Morning Must Reads: Ryan

  • Share
  • Read Later

Further reading: Three recent Ryan profiles, including one straightforward (by the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza); one hostile (by New York’s Jonathan Chait); and one glowing (by the Weekly Standard’s Stephen F. Hayes). See also David Von Drehle’s TIME 2011 Person of the Year runner-up profile.

311 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
politathiest
politathiest

Dealing with Paule BJ,

OR, repost items that he can't or is to chicken to defend , or hits so to the core truthful or hypocritical to his conservative base he stops trying. Something so Oxymoronic to his base of conservatives he knows no defense is possible. I submit this repost as a suggestion

Paule BJ, writes,

Sound familiar? It should;

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Karl Marx

Pails BJ, here's references Marx took from to support his positions, behold, the greatest compilations of some of the most socialists of all time. I think we need to distance ourselves from such an obviously corupt religion...don't you agree.

Acts 2 : All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

Acts 4: 2 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money,have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” - Jesus

18 “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. 19 And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’ 20 “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’ - Jesus.

There's lots more where that came from!

53underscore3
53underscore3

paulejb is like a flatworm, he feels no pain, politathieast. 

You can't embarrass him, either, because his ambition is to irritate, like scabies, not reason, like Socrates.

I'll add and repost tomorrow.  Maybe we can all agree to strategies that deny paulejb his most precious need::interaction.

53underscore3
53underscore3

For paulejb's most recent post, I'm going with 6 and 7.

paulejb
paulejb

53_3,

Why not just try nah nah nah nah nah nah, I'm not listening to you? That should suit your age group, 53.

53underscore3
53underscore3

Handling paulejb: A few suggestions:

1. One way to deal with this is to post links and images only in response.  Try to avoid a lot of text that gives him any endthreadable material.

2. His more inane posts just don't respond to, I will observe this, too.

3. Never respond to his endthreads, I won't either.

4. If you must endthread paulejb, but don't give him any text for fodder. Inanae images and links might be a good idea, I'll stick to it, too.

5. Post inane imagery as a response.

6. Don't respond to him.

7. If you feel like refuting something he's posted, start it on a fresh thread directed at all participants. Do not address him directly.

8. Post items that he can't or is too chicken to defend , or hits so to the core truthful or hypocritical to his conservative base he stops trying. (I suggest minimal or no additional text---53_3 comment).

Any other suggestions?

paulejb
paulejb

53_3,

Just wave a white flag and I'll let up on you chumps.

Paul Dirks
Paul Dirks

Never respond under any circumstances. If you feel like refuting something he's posted, start it on a fresh thread directed at all participants. Do not address him directly. His indifference to the truth of his assertions renders any attempt at conversation to be a complete waste. You might as well argue with a Mynah Bird.

53underscore3
53underscore3

Ok, editing now.  That's seven.  I'll put it up early tomorrow on the MMR, and for the next few days. He's getting obnoxious and we need to be able to be consistent in dealing with him.

He has first amendment rights, but we have the right to assemble freely, too!

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©

You mean spambot?

5. Point and laugh.

http://www.sabotagetimes.com/w...

~

53underscore3
53underscore3

Yeah! Just post the link to the image and let it load! Don't waste time with him writing anything he can endthread. You can post 'em as fast as he does, that's the good part.

Notice his image posting went way down when I started repetitively posting that graph with minimal text. He just had nothing to grab hold of.

paulejb
paulejb

53_3,

You are seeing the hive mind throw in that towel on this thread. They have finally realized that they can't possibly win.

Good luck, boys. I won't miss any of you.

MomentoMori
MomentoMori

3x, earlier today, (edited ala paulie).

"swamp-libtards..."

...followed by several more unsubstantiated insults and personal attacks, then ending with...

"What a disgraceful totally dishonest bunch."

Are you proud of your behavior 3x? Calling everyone a 'libtard' then claiming the "libtards" are the disgraceful ones here? And that's not even counting all your 'you're not a Real American' crap and accusing black people of waging war on white people.

At what point are YOU the disgrace, 3x? What insult would that take? Do you even have a limit?

MrObvious
MrObvious

Didnt you know that because he votes conservative he's immune against whatever we 'libruls' are. It's always the 'you started it' excuse like 5 year olds pulling hair in the sandbox.

Hollywooddeed
Hollywooddeed

Doesn't he still get his quarter no matter what he says?

politathiest
politathiest

I got him to give some background and thought we were agreed to try and have an honest debate which I was happy to do, name calling achieves nothing. You can read my spot below after ifthethunderdontgetya, to see hoe that worked out!

3xfire3
3xfire3

Obama’s Attack on ‘Workfare’

President Obama has created a firestorm by overturning the work requirements of the popular 1996 welfare-reform law. Now his White House is bristling because Mitt Romney dares to point out that fact on the stump and in a new campaign ad.Obama’s move is only the latest step in a long history of liberal opposition to work requirements. The Left blocked welfare-reform efforts under both Presidents Nixon and Reagan, for example.

