Lefties lose it over Ayn Rand and Paul Ryan

Some how an old female writer has become the bullseye for everyone hanging on the left of the spectrum. Oh my goodness! She actually took the social security payments and Medicare benefits with all the other people!

Get over yourselves. You have no further platform in this time of the world’s great unrest than to harp on the income of a dead writer? So very, very impressive.

Today the hate spilled over to Paul Ryan. You know what? That sucks. I can’t put it any more directly.

There is no honor in what the left does to either the legacy of Rand or Paul Ryan. I have every faith that what goes around comes around. They’ll have their hands out soon enough.

They always do.

(Do take a minute to read that article on Paul Ryan. I have never seen a more disgusting piece of trash.)


  1. Randy in Richmond says:

    Problem is, the author of the blog you link is flat wrong in accusing Ryan of ” using the social hammock to pay for his college education.” The Social Security Survivors Benefits are drawn from a working parent’s life insurance based on monies paid into the system. Here is a paragraph explaining this from the government’s own website:

    “Life insurance” from Social Security”
    Many people think of Social Security only as a retirement program. But some of the Social Security taxes you pay go toward providing survivors insurance for workers and their families. In fact, the value of the survivors insurance you have under Social Security is probably more than the value of your individual life insurance.

    When you die, certain members of your family may be eligible for survivors benefits. These include widows, widowers (and divorced widows and widowers), children and dependent parents.”

    If Ryan’s father had not worked and paid for this insurance Ryan would not have received the benefits.


  2. Thanks for the Social Security lesson, but most of us knew that already. I’m still trying to understand your point.

    Ryan used Social Security money to pay for his education, you can’t get any more ironic than that.

    It’s funny conservatives like his plan, since the private accounts are untouchable, controlled by the government and come with a guaranteed promise to a bailout in case it loses money. Another words, you are promised with my tax dollars that whatever gamble you take with your account, you will never lose funding.

    Now that’s small government?

    Criticism is equal to hate in your down the rabbit hole alternate world. Keep the delusion going.

  3. Randy in Richmond says:

    Apparently Democurmudgeon, the author of the site linked is not aware that Survivor Benefits are from insurance paid for as opposed to the government just paying them. There is no irony here. In addition there is a complete difference in opposing a government entity or service and opposing the size or amount of a government service. It would be ironic if Ryan wanted zero Social Security but this is not the case. Smaller or more efficient government is quite different than no government. Ryan is not opposed to the government assisting with college costs but is opposed to the extent it has become. I for one wish the Post Office and military were more efficient but I don’t want to eliminate them–and I still mail letters regularly. Nothing ironic about this.

    If criticism is equal to hate you must be constantly frustrated using this medium and your comment is thusly an intentional, hateful diatribe. Apparently you did choose your on-line name carefully.

  4. I have an idea! How about we call Social Security quits and not fight over it anymore. It comes down to this: do you have the fortitude to forgo the benefits you’ve paid into or would you prefer the next generation to pay for your early retirement?

    Social security is a ruse. It always has been. That said, who’s got what it takes to end the ponzi scheme?

  5. Paul Ryan wants to give people a choice. Isn’t it amazing how the same crowd that bashes him claims to be “pro choice”.

    The hatred of the left knows no boundries.

  6. I would leave Ayn Rand buried in the annals of history where she belongs. I always equated her with Reverend Moon, unfortunately the right considers loons like this “thinkers”.

    It is Ryan himself who said ““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,”. In a perfect world this would qualify him to be asking “would you like fries with that” as a career.

    The fact that he took SS is the same as Ayn Rand taking government assistance. After all…She didnt want to be totally wiped out by medical bills – she just wants YOU and I to be totally wiped out by medical bills. Unless of course you have the good fortune of marrying the daughter of a plastics manufacturer. If you think that is an exaggeration ask rands friend Isabel Paterson. At least she had the good sense of trying to get government help anonymously, so no one would now the fraud that she is. It also reminds me of our lieutenant Governor…what is good for me is not for thee.

    Paul ryan has no interest whatsoever in “saving” SS, he wants his masters on Wall st. to be able to take their share of it. If he wanted to “save” it he would leave it as is and raise the cap and it would be solvent until the end of time. Which might come sooner, then we would like if the republicans keep trying to give away greenspaces(but I digress).

  7. I just loved this comment:

    “If criticism is equal to hate you must be constantly frustrated using this medium and your comment is thusly an intentional, hateful diatribe. Apparently you did choose your on-line name carefully.”

