá (founder of Opus Dei) book. That these same people complain about Islamophobia is a textbook example of hypocrisy.

* I'm not saying that women are bad politicians, or should be forbidden to work, or that they are all less talented. I am just saying that a significant percentage of them choose to be a housewife or to work shorter hours so they can care of their children, and this makes them less appealing as political candidates because our society is so focused on money and careers.

Wisconsin Strategy

[feidaykin]

Political pundits often claim that part of the reason you pick the VP candidate should be to help win a key state. Obviously that wasn't an issue with Palin in 08 since Alaska is dark red, but Wisconsin has been light blue the last couple elections, and with Scott Walker surviving his recall election here, perhaps Romney is hoping Ryan will help flip the state red? As a native Wisconsinite I don't think it's too likely... The state hasn't gone red that often, in fact you'd have to go back to 1984 to find Wisconsin flipping red in a Presidential election. Still, past performance isn't always a guarantee and the Romney team might feel energized by Walker's recall victory. Then again it could just be that Romney is afraid the base thinks he's too moderate and wants a loyal Tea Party running mate to fire up the base. That has the potential to backfire though, since moderate voters might shy away from Ryan, and elderly voters will almost certainly have a hard time voting for the guy that prioritizes tax-breaks for millionaires over social security and medicare. And of course Ryan is now going to be thrust into the spotlight more than he's ever been in the past, with every last detail of his life examined and scrutinized. I have no reason to believe there's any skeletons in his closet, but if there are you can bet the media will dig them up. Overall though the VP pick is really only important in what it shows about the Presidential candidate, and Romney has had a problem of never really wanting to commit on issues since he's likely afraid whatever he says will come back to bite him. His VP pick is obviously something he can't easily walk away from, but I think it's too early to tell if it will help or hurt him.

Re:

[istartedi]

The right wing in the US is libertarian

Libertarianism is objectively pro-$strongest. In the US, $strongest is the corporations. Thus, the right wing in the US is corporatist. I'd say "fascist", but that's a word that people in the US associate with a charismatic "leader for life", and a degree of internal oppression to which we have not yet risen.

Not for being an antheist

[INowRegretThesePosts]

He has shown no evidence of dislike of atheist _people_. He criticized an atheist _philosophy_. Those are different things.

Second, it is possible to change one's mind. I have changed mine some times. About AGW for example.

Re:Not for being an antheist

[scot4875]

That's idiotic, because there is no such thing as "atheist philosophy", unless he thinks that "I don't believe in god(s)" counts as philosophy -- in which case he's still an idiot.

"Atheist philosophy" makes as much sense as coming up with the best practices for not collecting stamps.

--Jeremy

Re:WTF is this doing on MY slashdot?

[iluvcapra]

PS. This guy above is not a Troll. He is merely wrong. Do not censor this discourse.

Re:Diversity

[ukemike]

even more so once you consider that both parties are right wing by any sane standard...

By what standard? The far-left standard? Jeez, if you're to the right of Mao Zedong you get tarred and feathered these days.

How about by the standards of the right wing just a generation ago right here in the good ole USA.

Reagan's tax policies and Obama's are very close. Broad cuts (or in Obama's case extention in existing cuts) in rates and closing loopholes for the rich. Obama's signature bill was his medical insurance reform act, was a slight mod of the early '90's Republican health care alternative to Hilarycare. Obama has continued extra-judicial detentions of bush, the domestic surveillance of bush, the wars of bush, and has radically expanded the extra-judicial assasinations via drone strikes that bush started. A generation ago it was unthinkable for any politician left or right to attack social security or medicare. The democrats, while still getting some support from unions, have completely abandoned returning that support. Obama is pushing a trade deal with So. Korea that like NAFTA is based on looney right wing economic falderol. Obama and Clinton's supreme court nominations only appear liberal in comparison to the new conservative justices. Kagan and Sotomayor don't hold a candle to any of the great liberal justices of the mid-twentieth century. Recall that Nixon signed into law the EPA, OSHA, and the Endangered Species Act. Hell Nixon didn't just sign the EPA bill, he proposed it! Obama has been a big supporter of big oil and big military spending. Obama has also done nothing to restrict gun rights.

In fact with a few exceptions the Democrats of today look a lot like the Republicans of 20 or more years ago. Those exceptions obviously include social hot-button issues like abortion/women's right to choose, and gay marriage/protect marriage. The other big exception is that Obama after his continuation of big bailouts and stimulus started by bush to save the economy from the freefall we were in, has been that Obama has actually tried to reign in the deficit unlike his borrow and spend republican opponents.