In 1996, a Republican Congress drafted a welfare-reform law — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) — that for the first time established meaningful work standards for welfare recipients. President Clinton reluctantly signed this legislation.Ever since, Democratic leaders have attempted — unsuccessfully — to repeal welfare’s work standards, blocking reauthorization of TANF and attempting to weaken the requirements.Unable to eliminate “workfare” legislatively, the Left now acts contrary to the law and employs a bureaucratic maneuver to gut the work requirements. The Obama administration claims authority to grant waivers that allow states to skirt these requirements.

This hostility to workfare is deeply at odds with the public’s view. A recent Rasmussen survey reveals that 83 percent of adults favor work requirements. Only 7 percent oppose them.

Recognizing such strong support for work requirements, liberals historically used camouflage tactics: They publicly praised workfare while seeking to murder it behind the scenes. The Obama administration has adopted this “talk right, govern left” strategy.

Humorously, Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius even asserts that the administration abolished the TANF work requirements in order to increase work.

This is false.The Obama administration claims authority to overhaul every aspect of the TANF work provisions (section 407), including “definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures and the calculation of participation rates” — in other words, the whole work program. Sebelius’s HHS bureaucracy declared the existing TANF law a blank slate on which it can write any policy it chooses. Because HHS granted itself total authority to change any aspect of the work standards, the agency will not be bound by its state-by-state waiver approach in the future.

Moreover, HHS has made it clear that it will not accept waivers for new conservative policies. The agency’s guidance states that it will not approve policy initiatives that are “likely to reduce access to aid.” Translation: HHS will oppose any policy that reduces welfare caseloads. Following the historic pattern, the Obama administration wrapped its anti-work policies in pro-work rhetoric. Stung by criticism, HHS now claims that states receiving a waiver must “commit that their proposals will move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work compared [with] the state’s prior performance.”

This sounds impressive, but a state can accomplish this merely by raising monthly “employment exits” (people exiting welfare to take a job) from, say, 5 percent to 6 percent of its caseload. That kind of change will occur automatically as the economy improves.

Liberals traditionally use sham “exit” statistics to pretend they are shrinking welfare, while in reality they’re increasing it. Given the normal turnover rate in welfare programs, the easiest way to increase the number of individuals moving from “welfare to work” is to increase the number entering welfare in the first place.

Bogus statistical ploys like these were the norm before the 1996 reform. TANF curtailed the use of sham measures of success and established meaningful standards: Participating in work activities meant actual work activities, not “bed rest” or “reading” or doing one hour of job search per month; reducing welfare dependence meant reducing caseloads. Now those standards are gone.

Obama’s goal is to “spread the wealth” by massively increasing the welfare state. The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs.

Roughly a third of the population receives benefits from one or more of these programs. (These figures do not include Social Security or Medicare.) Total welfare spending in 2011 came to $927 billion.Last month, only three of these programs included any type of work requirement. Now that number is two, since Obama ended welfare reform as we know it.

politathiest
politathiest

Same flexabilty most Repub govenors have requested INCLUDING ROMNEY .. HYPOCRITE! I try discussing with you why so many are in need, namely, the wealth and incomr dispaity is so high there is wages don't support the mid class to have disposable income for anything other than staples! The bottom 50% now makes less than 15%. The top 1% income had increase 170% since reagans wealth give away. Wheres the money for recovery? Asked now 20 times . Conservative answers = ZERO. Wealthy spend a fraction percentage of wealth buying "luxuries" compared to almost 100% of middle class. No disposable income in mid class wages.... No RECOVERY. AND the wealthy aren't saying, let's pay decent wages so the little people can buy things. It's called Oligarchy or plutacracy..... Usually ends in facism. Sorry if this is beyond conservs comprehension!

MomentoMori
MomentoMori

You could've just posted a link to the article at the National Review, instead copying and pasting the whole thing like it's something you wrote yourself.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

I'm going to assume the best, 3x - that you weren't trying to pass someone else's work off as your own. If I was in a more sarcastic mood, I would've just posted in all caps...

"YOU DIDN'T WRITE THAT!"

...and accused you of being a socialist Marxist America-hater.

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

You should talk to your pal, outsider. Talk about regurgitation.

MomentoMori
MomentoMori

Examples, Roddy?

And I wasn't talking about repetition, I was talking about not posting a link to the source or giving credit where credit is due. It's not that complicated.

kbanginmotown
kbanginmotown

600 comments? really?

MomentoMori
MomentoMori

We finally found a reason for paulie to exist: He's good for driving up the comments totals (mostly by reposting snippets of other people's post and constant declarations of being the most smartest man on the intertubes).

