• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

VP Picks 2012

mhaze said:
But what better person to intelligently criticize the system than one who has been involved with it?
Click to expand...

Does he know something that any well-informed person doesn't know about the system? Perhaps he knows what color the check was.
 
respect said:
Again, it would be foolish of them to not take advantage the existing system even if they believe that there are superior alternatives.
Click to expand...

If a person believes that something is evil socialism, then it is hypocritical of them to partake of it. If you believe abortion is murder, then you shouldn't have one even if it is legal.

Steve S
 
steve s said:
If a person believes that something is evil socialism, then it is hypocritical of them to partake of it. If you believe abortion is murder, then you shouldn't have one even if it is legal.

Steve S
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that paying taxes is voluntary :rolleyes: You would have a point if Ryan and his father could opt out of the system, but that isn't an option, so what you are claiming is they should bear the costs but enjoy none of the benefits which is silly.

Also, anyone who believes that Social Security is socialism does not know what socialism is.
 
Ayn Rand on the situation:

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it.

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scholarships.html
Click to expand...
 
respect said:
I didn't realize that paying taxes is voluntary :rolleyes: You would have a point if Ryan and his father could opt out of the system, but that isn't an option, so what you are claiming is they should bear the costs but enjoy none of the benefits which is silly.
Click to expand...


Do you know if the Ryan family got a positive rate of return on what the elder Ryan paid in?
 
Galt, Gold and God
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 23, 2012 804 Comments

So far, most of the discussion of Paul Ryan, the presumptive Republican nominee for vice president, has focused on his budget proposals. But Mr. Ryan is a man of many ideas, which would ordinarily be a good thing.


In his case, however, most of those ideas appear to come from works of fiction, specifically Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”
Click to expand...

NY Times linky
 
Apparently someone in W. "M." Romney HQ, someone thought this was a swell time to have a conversation with Politico about how C. Christie had been the leading contender until a last minute change to P. Ryan.

Why blab this now? Was this conversation pre-cleared with the boss?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83254.html
 
Republicans are really mad that Governor Christie had the temerity to say nice things about the Enemy in the White House while his state was suffering post-Sandy.
 
hgc said:
Apparently someone in W. "M." Romney HQ, someone thought this was a swell time to have a conversation with Politico about how C. Christie had been the leading contender until a last minute change to P. Ryan.

Why blab this now? Was this conversation pre-cleared with the boss?
Click to expand...
Would seem strange. It's probably just Romney campaign insiders that have given up and are shooting their mouth off.
 
Christie was furious about being dumped for Paul Ryan but, like a real New Jersey mob boss, he smiled and played nice and bided his time until an opportunity arose for him to exact his revenge.

Kidding. Mostly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom