Mitt’s VP Shocker

[vt]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

It's the economy only. Without a recovery, social issues are secondary.

We have equal rights; no one cares what your color, nationality, sex, income, political persuasion, cat/dog preference, religion or lack thereof is.

As for marriage I can't marry a cousin, second wife to go with the first, my dog, my truck, etc.

Before someone calls names, I have no political affilaition. As stated I want an independent party fiscally conservative, socially moderate with little FIRE.

[don]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Both candidates have now consolidated their base - Romney with Ryan and Obama in recent liberal-friendly actions like his no-objection to gay marriage.

That leaves a tight race to the deciders . . .

no, not that guy, the swing vote . . .

debate on the neoliberal agenda will, as usual, be verboten . . . .

[BadJuju]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

It's the economy only. Without a recovery, social issues are secondary.

We have equal rights; no one cares what your color, nationality, sex, income, political persuasion, cat/dog preference, religion or lack thereof is.

As for marriage I can't marry a cousin, second wife to go with the first, my dog, my truck, etc.

Before someone calls names, I have no political affilaition. As stated I want an independent party fiscally conservative, socially moderate with little FIRE.

So we are equating gay marriage with incest and bestiality?

Regardless, you won't get economic recovery with Romney and Ryan. They are both corporate lackeys that will do whatever their corporate masters tell them. They are only concerned with making rich people richer.

[don]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

real change . . . for a change ;)

Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney's vice-presidential running mate, sold stock in US banks on the same day he attended a confidential meeting where top level officials disclosed the sector was heading for a deep crisis.

The congressman is facing questions about whether he profited from information gleaned from the meeting on 18 September 2008 when Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, then treasury secretary Hank Paulson and others outlined their fears for the banking sector.

Public records show that on the same day, Ryan sold stock in troubled banks including Wachovia and Citigroup and bought shares in Goldman Sachs, Paulson's old employer and a bank that had been disclosed to be stronger than many of its rivals. The sale was not illegal at the time.

Not long after the meeting, Wachovia's already troubled share price went into free fall. It plunged 39% on the afternoon of 26 September alone as investors worried the bank would collapse. It was eventually taken over by Wells Fargo for $15bn, a fraction of its former value.

Citigroup's share price fell soon after the meeting. In October 2008 Citigroup was among the largest beneficiary of the troubled asset relief program (Tarp), the taxpayer-funded bailout of the banking sector.

Ryan was a supporter of the Tarp bailout – a position that has put him at odds with the right wing of his party despite his otherwise conservative credentials. Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo are now among his largest financial supporters, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

[Finster]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

That does make it unequal. That demonstrates entirely that they are viewed as being of lower status than heterosexuals. I don't understand how you can look at that and not see it as discrimination and inequality made manifest by some foolish bigot. He not only does not want to extend the same right to marriage to them, but he wants to ensure that they never receive it. He also wants to ensure that they cannot have children. You have your head buried in the sand.

Under the law as it is, a person may marry anyone of the opposite sex, regardless of his sexual preference. There is simply no discrimination against any person in the law itself ... there may indeed be recognition of the difference between men and women, or between marriage of two people of the same sex or opposite sex, but that does not prevent any gay person from doing what a straight person may do. The "equality" you appear to advocate is not between persons, but institutions.

Let me expand on this. I don’t think Ryan’s position on certain gay marriage legislation necessarily makes him anti-gay marriage per se. Speaking for myself at least, I’m not opposed to gay marriage. My perspective is libertarian. I think any couple ought to be free to declare themselves married and that anyone else who wants to recognize it as marriage ought to likewise be free to do so. But that should cut both ways … if someone else does not wish to recognize gay marriage, he should not be forced to do so by the government, either.

I think this is what's behind most opposition to proposals to write gay marriage into the law. We've had enough to time to see what similar "equality" arguments supposedly predicated on women's rights have done. They've led to quotas, lawsuits, and loss of liberty. Suppose someone runs a restaurant. If he wants to extend, say, survivors benefits to spouses of employees, whether they are of the same or opposite sex, he should be free to do so. If on the other hand, he wants to extend them only to opposite sex spouses, he should be free to do that, too. I oppose any legislation that would take away that liberty.