    This suedo superior mumbo jumbo demonstrates one thing, conservativism and a closed mind. Big surprise.

    I’m surprised you didn’t accuse me of trolling, after all, an open conversation isn’t what you’re looking for. Just an echo.

  8. Randy in Richmond says:

    You said it. All I did was play it back to you. I’m for open conversation but as most on the left when someone questions your beliefs step two is to personalize the dialogue. This site has numerous examples of such. As a conservative if having a set of core beliefs and sticking to them constitutes a closed mind, color me guilty.

  9. Randy in Richmond says:

    Proud Progressive
    Your peers will be “proud”. On a site about Paul Ryan you worked in that conservatives think someone you consider a loon we characterize as a thinker. You got to mention your Lt Governor in a negative comment and take a poke at big business. And finally you worked in Wall Street and it’s masters as well as the green movement.

    Maybe you can help me out. What are greenspaces ?

  10. Proud Progressive: do you realize how narrow your thinking has become? You resort to pointing fingers instead of engaging in genuine discussion.

    What if our system supported individual responsibility that in turn kept medical costs in line with regular incomes. Then no one would have to be wiped out.

    You see, well actually, it’s obvious you don’t see, that Rand’s work was fiction. It was an ideal, not what was manifested in our corrupt and narrow society. It’s a damn shame you can’t get passed it. Imagine the possibilities in a society where people thought and interacted and worked to the best of their ability instead of relying upon the drug of simply taking the side of those who will give them something for nothing.

    So let’s talk about it. Was Rand wrong to fictionalize a society where everyone was valued for their effort and product? Was Ryan wrong to accept (and save, by the way and better his future) a payment that would be available to any other citizen in his situation.

    Time to talk. Make it genuine and without trite phrasing, please.

  11. Ryan is a thinker, but a biased ideologue, who’s ideas will destroy you and me under a flood of bills the government decided it couldn’t afford. But oddly, we as individuals can?

    I posted the debate between Ryan and David Brooks. Brooks made sense, Ryan did not. Ryan has the conservative tendency to be “authoritarian.” All his way, the powr he has in the House now, without debate or sunlight. Proof, but perhaps you’ll need more.

    Ryan’s plan has been dissected and pronounce horrific. Vouchers for Medicare will never pay for treatment, in a market for the elderly that doesn’t exist now or at the least, considered extremely high risk and costly. Think about it.

    His plan of high risk pools is okay with you? That’s great, the public taxpayer pays for the risk, insurers reap the profits from the healthy. How free market is that?

    Social Security is government run under Ryan’s plan as well…but hell, it’s Ryan. His plan is still better. Soc. Sec. is linked to lifetime earnings. Think about the move to much lower wages in America and then think about the size of Soc. Sec. paychecks going down with those wage reductions.

    I love those private accounts managed by the government, with a taxpayer guarantee they you won’t lose a dime. Cool plan, huh? The government takes the risk, and Wall Street makes a profit. Ryan’s on it.

    Read the Road Map, understand the issues, and consider a free market health care system that doesn’t have any mandated bottom line. Good luck with your junk insurance policies and attorney fees trying to figure out the small print that allowed the insure to get out of coverage. Won’t cost a thing, will it?

    I could go on, but I’m sure you have your core beliefs and my words won’t change a thing.

    Say hello to the Cheshire Cat.

  12. Actually you cant have a discussion about Paul Ryan (R- Wall St.) without bringing in Wall st. It is who he serves so very well.

    Rand is a loon and now we now she is a hypocritical loon. As for considering her a thinker…those are ryans words not mine. Again modeling yourself after someone who worshiped William Edward Hickman, that is something that he has to live with not me.

    As for Kleefisch, since this post is about hypocrisy and the republican party, she fit in nicely here. The fact that these people are in power, and take every advantage they can, while tirelessly working to make sure you and I do not get the same benefits, show what abhorrent people they are.

  13. Democ: You went from “Ryan sucks because he took money” to “Ryan sucks because of his thinking.” Defend yourself on the first before you tiptoe through the tulips to the second.

  14. Cindy,

    I will gladly and often engage in genuine discussion, but it is hard when the basis of the discussion is “i am paul ryan and im here to help” .

