Ram Posted August 11, 2012 Posted August 11, 2012 Good start. But this is old news. This election is not about what Bush and Cheney did, and is irrelevant today. We are talking about trillions in ANNUAL spending over the next several decades. wait, run that by me again..the Iraq waris old news? You do realize that it is not the Vietnam war that we are talking about right? And what was the position of the gifted congressman Wisconsin on whether 1.5 trillion dollars of the taxpayers money should be spent on a phony war or not. I am just curious.
Ram Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 I just realized that it is really easy to qualify as an intellectual in the eyes of a liberal. Anyone who supports the following is smart, charismatic, intelligent and compassionate: No taxes on anyone who makes below 100,000. Progressive tax on everyone else to bring everyone's income below 100,000. Corporate tax >/= 50%. Free, 5-star healthcare provided for all by Uncle Sam. Unlimited duration of unemployment benefits, unlimited pensions for all government workers, retirement age = 55. Entitlements always have to be greater than 70% of the federal budget. In essence - a guarantee of equality, not just equal opportunity for all!! Everyone else is a fool. I am amused. You do realize that mitt Romney's father ran for president in the 60s right? You also probably realize that unlike his son, Romney senior released nearly a decade or more worth of tax returns. Do you want to know what papa Romney's average tax rate was back then? Thirty six percent! That is, nearly 3 times that of his son, whose average tax rate turned out to be around 13%, in the sole year he chose to release his tax return. That ridiculous tax rate does not seem to have prevented Romney senior from giving his son a very good opportunity, who is now running for president.
Clarke Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 CBO sez: http://roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/cbo01-27-ryan-roadmap-letter.pdf What is President Obama's plan to keep Medicare and SS solvent? To tackle deficits? Forget President Obama, I could balance the budget too by increasing some taxes & completely disolving the armed forces & Pentagon and instead create a voucher plan that allows citizens to buy gunpowder to defend themselves. Problem is, i don't command a political party thats loyal to a cult led by Norquist to garner support for it.
Ram Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 My work place has some really rich folks (BMW 5 series', Audi A6s', Mercedes' are a banality in mg office car park) and just last week, the president held a fund raiser in the same city. I thought there would be at least some level of excitement that the president of the USA is in town. To my surprise, all I could detect was a general apathy, even some discontented murmurs. I thought about that while I was driving back home and something struck me - rich folks really do not like Obama. Clearly, they identify themselves more with the cut the budget deficit message. I have always wondered - why are these people so crazy about the budget deficit? Are they really that concerned that the usa will default and the dollar will become worthless? What is so different now versus the past? After all, the USA has been in debt since ww II. Then the subtext slowly dawned on me - what the rich folks are actually saying is - "I don't want my tax money to go fund your kids college education or pay for your unemployment benefits. You are on your own!" Quite clearly - the bogeyman of ballooning budget deficit and China demanding money from the USA is just a lame front to mask that message. It seems as though rich people hate paying taxes so much that mitt Romney, even though he knew he was going to run for political office, still went all the lengths to get as many exemptions as possible that it looks so bad now that they wont release hos tax returns. Paying taxes, especially if you are a hard working, self sufficient individual is no fun. I hate to seek all the tax dollars going from my monthly pay check. But I don't really mind when the taxes I pay is. Towards paying somebody's unemployment benefits check. What makes me mad is when the same money us used for phony wars that kill innocent people. what makes me even more mad is when a multimillionaire like mitt Romney pays an effective tax rate of 14% because he has access to fancy accountants, while I, a normal person, pays more than double that percentage.
