We are not going to give up on destroying the healthcare system for the American people.
-Paul Ryan, slipping up while announcing his new budget plan. Ryan meant to attack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which he proposes repealing.
Oh my god it’s not the Onion.
Never not reblogging.
Paul Ryan tells the truth! Imagine that.
These are the people you’re electing into office. I understand Romney is a bit of a joke but shit like this is serious when they’re 100% intent on stripping people of privileges they barely got to have.
PLEASE, PLEASE GO VOTE IN TWO WEEKS IF YOU ARE OVER 18 AND LIVE IN AMERICA.
PLEASE. There is really no excuse not to. :/
I sincerely hope that after this election, Mitt Romney disappears into obscurity and takes his creepy Paul Ryan thing with him.
Paul Ryan’s Soup Kitchen Photo Op
According to The Washington Post:
Brian J. Antal, president of the Mahoning County St. Vincent De Paul Society, said that he was not contacted by the Romney campaign ahead of the Saturday morning visit by Ryan, who stopped by the soup kitchen after a town hall at Youngstown State University.
“We’re a faith-based organization; we are apolitical because the majority of our funding is from private donations,” Antal said in a phone interview Monday afternoon. “It’s strictly in our bylaws not to do it. They showed up there, and they did not have permission. They got one of the volunteers to open up the doors.”
He added: “The photo-op they did wasn’t even accurate. He did nothing. He just came in here to get his picture taken at the dining hall.”
Hahahaha oh my GOD
Biden’s laugh is utterly brutal because it takes Paul Ryan, the marathon-exaggerating, dumbbell-curling, wannabe manly man and does the absolute worst thing imaginable to a guy like that. It points at him and makes him a fool. It says, “Yeah, tell me another one, Backwards Baseball Cap.” It’s at once furious and dismissive. It understands that at the heart of humor there’s a howl of pain. That why it’s the favorite weapon of choice of the trod-upon. And it says to the American voters the most undermining thing imaginable: “You see this fella next to me? What a goddamn joke.
Who knows if that’s how the undecideds (ew) will see it. But I agree that the laughter was definitely a thought out strategy for the most part.
From what they’ve been saying on the news, the undecideds thought that Biden won the debate in the polls. So it worked.
Uh, Guys? GO VOTE
TUMBLR BOMB THIS SHIT.
TUMBLR BOMB FAUX NEWS
During last night’s debate, Paul Ryan discussed his position on religion and abortion. He claimed that he came by his pro-life policy position because of “reason and science,” and that his religious faith instructs that “life begins at conception.”
Daniel Holter, who blogs at the excellent Apoplectic Skeptic, was … well … apoplectic:
The phrases “I’m pro-life because of reason and science” and “I believe life begins at conception” are totally incompatible, 100% diametrically opposed.
In this, Holter is incorrect. Human life does begin at conception. The zygote is a new, unique organism.
But this doesn’t tell us anything at all about abortion. And in framing the debate in this way, Ryan is able to wrap his opposition to abortion, which is religious, in the thinnest veneer of science … which I suspect is what Holter was getting at and where he and I ultimately agree.
The follow-up question for Paul Ryan ought to have been why human life, at this incredibly early stage of development, is so desperately important … by which I mean that he is willing to limit the choices of a rights-bearing person, the woman carrying the zygote, in order to protect that life. His answer, I presume, is either that the zygote is a person (which means that it possesses a right to life) or that it is on its way to becoming one.
This requires, of course, a definition of personhood; my own revolves around the fairly scientific (and measurable) concept of organized cortical brain activity, which means that zygotes are not rights-bearing agents. I think I’m on pretty solid ground in arguing that, whatever definition you choose, it’s pretty obvious that the zygote is not a person. Unless you choose the religious argument, which might make a claim about ensoulment. But Ryan, now an avowed man of science, can’t choose that one.
That means he’ll likely go with an argument about prospective personhood. The zygote isn’t a person at the moment of conception, but it is clearly a human life … and it will become a rights-bearing person at some later moment during fetal development so it must be cared for and not destroyed.
The trouble for Ryan, then, comes from at least three directions:
- Ryan must explain why an organism that isn’t currently a rights-bearing person has a claim that the government should recognize. Further, he must explain why the organism’s future rights should be weighed more heavily than those of a person, the woman carrying the zygote, whose rights are not at all in doubt.
- Ryan must give some indication of the point during fetal development when personhood — and thus rights — are attained. And he must then explain why abortions cannot permitted up to this moment. In other words, he must be clear about why prospective personhood matters enough to warrant the infringement on the rights of a person, the woman carrying the zygote.
- The policy position of the Romney/Ryan campaign now allows for abortion in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother. But if the zygote is on its way to becoming a rights-bearing person, then Ryan encounters a serious difficulty for his explanation of (2), insofar as it now seems that some prospective persons can be destroyed while others must be protected. Ryan’s prior policy of opposing abortion without exception seems terribly callous, but it’s consistent (especially with his religious belief but also more generally).
The easy way to solve these problems is to be honest. He could say, I’m a religious man and, as such, I believe that each human being has a soul from the moment of conception. Or he could say, I’m a religious man but I don’t believe that the government ought to foist my religious beliefs on others. The trouble with the former is that it can’t be demonstrated and it doesn’t win public policy debates; the trouble with the latter is that it’s what Joe Biden said.
HEY GUYS I’M A WHITE UPPER CLASS MALE AND I WAS REALLY EXCITED ABOUT MY PLANNED PREGNANCY 10 YEARS AGO SO FUCK YOU IF YOU DON’T GIVE YOUR ULTRASOUND A CUTE NICKNAME AND SERVE AS AN INCUBATOR FOR MY PREHISTORIC BELIEFS
“LETTING WOMEN CONTROL THEIR BODIES INFRINGES ON MY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!!11111”
Paul Ryan more or less
Tonight the man who wrote the Violence Against Women Act debates the man who voted against even considering it.
Head into the debate prepared — check out more important facts on Paul Ryan.
- Romney and Ryan would eliminate health care for 31 million people who are poor or disabled.
- Ryan voted for future defense cuts he now blames on Obama.
- Ryan wants to kick 1 million students off of Pell Grants.
- Ryan supports a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.
- Ryan voted to increase the debt ceiling by $4 trillion under Bush.
- Ryan supported economic stimulus under Bush.
- Ryan used to supports a key aspect of Obamacare.
- Ryan opposes abortion access for rape victims
Page 1 of 3