Maybe he works for TIME?

paulejb
paulejb

MomentoMori,

TIME couldn't afford me, Mori.

Hollywooddeed
Hollywooddeed

There are many pay-per-post sites. Beer money.

Richard Giles
Richard Giles

The choice is clear as long as we keep reality clear in our minds and the reality is that the rhetoric doesn't ever matter as the politicians' actions will be totally consistent with satisfying the interests of their supporters who demand no less ... and the more support that is given, the more mega-millions that is poured into that support, the more tightly are the strings tied to that support. The abundant and slanted rhetoric offered about the issues is the necessary subterfuge aimed to rationalize, with deception and creative logic, in oder to seem authentic ... but the consistent reality is that the politicians literally have to be focused on satisfying their strong supporters.  It is totally obvious when putting the subterfuge aside and considering what is at the heart of their actions, seeing the reality of who always benefits.

The Republican / Tea Party is owned and controlled by "the money" and over the last twelve years we have clearly seen their "puppet" performances in both the protection of "the money's" interests and their stubborn blocking and arrogant faulting of Obama's and the Democrats' efforts – literally they just have no choice and we should expect nothing else. The Democrats, while receiving a few sizable contributions, are largely dependent on the people for their support and power, which dictates they have to focus on the people's interests ... with the problem there being "all of the people's interests", with it then being hard to satisfy everyone, thus leaving opportunities for many to be conned and manipulated with appeals to biases, prejudices, fears, emotions and loyalties. In the final analysis, it should be remembered that the Republicans have no choice, no matter how they disguise it, but to cater to the 1% and that just leaves no room for ever satisfying the 99%. The rest is simply BS.

filmnoia
filmnoia

The worse thing about Ryan is his putrid taste in music. I mean, the guy even likes The Grateful Dead - sooooo booooring. Most people know that the Stones are the greatest band ever. Anyway .....

 Once the Obama ads about Ryan's budget plan gets a work out around the country you will have  GOP House members and senate candidates soiling themselves as they attempt to run away from it as fast as they can. This ought to be fun.

politathiest
politathiest

Paule BJ, writes,

Sound familiar? It should;

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Karl Marx

Pails BJ, here's references Marx took from to support his positions, behold, the greatest compilations of some of the most socialists of all time. I think we need to distance ourselves from such an obviously corupt religion...don't you agree.

Acts 2 : All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

Acts 4: 2 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money,have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” - Jesus

18 “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. 19 And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’ 20 “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’ - Jesus.

There's lots more where that came from!

politathiest
politathiest

Paule BJ,

What does that have to do with my posts. Common on, give a straight answer for once. Are those or are those not SOCIALIST statements or reflect a clear socialist agenda. There are other scripture in NT that are as socialist. "sell all you have and join me", bear each others burden" , story of Rich man and Lazarus. Etc etc. ! A good 40% + of "conservatives" follow as a matter of strong faith the leaders of this socialist religion! You to afraid to speak truth to your "base".......FREAKIN hypocrites!!!!!

paulejb
paulejb

poliathiest,

Satan quotes scripture all the time, poli. Do you doubt that socialists would too?

Pollopa
Pollopa

Politathiest -

We have all gone through the frustrations of trying to get Paulie  to honestly debate.  I gave up on the dolt about 3 months ago.  He is about running up posts only to try and be the top nutcase.  His ego has long ago beat the c rap out of his id, so he runs around peeing his pants on purpose, and leaving his excrement all over the swamp. He doesn't care that you are right. He thrives on your attention no matter how much you waste him, and asks for more. He is not worth your time or for that matter anyone's here on the swamp.  If he were actually a conservative thinker, it would be a different story, but he gets his talking material and can't think for himself any further than the print in front of him. So ignore the endless prattle he serves.  Throw in a response once in awhile if you must, but don't expect a logical conclusion.

politathiest
politathiest

Ya but it has great shock value that I know, he knows I'm right and he can't supply a response because the NT teaches these ideals and more. !

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©

At some point, politathiest, you're going to realize there is no point in asking spambot a question.

He's a moron.

~

politathiest
politathiest

NOTICE he's still too chichen to take on the above hypoctacy. Previously I was given a olive branch by 3xfire3 to which I was willing to have an honest, fact based debate without namecalling. It took an hour for him on a different subpost to rant about liberals. I still tried being fair and discuss facts to which he basically said , I don't care what facts you have , unless they come from a source I accept I won't believe anything . like most people I have a conservative leanings in certain areas , and I'm happy to be fair about those , but what I found here is that most conservatives like arguing rhetoric only and won't consider sources be on rush limbaugh !

paulejb
paulejb

poliathiest,

Liberalism - the opiate of the masses.

Apologies to Karl Marx.

MrObvious
MrObvious

Sarah Palin and Santorum, opiate for paulejb

nuff said.