Sachin=GOD Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 Good choice but won't increase Romney's chances - IMO he's still losing.
punjabi_khota Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/no-paul-ryan-is-not-courageous/2012/08/11/89a9ee56-e3ed-11e1-a25e-15067bb31849_blog.html Across the political spectrum, even among many liberals who otherwise are rubbing their hands with glee over Mitt Romney’s selection of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) as his running mate, pundits and politicians are praising Romney’s move as a “courageous” and “bold” pick. And plenty of people (fewer on the liberal side, though still a great number of moderates) are lauding Ryan himself as ”courageous”. On the surface, such a take is understandable: Ryan’s claim to fame — his “Path to Prosperity” budget — was a political loser when introduced last spring. But a closer look reveals that these claims are bunk: Picking Ryan is essentially a safe sop to the conservative wing of the party, and Ryan himself is not so courageous. First, Romney’s choice: The past few weeks have made clear that the race is slipping away from him, as President Obama’s lead has widened in state and national polls and the economic outlook has brightened slightly. The right has sensed this — see talk show host Laura Ingraham, among others — and conservatives are convinced that Romney is losing because he’s not assertive or conservative enough. So I agree with the New Republic’s Noam Scheiber when he writes this: Ryan is the way Romney and his aides escape blame for their now-likely defeat — blame which would have vicious and unrelenting — and pin it in on conservatives instead. With only minor historical revisions, they will be able to tell a story about how Romney was keeping the race close through early August, at which point the party’s conservative darling joined the ticket and sent the poll numbers into steady decline. If moderates such as Condoleezza Rice (pro-abortion rights) and Chris Christie (pro-gun control and moderate on immigration) were out of the question, Ryan was easy to choose ahead of the other possibilities: He has no Bush administration history, unlike Rob Portman, no raft of mini-scandals-in-waiting, like Marco Rubio, and some actual charisma, unlike Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty. Picking a reliable conservative was much safer for Romney than daring the right to abandon him and/or heap all the blame on him for losing in November. By process of elimination, Ryan was the best — and the safest — of the bunch. As for Ryan himself, to begin with, what policies turned Clinton-era surpluses into Bush-era deficits? In large part, two tax cuts, two wars and a massive prescription drug benefit, and Ryan voted for all of them. (He also voted for TARP, by the way; his fiscal rectitude only included actually voting against massive expenditures once President Obama took office.) His “serious” debt-reduction plan doesn’t balance the budget until 2040. By contrast, the House Progressive Caucus budget, whatever else you think of it, balances the budget within a decade.(Note: In both cases, those are the budgets’ authors’ projections; your math may vary.) Furthermore, no doubt in fear of the senior vote, Ryan dropped the Social Security privatization aspect from his debt plan and now only guts Medicare for people 55 and younger. Finally, Ryan refuses to touch defense spending, retains tax breaks for oil companies that don’t need them, zeroes out the capital gains tax and finds his savings in programs by shredding the already hole-ridden safety net. For a Republican, this is smart politics. But how exactly is it “courageous” or “serious” to protect the interests to some of the most powerful (and wealthiest) lobbies in Washington — Wall Street, oil companies and the defense industry — while heaping painful cuts on the poor? No, the idea that Ryan or Romney’s nomination of him as his vice president is courageous is simply wrong.
Brainfade Posted August 12, 2012 Author Posted August 12, 2012 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/no-paul-ryan-is-not-courageous/2012/08/11/89a9ee56-e3ed-11e1-a25e-15067bb31849_blog.html Across the political spectrum, even among many liberals who otherwise are rubbing their hands with glee over Mitt RomneyÃÔ selection of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) as his running mate, pundits and politicians are praising RomneyÃÔ move as a ÅÄourageous and ÅÃold pick. And plenty of people (fewer on the liberal side, though still a great number of moderates) are lauding Ryan himself as ÇÄourageous? On the surface, such a take is understandable: RyanÃÔ claim to fame his űath to Prosperity budget was a political loser when introduced last spring. But a closer look reveals that these claims are bunk: Picking Ryan is essentially a safe sop to the conservative wing of the party, and Ryan himself is not so courageous. First, RomneyÃÔ choice: The past few weeks have made clear that the race is slipping away from him, as President ObamaÃÔ lead has widened in state and national polls and the economic outlook has brightened slightly. The right has sensed this see talk