    “What if our system supported individual responsibility that in turn kept medical costs in line with regular incomes. Then no one would have to be wiped out. ”

    Amen! But how do we do that? by privatizing social security? outsourcing millions of jobs, keeping 60 million people from health insurance? allowing insurance companies to drop you when your sick? No we do that by covering ALL which would allow preventive medicine which in turn would save billions or dollars and many lives. Not once in his long career has Paul ryan ever offered up a serious solution. Let’s not pretend that the roadmap is one either. There is a reason when ryan has a national stage(SOTU response) or worried about his re-election (2008 election) that the roadmap gets hidden in the glove campartment. Because it would be horrible for 98% of America.

    I know her work was fiction, but obvioiously ryan doesnt. He credits her with being his biggest influence. Did he not read The Hobbit? maybe he could hold up Bilbo Baggins as his hero and we would all be better off. At least Bilbo was not a hypocrite and he wanted food and drink for all.

  15. PP: Fine. Rand’s a loon. I’m so grateful you could articulate the details so well.

    Next lefty rant: “You know, one time, my brother looked at me when we were eating breakfast and I told him not to and mom got mad at me instead of him. So now that’s why I can’t work a real job.”

    Translation: “I can’t have a real discussion so I’ll start a rant about Rebecca Kleefisch.” (Who is Lt. Gov. of the great state of Wisconsin while you’re a…)

  16. You know, PP, I don’t see anywhere in my post or this discussion where anyone mentioned “I’m Paul Ryan and I’m here to help.” The basis for my calling attention to the piece on Ryan was the hate with which it was written. The subject at hand is the demonstration of unreasonable hate for a human being with an idea. No one is making you follow the idea; no one is even making you like him. But just why do you and those with which you associate feel it is valuable to measure a man by how much you hate him when you do not even know him?

  17. @Cindy:

    Hate? I was waiting for this typical silly conservative response. What a debate point.

    Like him? What are you talking about? His detailed plans, or a popularity contest?

  18. Actually Cindy I have read your post a few times and what I keep seeing, which has been the basis of the republican party in this election cycle is pure hypocrisy. These programs helped me to get where I am but now we must dismantle them before you get a chance to get here also.

    As for Rand do I need to explain in detail why she is a loon? Is it not self explanatory? If not that is why I brought up the names Isabel Paterson and William Edward Hickson. They say more about rand than I ever could.

    As for having an idea, having an idea is not what should allow Ryan to have such a powerful position. It should be judged on his ACTUAL idea , which in reality should be enough to make sure he never sees a government job again. Unfortunately, the fact that he serves Wall st so well, assures that he will always have enough money in his treasure chest to fight back all challengers.

    As for not knowing ryan, when I drive by the shuttered factories in janesville or talk to my friends who are “commuting” between texas and Janesville, or the people I know whose unemployment benefits have run out, etc… I know all I need to know about Ryan personally.

  19. This was about an article bearing unusual nastiness towards a man. You call that anything but hate? Putting Kleefisch into the discussion was because one is genuinely confused by her policy on economic development in the context of the current discussion?

    Hate is not a silly conservative response. It’s a crippling liberal flaw. If you want my opinion, and I’m sure you don’t but it’s my blog so you’ll get it anyway, the hard left’s preoccupation with hate has a lot to do with their lack of devotion to anything but the human self. I’d offer “no God, no love” but it’s really more complicated than that. When a human chooses to believe they are the center of any universe, I think hate comes more easily than love.

    I’ve met a few liberals I’d buy a beer, but I can’t say I’ve ever met one I’d share my life. For all the scripted talk of compassion, it seems only to be available to those with the same scripted values.

  20. I did not bring kleefisch into this because of her lack of business sense. I brought kleefisch into this because of her pure hypocrisy on basically waking up from getting treated for her cancer on my dime, to immediately devoting her life to make sure that no one else gets the same opportunity to be a cancer survivor that she has. That disgusts me. As you say “no God, no love.”

    I have no problem with people with differing viewpoints as mine, and i even welcome the discussion. I do have a problem with pure hypocrisy, especially by elected officials who SHOULD now better.

    I dont need you to buy me a beer, I can buy my own, but would drink one with you sometime!

  21. Where is the hypocrisy in getting health care from your employer or your spouse’s employer? Who has come out against that?

    You left wing haters are truly off your rockers.

  22. PP –

    1) You see hypocrisy because you want to see hypocrisy. Sorry, but I can’t change that about you. What you have not been able to do is define my post as hypocrisy. Simply naming it such does not make it true.

    2) “If not that is why I brought up the names Isabel Paterson and William Edward Hickson.” Now I’m beginning to think you’re the loon. You’ve not mentioned these names before. If you’d like, you can explain why they are important now.