The reason that the US seems so politically polarized today is that the Democrats have only strolled to the right during the last 30 years while the Republicans have been sprinting to the right, while the people who haven't been infected by fox etc have remained mostly in place.

Re:Don't demonize opponents

[Squiddie]

I don't understand why people keep asking about grades when the man graduated summa cum laude. You don't get that on poor grades.

Thanks to Slashdot for posting this, else we'd not

[couchslug]

have known.

Ayn Rand worshipped a child killer

[Anonymous Coward]

” Like many conservatives, he claims to have been profoundly affected by Ayn Rand. After reading “Atlas Shrugged,” he told me, “I said, ‘Wow, I’ve got to check out this economics thing.’ What I liked about her novels was their devastating indictment of the fatal conceit of socialism, of too much government.” He dived into Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman.
In a 2005 speech to a group of Rand devotees called the Atlas Society, Ryan said that Rand was required reading for his office staff and interns. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” he told the group. “The fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.” To me he was careful to point out that he rejects Rand’s atheism.
Ayn Rand also nearly worshipped a sadistic child murderer and mutilator. She called this man "ideal".... Ayn Rand's Early Inspiration: A Child Killer

This certainly belongs in the "you can't make this stuff up" category. As J. Brendan Ritchie, who flagged it for me, wrote: "Apparently Ayn Rand was heavily inspired by (and admired) a psychopath. Incidently, objectivism now makes a lot more sense to me."

The best way to get to the bottom of Ayn Rand's beliefs is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged , John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market , Rand was so smitten with Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation -- Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street -- on him.

What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"

Re:Diversity

[digitalaudiorock]

So from the point of view of every one else outside the US, Obama is a somewhat right-of-center candidate, and Romney is basically Hitler. So yeah, we root for Obama.

As a left of center (at least left of what I consider the center) American, it amazes me that so many Americans don't recognize this shift to the right that's taken place in their own country. The right seems to be almost blind to the fact that someone like Reagan, let alone someone like Eisenhower, would be WAY to far to the left for their party today, yet they continue to pretend that they worship them. I just don't get it. In fact, Obama's record puts him closer to someone like Eisenhower than to any leftist...and these folks are calling him a Socialist...really????. I mean hell...is there even anyone left in U.S. politics at any serious level that's even in the same universe as, say for example, George McGovern???...not from where I stand.

I'll tell you what though...it's not flying with everyone. Almost every one of my family and friends who were hardcore Reagan Republicans in the 80s have ended up to the left of me amazingly. They're just dumbfounded as to what's going on there.

I will demonize them

[rsilvergun]

if they are already demons. Even the Catholic Church campaigns against Paul Ryan's Economic plans. Meanwhile the 1% has 2 or 3 times the national debt tucked away in offshore accounts. You want to know where our debt comes from, there's your answer.

Re:Diversity

[SomeKDEUser]

No. US politics are truly and objectively fucked up. This is not a misunderstanding. The policies of the two US parties have counter-parties in Europe. Their philosophical underpinning and rhetoric are not alien, we get them too.

They just happen to map to "centre right" and "batshit nationalist with no social plank". This is because the consensus on social issues is mostly what the Democrats hold true in Europe, whereas the position of the GOP is identical to that of our fascists/ultracatholics/ultranationalists/ultraliberals. For the exact same reasons (our country is the best/illegal immigrants/God/business is always right).

That a large part of the US population thinks those reasons are OK those not make them so. Broken logic based on flawed morals is wrong independently of the flag on your passport.

Paul Ryan and Technology Voting

[brit74]

Ok, let's make this about technology. From the "Danger Room" blog on Wired:

On technology and civil liberties issues, Ryan has generally voted along party lines. Ryan opposed net neutrality bills; voted to extend the Patriot Act’s roving wiretaps and to immunize telecom companies from legal liabilities for cooperating with warrantless government surveillance. He co-sponsored a ban on internet taxes. Ryan initially approved of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which WIRED editorialized would “usher in a chilling internet censorship regime,” but backed down in the face of a pressure campaign from the internet-freedom supporters. Activists on Reddit cheered Ryan’s reversal on SOPA — and appear to have reactivated the Ryan thread now that Romney has tapped him to be vice president.

Source: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/paul-ryan-vp/

Voted YES on terminating funding for National Public Radio.
Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance.
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet).
Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting.
Voted YES on promoting commercial human space flight industry.
Voted YES on banning Internet gambling by credit card.
Voted YES on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access.
Ryan co-sponsored permanently banning state & local taxation of Internet access
http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Paul_Ryan_technology.htm

Re:Diversity

[SomeKDEUser]

There is actual data for that...