show host Laura Ingraham, among others and conservatives are convinced that Romney is losing because heÃÔ not assertive or conservative enough. So I agree with the New RepublicÃÔ Noam Scheiber when he writes this: Ryan is the way Romney and his aides escape blame for their now-likely defeat blame which would have vicious and unrelenting and pin it in on conservatives instead. With only minor historical revisions, they will be able to tell a story about how Romney was keeping the race close through early August, at which point the partyÃÔ conservative darling joined the ticket and sent the poll numbers into steady decline. If moderates such as Condoleezza Rice (pro-abortion rights) and Chris Christie (pro-gun control and moderate on immigration) were out of the question, Ryan was easy to choose ahead of the other possibilities: He has no Bush administration history, unlike Rob Portman, no raft of mini-scandals-in-waiting, like Marco Rubio, and some actual charisma, unlike Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty. Picking a reliable conservative was much safer for Romney than daring the right to abandon him and/or heap all the blame on him for losing in November. By process of elimination, Ryan was the best and the safest of the bunch. As for Ryan himself, to begin with, what policies turned Clinton-era surpluses into Bush-era deficits? In large part, two tax cuts, two wars and a massive prescription drug benefit, and Ryan voted for all of them. (He also voted for TARP, by the way; his fiscal rectitude only included actually voting against massive expenditures once President Obama took office.) His ÅÔerious debt-reduction plan doesnÃÕ balance the budget until 2040. By contrast, the House Progressive Caucus budget, whatever else you think of it, balances the budget within a decade.(Note: In both cases, those are the budgets authors projections; your math may vary.) Furthermore, no doubt in fear of the senior vote, Ryan dropped the Social Security privatization aspect from his debt plan and now only guts Medicare for people 55 and younger. Finally, Ryan refuses to touch defense spending, retains tax breaks for oil companies that donÃÕ need them, zeroes out the capital gains tax and finds his savings in programs by shredding the already hole-ridden safety net. For a Republican, this is smart politics. But how exactly is it ÅÄourageous or ÅÔerious to protect the interests to some of the most powerful (and wealthiest) lobbies in Washington Wall Street, oil companies and the defense industry while heaping painful cuts on the poor? No, the idea that Ryan or RomneyÃÔ nomination of him as his vice president is courageous is simply wrong. I am in agreement about ridiculous war spending, and know the Ryan's vote for the wars was misguided (along with ~ 40% of Dems in the House and 58% of Dems in the Senate, including Hillary Clinton). Barack Obama voted ... oh wait, he wasn't even a Senator then, so we can only take his word for it. That's over. It' very unfortunate. Kudos to Obama for keeping Bush's 2011 deadline (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/17/AR2008111703097.html). It's a new world, a new economy. Two points: (1) His plan will not dissolve medical care for seniors. It will dissolve Medicare - AS WE KNOW IT for future retirees. And AS WE KNOW IT, it is not working and will go insolvent in 25 years. So, myopic progressives are looking to continue benefits from a program that will not exist in 25 years - all to gain power in the short-term. (2) Borrowing from SS has to stop if we are to keep it solvent. We have some bitter pills to swallow. I took the time to read your link. Did you dare read mine - the one from Time magazine, which in this same thread? For all the rhetoric about greedy skinflints and wild-eyed socialists that we're likely to hear next year, the real dispute over our fiscal future boils down to which tools to use and how aggressively to use them. Ryan opened the bidding by drawing nothing from Column A and trillions from Column B. His proposal called for tax reform but not higher tax revenues. On the other hand, Ryan would freeze all nonsecurity discretionary spending. Washington would stop running Medicaid, the program for indigent patients. Instead, the federal government would send checks to the states to set up their own programs. Though his plans don't specify changes to Social Security, Ryan favors payments based on need rather than preretirement earnings. And future retirees (people under 55 now) would buy their own health insurance, only partly subsidized by the government. Medicare in its current form, which pays doctors and hospitals directly for services, would go away. Here again, Ryan would provide larger subsidies for poorer patients. There's a lot for Democrats to attack in that plan. As the saying goes, everything in the federal budget is there because someone likes it. But Ryan believes talking about dramatic change is the first step toward "detoxifying these issues." He says, "People are waking up, turning on the TV, seeing their states struggling with debt problems, seeing Europe implode, and they are realizing that something different needs to happen."