    3) Paul Ryan is responsible for people in Janesville moving to Texas? Democrat and former governor Jim Doyle has absolutely no role in that situation?

    And with that I will say I get it. You are angry about something and want someone to blame. You got to do that. Don’t you feel better now.

    I’m not ignoring you should you choose to reply, but I do have to go for a bit. Please don’t take it personally.

  23. By the way this is the same left winger who had no issues with Sly’s repulsive attack on Kleefisch, he defended it.

    Hate? PP should look in a mirror.

  24. Cindy: I absolutely mentioned those two names before:

    * If you think that is an exaggeration ask rands friend Isabel Paterson : Paterson was a devout follower of rand who died a pauper because she refused ANY government help. She was also at the time, corresponding with Rand, while rand was getting government help. Paterson drank the rand kool aid and paid the ultimate price.

    * Again modeling yourself after someone who worshiped William Edward Hickman, that is something that he has to live with not me.

    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.


    When Ryan first took office his district was thriving with Auto Manufacturing jobs, now there are none. As for its not even in his district, not only is Janesville in his district, its where he grew up and supposedly calls home.

  25. fred, it is extremely disingenuous to pretend that she is just taking her “employers” health care, when she actually got treated as a benefit from her husbands healthcare , which is covered 100% by TAXPAYER money. I am curious if her plan in wanting to repeal healthcare would assure that ALL wisconsin residents had the same access to healthcare at the same price, as she has? hmmmmmm

    2. Yes thats me: http://bloggingblue.com/?s=fake+outrage+ I said that he apologized for what he should have apologized for and that for the right to “pretend” to be outraged over that was tiresome. And i still stand by that. By the way did charlie get upset with bellings anti semitic rant? how about rush’s racist rant the other day? is that crickets I hear?

  26. Aw. Got it. You had used “Hickson” and that is the name I searched. I have an attachment to that name. I missed the original statements.

    So, you know every detail of the Rand/Paterson story, huh? Had coffee with them? Talked to the kids? Maybe you’re smoking a little koolaid of your own. (You’d have to be a long-time reader to get that one.)

    I do appreciation the Alternet.org link. I can’t say I’m going to buy what they are selling, but hey. You just keep marveling at your successes with stories like that one. It was to be a work of FICTION. I hang with some writers. The last one I spent time with has a new book out where the main character had a face transplant. It is not because she is secretly embarrassed by her looks. Stories come from all kinds of places.

  27. First, it’s your blog and you can feel anyway you want, but characterizing the citicism of Ryan’s plan as hate it still outlandish. You can’t justify it by saying it’s your blog or use your victimized perception that liberals actually hate. That’s your idea…fantasy.

    Actually, the “hard-left” is not preoccupied with hate, conservatives are. You are projecting your own preoccupation with hate onto liberal respondents here.

    What I find to be interesting is your portrayal of liberals. It’s not accurate at all. Hard-left is actually liberal/Democratic, and surprisingly, not the “enemy” trying to destroy the country. The overly fearful conservative paranoia of the “hard-left,” immigrants, voter fraud, bad government and evil socialist spenders telling you what to eat and what light bult to use is a fiction created by your party. We don’t think like that at all. Not even close.

    While you chase after liberals persuing green energy, claiming heating bills will go through the roof and will be a job killer, our local utilities are killing jobs anyway raising prices through the roof to increase their bottom line. Missed that? Thank you PSC.

    You don’t seem to mind the job killing price increases for some reason when a utility does it for profit. Personally, I also blame the weather and commodities market.

    I find your blog an interesting look at the conservative mindset. My best friend is a gun carrying Republican in Milwaukee, who isn’t quiet as taken in by this sudden swing to red.

    The praise you heaped on Walker for reducing a citizens ability to have their day in court for irresponsible business services or products is twisted and not my idea of the peoples government.

    This worship of supposed corporate “job creators” and vilification of your fellow Americans is still an issue I haven’t figured out.

  28. Ryan voted for Tarp and the auto bailout.

    Which Randian Ideal does that fit into?

  29. Democ.-Whoa. You like bad government and voter fraud? We are indeed on opposite ends of a spectrum.

    You’ve obviously not been a reader for a long time. Nor are you particularly adept and separating my opinions from others who write here.

    Go for it, man. It’s a free country. Fill your mind with inaccurate characterizations and spout them as gospel. I know you are posting here to drive traffic to your blog. I’ll be the first to enjoy your success if it means you will hang out more there than here.

    PP: I meant to apologize for missing the Hickman and Peterson references. I am sorry. I try to do a better job of catching comment content and I blew it there.

    foo: Good point! Perhaps Ryan is not as diligent a Rand devotee as some might have characterized him.

  30. Randy in Richmond says:

    You are spewing the left’s message so fast you aren’t even reading what you are saying. In back to back paragraphs you say:

    “All his way, the powr he has in the House now, without debate or sunlight. Proof, but perhaps you’ll need more.”

    “Ryan’s plan has been dissected and pronounce horrific. ”

    You also say: “Like him? What are you talking about? His detailed plans”

    You say there is no sunlight and in the next sentence you say his plan has been disected and in another rant you refer to his “detailed plans”.

    It is laughable that you and PP keep talking about sunlight and hypocrisy. Apparently you weren’t paying attention in 2010 when the Obama Care bill was being prepared and rammed through the fully Democratic Congress with no sunlight or very little open debate. There has been more debate on this site of Ryan’s ideas than took place on the entire passage of Obama Care. But we were all reassured when ex-speaker Pelosi said we “need to pass this bill so we can find out what’s in it”.

    I asked if you could tell me what the “greenspaces” you refer to are ? I’m asking again.

  31. to say that the health insurance reform was “rammed down our throats” is as disingenuous as fred saying RK gets her healthcare from her employer. It took a good portion of a year and, in Obamas biggest fault, allowed too much republican input.

    greenspaces = wetlands when im in the middle of putting my kids to bed and type in the wrong word….sorry for the mistake.

  32. Disingenuous? It is the truth. What problem do you have with the truth.

    Oh yeah, doesn’t fit your attack.

  33. what is the truth? that their employer is the taxpayer? do you feel the same about unions and their benefits? Do i even need to ask?

  34. What of unions and their benefits?

  35. Exactly what came to my mind, Fred, when I read it all.

    As happens so often, it’s a human’s instinct to want their cake and have it, too. That seems to be the case with Proud Progressive’s argument against Kleefisch.

  36. That’s the new leftist credo Cindy. If you work for the government and therefore get your healthcare through the government and are not in favor of a single-payer system then you are a massive hypocrite.

    I have not heard anyone come out against employer paid health insurance.

    I have had changes to my health plan every year from my employer, it costs more and it covers less. Is that the case with PP’s unions? Not.

    I’ve noticed that most of the really unhinged leftist bloggers work for the government, they just don’t want the gravy train to stop.

    Isn’t it amazing that they do not see the hypcorisy in their own positions in earning their living through the government and then lobbying for it to grow?

  37. “foo: Good point! Perhaps Ryan is not as diligent a Rand devotee as some might have characterized him.”

    It would also seem to be at odds with his concern with government creating hammocks.

  38. “I have had changes to my health plan every year from my employer, it costs more and it covers less. Is that the case with PP’s unions? Not.”

    And the health plans/benefits for non union state employees, like the Legislature and Administration officials, is just as good as the unions.

    You would think that they would be able to fix that relatively quickly during our economic emergency?

  39. My argument against Kleefisch is simple, she basically woke up from getting her cancer treated and thought to herself, how great the treatment was for her and that it was so good it is not for common folk so she has dedicated herself to trying to stop others from getting the same.

    Its very typical of the right, to pretend not to get things so basic to try and take away from the actual discussion. yes Kleefisch has “employer paid” health insurance. Her employer is the taxpayers— hence its 100% taxpayer funded insurance. No where near what “obamacare”offered. When you base your platform strictly on getting rid of taxpayer funded insurance and yet get your life saved because of it , you are a hypocrite. Thats very simple.

    By the way fred, nice post making fun of roger eberts cancer….i felt the love.

  40. I didn’t post that PP… but then facts don’t matter do they?

  41. “It would also seem to be at odds with his concern with government creating hammocks.”

    Which would also be evidence against the left’s insistence that Ryan’s a berserko Randian.

  42. Actually, Fred, a lot of the bloggers left and right are attached to either the gravy train or the political class. A couple of us are just a freak of nature I guess.

  43. PP – your argument isn’t going to get very far when we don’t even know what Obamacare entails. And, if the situation was so miserable and in need of great repair, why didn’t it get accomplished?

    Democrats ruled America without hindrance for two solid years. Where is your return on investment? When you complain about the current healthcare situation, point your finger at whom you are most unhappy. You got screwed by your own kind. Deal with it. Stop ranting at the right for your misery.

  44. Cindy I like you and I know you know better than to say this:

    “Democrats ruled America without hindrance for two solid years.”

    That sentence is wrong on so many levels.

    Actually I have health care and I am also a cancer survivor around the same time as Ms. Kleefisch. The thing is while I was getting treated, I was thinking what can I do to make sure everyone has the same opportunity to survive cancer that I had. The complete opposite of what Ms. Kleefisch’s philosophy.

    As for getting screwed by my kind, not sure what you mean there? who is my kind exactly?

    Finally: the left would stop saying ryan is a berserko randian….if he didnt keep telling us he was: http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1191939045695 and http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1188874849092

  45. I’m sorry then fred I thought RDW was your blog. I must have you confused with someone else

  46. The statement is wrong? I thought Democrats had absolute, impenetrable control – filibuster proof majorities – of the Presidency, House, and Senate for two years. I may be wrong about the House. Let me know.

    Why don’t you link to Ms. Kleefisch’s philosophy for me. You seem to know her every thought.

    PS – nothing in the Ryan links led to the phrase “berserko Randian.” Liking an author’s work is not the same as berserko. Well. Not to most people anyway…

  47. A few points:

    1) Not sure I agree with “have never seen a more disgusting piece of trash”. For about a full year, I read the DailyKos every day and there are typically 3-4 posts per week at a similar level. The American left are the most hate-filled people of which I am aware… sadly, this is not an outlier, but rather the norm.

    2) The most common smear tactic of the left is exactly what is on display here. Take a figure on the right and dig up something from his or her life that can be twisted in such a way that it appears to contradict the macro-level value that they stand for (commonly either a religious or, as in this case, political position).

    3) Isn’t it interesting that this particular post ended by calling Ryan and Rand “Welfare queens”. In other words, the author seems to agree with Ryan that at a certain point, welfare is bad and leads to abuse. But they only speak in these terms when talking about conservatives.

    4) A related ploy of the left is to abolish the distinction between macro and micro. Because Ryan rails against government assistence, he must be a complete hypocrite if he ever had any government assistence himself. So the left takes Ryan’s macro level stance (which, based on the above, they at least partially agree with), personalizes it, and tries to turn it against him. This is obviously a fallacious move. … Let’s ignore the left’s libel of Ryan and assume the extreme case… that Ryan grew up on foodstamps, wellfare, and Medicaid and went on to hold the positions he does today. Would this make him a hypocrite? Obviously not. To say everyone who has ever taken government assistence is prohibited from speaking out against the fact that we have too many entitlements today would be as morally foolish as saying anyone who has ever told a lie as a child is prohibited from advocating that it is good for society if everyone tells the truth. But I’m sure if a politician on the right ever did that, DailyKos or FireDogLake would dig up a scoop… “In his recent speech, Mitch Daniels advocated honesty as a key to a strong society… well Mitch, you probably should have thought of that sooner…. we have obtained a video recording of a young Mr. Daniels at age 6 repeatedly telling his parents that he just brushed his teeth when he was in fact playing with his army men and never even set foot in the bathroom. Oh Mitch, have you no shame at all, you vile hypocrite!”

    5) Humanity is not basically good, so it is rare that anyone will 100% live up to every standard they advocate. Most people recognize this to be a fact of life. The left views this fact as an opportunity to try to villify those whom they disagree with. (And will even, as in the case of Ryan, continue down this path even when their target has done absolutely nothing wrong).

  48. As for her thoughts….here are some http://bloggingblue.com/2010/10/13/aaaaaaaaaaggggghhhhhhhhh/

    As per the filibuster proof majority, you know better than that. I would not think I would even need to answer that since the republicans filibustered every single vote the last two years in the Senate. The House sent over hundreds of pieces of legislation that never saw the light of day in the Senate because of the republican obstruction. You know this. Not sure what the angle is in pretending you dont.

  49. Ryan, you are awesome.

    #4 in particular had crossed my mind. So Ryan received payment as a youth. Perhaps his principles were not defined until later. Under this leftist gotcha, Mr. Ryan should prostrate himself in front of America and beg mercy for learning something new after the age of 20.

    It’s a discussion like this one, and I do think it’s been a good one, that makes me realize how wide the philosophical divide remains in our country. I think I can say with confidence that we all want an America that works with outcomes that are the highest and best for every person. I think I’m responsible for my outcome; someone else thinks I’m also responsible for their outcome. It’s pretty much that simple.