Re:News for Nerds???!!

[DesScorp]

Nope, he rejects her because she was an atheist. He's always rejected her, didn't you know? All those words of praise in the past never happened, we all imagined it! We've always been at war with EastAsia!!

This is the kind of dishonest argument we see on Slashdot all too much. One can agree with some of a person's positions and not all of them. Thinking that Atlas Shrugs is an important book doesn't necessarily imply that you agree with Ayn Rand on every single thing she believes. I'm fond of saying that Rand got many things right for the wrong reasons. I certainly don't agree with her on her anti-religious beliefs, and I have some serious misgivings with Objectivism. But that doesn't change the fact that I think she made a lot of important arguments in her books. You seem to be arguing, however, that to endorse one idea is to be forced to endorse all the ideas of the writer. This simply isn't true. Do YOU endorse every single idea of the writers that you read? No? Then why do you expect others to do so?

Re:WTF is this doing on MY slashdot?

[jmorris42]

> The Republican platform is now "Vote for us, or else we will become Greece."

Consider why that strategy is one you are afraid will work. It is a combination of two factors, remove either one and it wouldn't work. One you can argue isn't under your control/isn't Obama's fault/blah blah but the other certainly is.

One, the economy is in the crapper and most Americans think it is more likely to get worse than to get better. Worse they think, by a large margain, that we are on the wrong course.

Second, the D team is offering no plan at all to deal with the elephant in the room. The ginormous deficit and rampant spending. Obama promised to cut the deficit in half and instead doubled it. Congress didn't even try to pass a budget in 2010 and the Senate refuses to even start debate on one for the third year in a row. Obama's last two budgets were forced to a vote by the Republicans and went down in flames by his own party. In short, the entire Democrat machine is totally AWOL, ceding the most important issue to the voters to the Republicans.

Ok, you don't like Ryan's budgets. You aren't supposed to, that is why we have two parties. But you won't beat something with nothing. Right now Ryan looks like the adult in the room while you guys are banging your spoons on the high chair. Get you ass in the game and tell us what you are for, we know what you are against. We are spending a trillion a year we don't have and the cutrrent plan is to do that until things go kaboom. What is your plan, other than kaboom. We can see Greece and hell, we can see California; we know how this story ends and it isn't somewhere we want to go.

Re:News for Nerds???!!

[russotto]

You know who else thought you could pick and choose ideas from the writings of various authors? Hitler.

Re:News for Nerds???!!

[Emetophobe]

See that url? politics.slashdot.org

If you don't like political news, disable the politics section in your account settings.

Re:News for Nerds???!!

[evilRhino]

Incurring God's wrath by ignoring the plight of the poor is actually central to the Judeo-Christian mythology. Decadence is cited as the reason god cursed and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and also why Jehovah abandoned Judea and Israel when the Babylonians attacked. Jesus himself was killed because he attacked the moneychangers in the Jerusalem temple, whom he claimed were economically exploiting the pilgrims. Ayn Rand specifically stated that her aims were to change culture by replacing our morality by a new one that is not guided by our religious past. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6LSpFgxL94

Emmerich has been widely debunked

[FhnuZoag]

Bullshit claim is bullshit:

http://www.tnr.com/article/82962/conservatives-economic-chart-fox-de-rugy

Indeed, the real story here isn’t necessarily Emmerich’s fuzzy math; as important is the fact that the chart was posted again and again with so little discussion of its accuracy. If those who pushed the chart along in its Internet journey cared about its content and the methodology, rather than its underlying political message, they could have done a little Googling. It wouldn’t have taken much to crack the surface, get below the presumption that poor people are coddled by the government, and find the beginning of a long list of problems with Emmerich’s work. But, perhaps because of ideological bent or maybe due to simple laziness, people decided that no fact-checking was required.

Re:Be serious

[shutdown -p now]

I have no idea who the guy is, so I went and looked on Wikipedia:

In late January 2010, Ryan released a new version of his Roadmap. The modified plan would: give across the board tax cuts by reducing income tax rates; eliminate income taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest; and abolish the corporate income tax, estate tax, and alternative minimum tax. The plan would privatize a portion of Social Security, eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance, and privatize Medicare.

If that's not far right, economically speaking, then I don't know what is.

Re:

[shutdown -p now]

The right wing thinks that this can be done more efficiently by the private sector.

Except for your bedroom. That's too important to be left to the whims of the market, apparently.

Re:WTF is this doing on MY slashdot?