Brainfade Posted August 13, 2012 Author Posted August 13, 2012 My work place has some really rich folks (BMW 5 series', Audi A6s', Mercedes' are a banality in mg office car park) and just last week, the president held a fund raiser in the same city. I thought there would be at least some level of excitement that the president of the USA is in town. To my surprise, all I could detect was a general apathy, even some discontented murmurs. I thought about that while I was driving back home and something struck me - rich folks really do not like Obama. Anecdotal, self-pitying rant. Most liberal, Obama-fawners I know make a lot more money than I do, live in mansions, drive BMWs adorned with Obama-Biden 08 stickers, while I show up for work in my Corolla. At the national level. do you think Nancy Pelosi is not stinking rich? Ted Turner? John Edwards? And the Kennedys? Not to forget George Soros who basically funded Obama's 2008 campaign. (Added in edit) Check this out: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57488937/jordan-nba-players-to-raise-money-for-obama/ WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is joining NBA legend Michael Jordan and an array of basketball stars to raise money for his re-election campaign later this month. The Obama campaign is planning a fundraising "shoot-around" and dinner in New York on Aug. 22 featuring several NBA stars, including Carmelo Anthony of the New York Knicks, Rajon Rondo of the Boston Celtics, John Wall of the Washington Wizards and others. Jordan, who played for the Chicago Bulls, Obama's favorite NBA team, and NBA Commissioner David Stern are co-hosting a $20,000-per person fundraising dinner with the president later in the day. Obama is a longtime basketball fan who regularly plays pickup games with friends and aides. His campaign held a fundraiser last February at the Orlando-area home of NBA player Vince Carter, who is also involved in the New York events. The campaign is holding a "shoot-around" with players at New York's Chelsea Piers sports complex, including Anthony, Rondo, Wall, Paul Pierce, Kyrie Irving, Joe Johnson and former NBA centers Patrick Ewing and Alonzo Mourning. WNBA stars Sheryl Swoopes and Dawn Staley are also participating in the event, which will cost $5,000 for a parent and child or two people to have a "shoot-around skills session" with the players. A $250 donation provides an autograph session with the players. Does sound like a bunch of rich people to me ...
Brainfade Posted August 13, 2012 Author Posted August 13, 2012 One last point before I stop annoying you guys for a while: It is indisputable that the Ryan choice has elevated the debate to where we are talking about issues, not personalities. Math, not fuzz. Economic-, not social, issues.
yoda Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 One last point before I stop annoying you guys for a while: It is indisputable that the Ryan choice has elevated the debate to where we are talking about issues, not personalities. Math, not fuzz. Economic-, not social, issues. http://www.shewired.com/soapbox/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-says-rights-come-nature-and-god-not-government Paul Ryan made his first public appearance after being announced as Mitt RomneyÃÔ running mate Saturday morning and received the loudest applause of his debut speech when he said, Our rights come from nature and God, not from government. “A faithful Catholic, Paul believes in the faith and dignity of every human life,” said Romney in his introduction. “Our rights come from nature and God, not from government. That's who we are,” he said. “That's how we built this country. That's who we are. That's what made us great. That's our founding.” Ryan made a similar statement to ABC News in July when he continued the call to repeal health care reform after the Supreme Court upheld the law, saying that rights “come from nature and God, according to the Declaration of Independence.” His view appears to defy the trajectory of civil rights progress in the country, where disenfranchised groups including LGBT Americans have repeatedly turned to the courts and legislatures, not religious authority, to win rights. According to an analysis of his record, Ryan voted against equality legislation all but once during his Congressional career. The Human Rights Campaign issued a statement that called Romney and Ryan out-of-touch with the majority of Americans, including some Republicans, on equality issues. "Ryan's record of voting against fairness, dignity and equality is out of touch with the majority of Americans and a fast growing majority of Republicans," said Chad Griffin, the group’s president. "LGBT Americans need leadership that will continue to fight for their rights to protect their families, marry the person they love, and enjoy equal protections under the law." Once a right wing looney, always a right wing looney. :winky:
Clarke Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 ^ Lets not add fuel to the fire and debate this intellectual VP's solid budget. The answer to every economic issue for each of their presidents seems to be tax cuts. Reagan does that, Dubya does that, heck even this President who's labelled a socialist does that. What's proposed next by these conzaaavatives ? More tax cuts :whatchutalkingabout If such trends continue over the coming decades, their cult leader's vision of govt going down the drain (or drown in the bathtub, whatever he said) will actually come true.
Brainfade Posted August 14, 2012 Author Posted August 14, 2012 http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/at-prayer-breakfast-obama-says-christian-faith-guides-his-policies/2012/02/02/gIQAzNyakQ_story.html I have fallen on my knees with great regularity since that moment asking God for guidance not just in my personal life and my Christian walk, but in the life of this nation and in the values that hold us together and keep us strong. What a weirdo.
Brainfade Posted August 14, 2012 Author Posted August 14, 2012 http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/no-end-to-end-medicare-claim/ Democrats are still hammering an old, and since replaced, GOP proposal, claiming it would “end Medicare,” and cost seniors $6,000 more a year for their health care. The newest Republican budget, proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, keeps traditional Medicare — unlike his plan from 2011 — and the increased cost claim is no longer applicable to it. The latest string of “end Medicare” claims comes from the liberal Patriot Majority, a 501©(4), a nonprofit advocacy group, that was founded by a Democratic strategist, and that does not have to disclose its donors. Its ads, which began airing June 18, support Democratic Reps. John Barrow of Georgia, Ben Chandler of Kentucky and Jim Matheson of Utah, as well as Republican Rep. David McKinley of West Virginia. Another late June ad, from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, echoes the Medicare theme, attacking Rep. Rick Berg, who is running for the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Kent Conrad in North Dakota. The ad says Berg voted for “essentially ending Medicare.” House members voted along party lines on the Ryan budget last year (which included the Medicare proposal), with all Democrats and only four Republicans, including McKinley, voting against it. Battle-Tested Claims Never Die? Democrats have jumped on Ryan’s budget proposal since he first presented it in 2011. His plan called for a massive change to Medicare — stopping the current Medicare system in 2022 for new beneficiaries and instead launching a so-called “premium-support” system, where seniors would pick from a choice of private plans on a new Medicare exchange with the help of government-provided subsidies. Claims that this would “end Medicare” — claims that were usually accompanied by images of elderly individuals — left the false impression that the Ryan plan would get rid of any kind of insurance program for seniors. Furthermore, this plan didn’t pertain to the seniors pictured in the attack ads — they would remain on traditional Medicare, with only new beneficiaries in 2022 and beyond joining the private system. The claim made our list of the “Whoppers of 2011,” and so far, Democrats are making a good case for its inclusion in our 2012 list. A Democratic super PAC used the claim again in an Iowa congressional race in February, and now Patriot Majority and the DSCC are joining in. The Patriot Majority ads say that “some in Washington want to end Medicare” and that the lawmaker featured in the ad “opposed those who’d increase costs on seniors by $6,000 a year.” But the ads dig up that old claim about Ryan’s 2011 proposal. It’s true that an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that seniors on the private plans would pay more than they would under traditional Medicare. And the CBO analysis indicated that a 65-year-old in 2022 could pay about $6,000 more than he or she would for the year under traditional Medicare. The government subsidies would increase with the rate of inflation, which critics argued was not much when dealing with health costs that, for years, have risen much faster than the general inflation rate. Ryan did say that low-income beneficiaries would get more money from the government to help cover costs, but the details on how much and who would qualify were not yet fleshed out. But Ryan’s new plan, released this year, is more generous in terms of what it would provide for subsidies, and it keeps traditional Medicare as an option for all beneficiaries, both current and future. Here’s a quick rundown of the latest Ryan plan: For seniors who are now in Medicare, nothing changes. They can stay with the traditional program as it is. Beginning in 2023, 65-year-olds would have their choice of insurance plans — private and traditional — on a new Medicare exchange. A premium-support payment, like a subsidy, would be sent to the plan of their choice. If the chosen plan costs more than the premium-support, the senior would pay the difference. The Medicare eligibility age would be slowly raised to 67 by 2034. All plans on the Medicare exchange would offer a base level of benefits, and they would be regulated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The