    Like I said before, if our system was really in such desperate need of repair, it should have happened over the last couple of years and the left should have nothing about which to complain.

  50. Democrats had 61 votes in the Senate – 59 declared and 2 independents who caucused with them. Democrats had 255 members in the House and a very strong Speaker. The president is a Democrat.

    But you still claim those terrible awful no good very bad Republicans are to blame for your unhappiness. Not to mention you have a healthcare bill passed that rewrites the future of this country.

    Why are you whining again?

  51. Fortunately and Unfortunately, the left does not participate in group think the way the right does. Amongst those votes in the senate included Max Baucus, Joe lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, etc… All of whom voted in the best interests of their corporate masters none have hardly any liberal or progressive votes in their portfolio. The exception being lieberman who voted the best way that would get him in front of a camera.

    The house is different, under pelosi and a solid democratic majority, it was actually one of the most productive legislative sessions in our history. Unfortunately the best bills all went to the Senate and were stuck there. The repubs, again you know this, filibustered EVERYTHING, their stated goal was to stop everything and run against a do nothing congress. They fooled many of the people.

    The new healthcare bill hardly rewrites the future of the country, all it does really is make it harder for insurance companies to drop you when you get sick(sin of sins there). It is health insurance reform that while needed, hardly helps address the real problems we have in this country with healthcare. It is nice that it significantly lowers the deficit though than having no plan.

    DO you really think healthcare in this country needs no reform?

    I also think I am responsible for MY outcome, unfortunately the deck has been stacked against the middle class and in favor of the upper 1% for so long its hard to get the outcome that used to come with working hard.

    As for #4. Ryan has done nothing wrong? take a drive through Janesville and tell me that.

  52. “Fortunately and Unfortunately, the left does not participate in group think the way the right does.”

    Could that possibly be an almost admission that the Democrat home team didn’t get the job done? Wouldn’t hold together to break a Republican filibuster?

    I think we’re almost there…

    Tell me, what else does that healthcare bill do. You know. The stuff that doesn’t come to fruition until after the next presidential election. The stuff that was so important it could wait two years.

    You keep blaming Paul Ryan for Janesville, but you refuse to articulate why. Please try to explain why Janesville is Paul Ryan’s fault and not Jim Doyle’s.

  53. From the context, I thought it was clear that I was saying that Ryan did nothing wrong vis a vis accepting the death benefit from his fathers sudden, tragic death and investing that money to save for his education. Obviously I was not saying Ryan is perfect.

    Still, Cindy’s point right on…. if you are going to assign blame for Janesville’s plight, I would start with state leadership rather than with Ryan.

  54. cindy,

    sorry I do not consider myself a democrat really so I cant pretend to stand up for the “home” team. Congress as a whole has not gotten many things done, health care reform amongst them.

    As for the SS thing it surely shows ryan as a hypocrite. Why would he not realize the benefit that he received from it and want others to benefit just as well?

    As for GM’s problems I would not put Doyle anywhere in the top 1000 of people to blame. I am quite certain that Doyle did not vote for every single free trade agreement we have had? or that he did not vote against cash for klunkers? or the GM loans? or unemployment extensions? or tax breaks that allow corporations to send jobs offshore? Or any of our crazy insane trade policies?

  55. Wait. We’re two days into a discussion of sides you “do not consider [your]self a democrat really…” That’s awesome!

    So Janesville’s problem are at the hands of Paul Ryan because GM closed. (You probably don’t know it, but my father is a retired GM employee from a plant that no longer exists.) It’s not Paul Ryan’s fault the Janesville plant closed.

    Doyle, on the other hand, was the liberal governor with a liberal state legislature who did nothing to keep GM engaged in Janesville even though they kept plants open in other states. But it’s totally not his fault.

    Perhaps I overestimated your logical skills.

    Happy snow day dude. I kind of think I’m done here.

  56. PP sez: “As for the SS thing it surely shows ryan as a hypocrite. Why would he not realize the benefit that he received from it and want others to benefit just as well?”

    Please cite the page and paragraph in Ryan’s plan that calls for the removal of the Survivor’s Benefit.

  57. Didnt Doyle give them 10 million dollars to refit the plant so they would not leave? how did that work out? is it Doyle’s fault that Detroit, TN and most other plants have been shuttered?

    I will give you that GM had a bad business model. They spent their time and money lobbying to stop MPG standards from rising, instead of working to change our insane trade policies and the health care fiasco we have here.