[ragethehotey]

Second, the D team is offering no plan at all to deal with the elephant in the room. The ginormous deficit and rampant spending. Obama promised to cut the deficit in half and instead doubled it

Without being dishonest, explain why offering large tax cuts for the wealthy somehow solves the problem of the deficit?

"Deficits are too high" is a red herring for selfish pricks that are too cowardly to actually say what they mean.

Paul Ryan was elected on a platform of fiscal responsibility, and one of the first things he did after taking office was to support legislation attempting to criminalize forms of already widely accepted birth control.

Re:Diversity

[SomeKDEUser]

This is true, but we are the only ones who did those things as industrial nations. Well, OK, not true, large parts of Asia did that too. We are the only ones who did that as industrial nations, as the continent was largely democratic. The democratic Weimar Republic turned bad. The democratic Italian republic turned bad, Spain and Portugal were democracies and turned bad. There were strong fascists parties in France and England and those countries could have turned bad. WWI was horrible, and democracies used combat gasses and sacrificed millions just like the central Empires. Colonisation by European powers was largely colonisation by democratic European powers.

    Guilt for horrible things is not the same when you basically voted for them, rather than merely followed some deluded Great Leader. The point is that we know that good is not an intrinsic property of democracies, and evil a property of dictatorships. This is a lesson yet to be learnt by the US.

Re:Ryan is an Ayn Randroid! just like Greenspan!

[beforewisdom]

Ayn Rand died on welfare and medicare, two things Ryan would cut to the bone if he had a chance. Part of the reason she was living on government assistance was that she was sick with cancer. She refused to believe the medical warnings about smoking. In that way she was a forerunner of the TEA party type denialists. The mentality of believing what you want because your opinion matters as much as someone who has studied something for years when you have not.

Re:WTF is this doing on MY slashdot?

[Eric Damron]

I think you are living in a fact free zone.

The Republicans are not offering real solutions. All they want to do is give tax breaks that will mostly go to their rich cronies and privatise everything, again for the benefit of the richest.

They are in the process of killing the U. S. Postal service by requiring that they fund their retirement system 75 years in advance. They want to sell off our national treasures and they don't mind rigging elections to get that done.

Right now they are enacting voter suppression laws that will primarily suppress voting in areas that would tend to vote for Obama under the guise of preventing voter fraud even though voter fraud has never been a major problem.

They create gridlock like little children throwing a tantrum. Can you say filibuster, filibuster, filibuster? Sure you can! And then claim that Obama can't get anything done. Well no shit Sherlock. Remember that they admitted that their number one priority was to make Obama a one term President! THERE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY! Screw the economy, screw anything else. And they announced their evil little pin head plan right from the start.

The American people cannot afford to allow these cheating low life scum bags to stay in office. They almost destroyed our country during the eight years that Bush and his cronies ran the country and we just can not afford to have a repeat. Oh, and isn't it curious that Bush didn't even really win the election but the Republicans suppressed the recount which later showed that he lost!!

Get ready folks. These bastards are gearing up to steal the election again. They have already voted in Iowa to extend the voting period for Republican leaning counties while shortening the voting period for Democratic leaning counties! That's right! Make it harder to cast your vote if you live in a primarily Democrat county and easier if most of the people would vote Republican!

Is it any wonder people are getting pissed off?

Re:WTF is this doing on MY slashdot?

[iluvcapra]

Consider why that strategy is one you are afraid will work.

It's important to make the point that I don't think the strategy is fact-based; I don't think most political arguments are fact-based, and there's nothing wrong with that. The facts of the matter are irrelevant, in the end these are politicians making promises, promises which, from the White House, are impossible to guarantee. John Boehner and Eric Cantor will be the ones writing the law if Romney/Ryan wins, and they'll have to get it past Harry Reid -- it's impossible for a president to make any sort of specific promises on such a basis (it pisses me off that they even try).

What it's really about is providing a certain amount of people with a satisfying story to tell themselves. Moderates swoon for "mavericks," people who "buck their own party" and tell the "hard truths"; these low-information voters generally assume that any solution to a problem that is painful must be the right one. They crave to be told that America has been "indulgent" and "spending like a drunken sailor," on "luxuries" like health care or retirement -- this attitude is completely independent of the fiscal health of the country, its programs or anything else. They naturally gravitate towards these people not because of the actual policy goals, but because they say and do things that signal they are "serious."

I for one don't go into this style of moralistic narrative, I go in for different ones. But it's not about the actual laws that will get passed, it's about what sort of person people trust to write the law for them. As you say, Ryan "looks" like the adult in the room. And that's all it is, looks.

Re:

[shutdown -p now]

How did you know what "my side" is? Are you a telepath?