premium-support payments would be tied to the second-cheapest plan, which can’t grow more than gross domestic product plus 0.5 percentage points. If the cost does grow faster, Congress would be required to step in and take some action to keep costs down. CBO didn’t conduct an analysis that shows what seniors might have to spend out of pocket under the latest plan. But it said that “beneficiaries might face higher costs,” adding that there was uncertainty in making such predictions. CBO said that both the Ryan plan and current law could lead to the same consequences — “reduced access to health care; diminished quality of care; increased efficiency of health care delivery; less investment in new, high-cost technologies; or some combination of those outcomes. In addition, beneficiaries might face higher costs, which could in turn reinforce some of the other effects.” And some of the effects would be greater under the Ryan plan because government spending is lower. But there was no estimate of seniors paying $6,000 more, or any other amount, under the latest GOP plan. The ads ignore the updated Ryan plan, choosing instead to highlight an old, and misleading, claim. The ads feature images of seniors, who wouldn’t be affected by either of Ryan’s proposals — the changes to Medicare wouldn’t be put into place until 2022 or 2023, and would only affect new beneficiaries at that time. The Patriot Majority ads also say these lawmakers “fought against raising the eligibility age for Medicare” and “prevented a new Medicare doughnut hole.” Those are both references to the Ryan plan, which raises the eligibility age and repeals the Affordable Care Act provisions that slowly closed the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage, known as the “doughnut hole.” ‘Essentially’ Out of Context The DSCC ad throws in the line that North Dakota Rep. Berg voted for “essentially ending Medicare.” But the line is a reference to an April 4, 2011, Wall Street Journal article, and it’s not the full quote from the newspaper.
Rajiv Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 Why do these politicians always publicize the importance of having catholic values and church, I know it's the majority but shouldn't they display that they are a leader for all faiths, especially in a country like USA BTW, Cricaddict - do you debate on other websites as well
triam Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 CA, One question, when did Libertarian poilcies become part of conservative policies? Ryan's idol is Ayn Rand, he has said that multiple times. I believe you have read Atlas shrugged, it is a decent piece of fiction but do you think the policies are applicable to real world scenarios? By the by I abhor any politician who talks about his faith and beliefs be it Obama( though his policies are not affected by them by and large, DADT etc), Romney or Ryan. Dont you agree the repub's faith based beliefs impact their policy decisions? and dont you think that is a recipe for disaster?
Brainfade Posted August 14, 2012 Author Posted August 14, 2012 Why do these politicians always publicize the importance of having catholic values and church, I know it's the majority but shouldn't they display that they are a leader for all faiths, especially in a country like USA BTW, Cricaddict - do you debate on other websites as well Nossir. This is the outlet for my political views. And I have tried not to do it here, too. It takes up a lot of time, esp. with my semester starting tomorrow. But, like a moth to a flame ... :-).
yoda Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/at-prayer-breakfast-obama-says-christian-faith-guides-his-policies/2012/02/02/gIQAzNyakQ_story.html What a weirdo. You missed this important quote: ŧor me, as a Christian, it also coincides with JesusÃÔ teaching that ÃÇor unto whom much is given, much shall be required, Obama said. Ūt mirrors the Islamic belief that those whoÃ×e been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others. Using GOD to claim equality for all vs using GOD to discredit the Supreme Court. :nervous:
Rajiv Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 ^^ I was asking coz you seem very passionate about it and I feel there is not enough ammo here.
Brainfade Posted August 14, 2012 Author Posted August 14, 2012 You missed this important quote: Using GOD to claim equality for all vs using GOD to discredit the Supreme Court. :nervous: You have selective vision. Why use GOD for "equality?" If GOD meant for everyone to be equal, HE would have created everyone equal. Why did HE not? Regardless, it is all absurd, because there is no evidence of GOD in the first place. So whether one uses it as a core belief (as Ryan did) or as a political convenience (as Pres. Obama did), they are all equally wrong.
Recommended Posts