    My family did not work at GM, they all worked at the Beloit Corporation which was one of NAFTA’s first casualties.

  58. I dont consider myself a democrat, that would be assuming there are two sides and two points of view. I believe that are numerous sides and numerous points of view. I have nothing in common with the ben nelsons and the mary landrieous of the world.

  59. Oh. So NAFTA was Paul Ryan’s fault. Wasn’t Bill Clinton the president who signed the law? I’m pretty sure that’s the case. But it’s not like he was a Democrat Progressive or anything.

    Wait a minute… 😉

    Keep digging. You’re never going to crawl out at this pace.

  60. I see Jeff Simpson is once again stealing his employer’s time to sit here and hate blog against anything to the right of Stalin.

    I thought Jeff Simpson was on final notice for not hitting his sales quota. Sure doesn’t seem you can be making sales calls when you’re screwing around on the interwebs all day.

    Jeff Simpson is the biggest liberal cultist around. The day he is impartial will be a cold day in Hell.

  61. Please! I won’t have anyone to play with if you run him off.

  62. Ryan would have been 16 or so when the Reagan administration instituted negotiations.

    \”Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation\’s legislative or parliamentary branch.

    Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.\”


  63. Since cindy left your cowardly post up, I though I would address you for the first and last time. Its funny how you pretend to “out” me from fake addresses and total anonymity. You are the ultimate coward, the only one who comes close is the person who sic’d you on me. You both make me laugh not only n your cowardice but in the fact that you are an intellectual lightweight. You keep “threatening” to post my home address…come visit. You and your buddy are worse than the lion, at least he had courage inside and didnt know it. You have none and know it.

    Feel free to keep sniping, threatening and whining from anonymity, you mean nothing to me. I will gladly debate you in public forum anytime anywhere but am done with you while you continue your robert ford act.

  64. by the way Cindy, clinton was far from progressive or liberal, and Nafta was signed by him and passed with an almost 100% of the repubs at the time and many dems. It is far from a liberal policy. Feingold and others talked at the time of the jobs that would be lost because of it and they were right.

  65. By the way, I am aware that ryan did not vote for Nafta, but since he has been in office and seen the damage that ‘free” trade deals have done(especially to his district), how has he voted since? He has been a very strong advocate of all free trade deals since…..

  66. Randy in Richmond says:

    You asked PP this question:

    “Please cite the page and paragraph in Ryan’s plan that calls for the removal of the Survivor’s Benefit.”

    Have you noticed you have not received an answer from PP to your question ? In fact your question goes to the heart of PP’s whole argument on the original subject of this post and he either refuses to answer or cannot provide a link to back up his claim. There is no hypocrisy in Ryan’s wanting to overhaul Social Security because he has made no proposal to remove survivor’s benefits. But even if he did, so what.

    Using PP’s logic no law or policy should ever be changed by those who utilized that law or policy in a perfectly legal manner. For instance if the speed limit on interstates is established to be 75mph but history and experience show it would be more prudent to lower the speed to 70mph, PP would claim you are a hypocrite if you drove 75mph before and then voted to change it to 70mph. And why are you a hypocrite in PP’s eyes ? Because you participated in a legal endeaver yet you want to deny others the right to drive 75mph. A strawman argument if there ever was one.

  67. Randy sez: “Have you noticed you have not received an answer from PP to your question ?”

    Quite expected, actually, because it can’t be done.

    If, by some miracle, Proud Liberal had actually previously read Ryan’s Road Map, he would have found that it specifically states, “No Change for Survivors and the Disabled”.

    (I am also quite certain Proud Liberal did try to find such in the Road Map after my post, and upon seeing the “No Change” statement simply slunk away without responding.)

    Indeed, Proud Liberal’s whole argument is based upon the false premise that Ryan was discussing Social Security when he made the comments Proud Liberal rails against. He wasn’t.

    Here is the quote in question, including the context in which it was stated:

    “Our nation is approaching a tipping point. We are at a moment where, if government’s growth is left unchecked and unchallenged, America’s best century will be considered our past century. This is a future in which we will transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.

    Depending on bureaucracy to foster innovation, competitiveness and wise consumer choices has never worked, and it won’t work now. We need to chart a new course.”

    Ryan wasn’t talking about Social Security, he was talking about overt governmental intervention (read: growing mandates) in the free flow of ideas, commerce, and individual personal choice.

    IOW, with government mandates you get Yugos.

    Sorta like the Volt.