I think that's what's at stake here. People fear - and not without reason - that their own freedom to decide for themselves is under threat.

[BadJuju]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Complete and utter scum! I hope he burns with the rest of FIRE.

[vt]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Nancy Pelosi has done the same type of inside sales. 60 minutes had an show that exposed both parties as using insider knowledge.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388130n/

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...vileges/47836/

This must be made illegal for them, as it already is for everyone else.

[Finster]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

It's the economy only. Without a recovery, social issues are secondary.

We have equal rights; no one cares what your color, nationality, sex, income, political persuasion, cat/dog preference, religion or lack thereof is.

As for marriage I can't marry a cousin, second wife to go with the first, my dog, my truck, etc.

Before someone calls names, I have no political affilaition. As stated I want an independent party fiscally conservative, socially moderate with little FIRE.

I think that sums up my perspective as well. Our politicians should be focusing on the economy.

Far as the rest goes, basic liberty needs to be respected, too. Any couple ought to be free to declare themselves married and anyone else who wants to recognize it as marriage ought to likewise be free to do so. But that should cut both ways … if someone else does not wish to recognize gay marriage, he should not be forced to do so by the government, either.

[Finster]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

real change . . . for a change ;)

Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney's vice-presidential running mate, sold stock in US banks on the same day he attended a confidential meeting where top level officials disclosed the sector was heading for a deep crisis...

... Ryan was a supporter of the Tarp bailout ...

While you're at it, do you know where the Obama administration's Secretary of the Treasury was in 2003-2008, when the financial crisis was brewing? If he wasn't part of its making, he sure had an opportunity to speak out about it ... if he cared to.

But all this is utterly irrelevant to what's really at stake in this election - the economic viability of the United States of America. If we don't get the government's finances under control, no one will even remember or care.

[Raz]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

The thing is, this issue speaks a lot about someone's personality and ethics.

Indeed it does. And let me state without equivocation that I totally and completely disagree with yours.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Romney assured a losing ticket by taking Ryan. At least with Rubio he could have added the nationwide hispanic vote IMO.

[lektrode]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Romney assured a losing ticket by taking Ryan. At least with Rubio he could have added the nationwide hispanic vote IMO.

+1
adding: i dont think that pandering to the 'conservative base' is going to win it.
while the opposition only has to maintain the (appearance) of the lib status quo to eek out a 1% margin

The Real Problem that the mittster seems to be failing to comprehend.

[Raz]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

So we are equating gay marriage with incest and bestiality?

Regardless, you won't get economic recovery with Romney and Ryan. They are both corporate lackeys that will do whatever their corporate masters tell them. They are only concerned with making rich people richer.

I am opposed to homosexual marriage. I am NOT opposed to civil unions between homosexualists. Along with most people in the United States I've had a gut full of leftist and nihilistic attempts to re-write law in order to grant a perversion special rights and in the process take away the rights of a landlord who does not want to be an enabler of or in any way a participant in their behavior. That's what would happen if marriage is re-defined to suit them.

Romney and Ryan are indeed almost certainly lackeys of the FIRE interests - but so is Obama.
The only hope we have is that Romney is elected and betrays his class as did Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt.

From what we know of Oblame-a there will be no hope should he be re-elected.

[BadJuju]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Civil unions are the same as the 'Separate, but equal' legal doctrine that defined segregation. Unless homosexuals are recognized as being the complete equals of heterosexuals and integrated entirely in society without any division being made between them and heterosexuals, then it will always be unequal.

I don't have any hope for Obama, but I certainly have no hope for Romney either. I am voting for a third party. I don't care if people tell me my vote is wasted. I'd rather throw away a vote then give it to these bastards.

[evangellydonut]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Gays have exactly the same marital rights as anyone else.

As the law currently stands, I do not believe they have right to survivorship for Social Security, which makes it discriminatory.