Paul Ryan's Voter Values Speech 9/14/2012

[TheGreatGatsby]

[youtube]T8GSH32J2dg[/youtube]

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Selected Highlights

It is true that president obama had a lot of problems not of his own making. But he also came in with one-party rule, and the chance to do everything of his own choosing. The obama economic agenda failed, not because it was stopped, but because it was passed.

The record is so uniformly bad that maybe you’ve noticed something: President obama himself almost never even uses the word “record,” – that is, except when he’s trying to trade on the record of bill clinton. In his convention speech, the president never once said that simple word, “record.”

He didn’t say the word “stimulus,” either, because he wasted $831 billion of borrowed money. At a time of mass unemployment, he didn’t even say “unemployment,” because we’re in the slowest recovery since the great depression. And by the way, he didn’t use the word “recovery,” either – never mind that recovery was what all america expected from barack obama.

Lately, the president has also been trying out sports comparisons. He compares this fourth year of his term to the fourth quarter of a basketball game.

You can expect more of this, because if there’s anything the man can do, it’s talk a good game. The only problem is, the clock is running out and he still hasn’t put any points on the board.

His whole case these days is basically asking us to forget what he promised four years ago, and focus instead on his new promises. That’s a fast move to get around accountability. He made those ringing promises to get elected.

Without them, he wouldn’t be president. And now he acts as if it is unfair to measure his performance against his own words. But here’s the question: If barack obama’s promises weren’t good then, what good are they now?

If we renew the contract, we will get the same deal – with only one difference: In a second term, he will never answer to you again.

In so many ways, starting with obamacare, re-electing this president would set in motion things that can never be called back. It would be a choice to give up so many other choices.

When all the new mandates of government-run healthcare come down, the last thing the regulators will want to hear is your opinion. When the obama tax increases start coming, nobody in washington is going to ask whether you can afford them or not.

When all the new borrowing brings our national debt to 20 trillion dollars, and then 25 trillion, nobody’s going to ask you about the debt crisis, or even help you prepare for it. But we the people need to think ahead, even if our current president will not, to avoid that crisis while there is still time.

Everyone knows that president obama inherited a bad economy. And four months from now, when mitt romney is sworn in as president, he will inherit a bad economy.

But here’s the difference. When a romney-ryan administration takes office, we will also take responsibility. Instead of dividing up the wealth, our new president will get america creating wealth again.

No politician is more skilled at striking heroic poses against imaginary adversaries. Nobody is better at rebuking nonexistent opinions. Barack obama does this all the time, and in this campaign we are calling him on it.

The president is given to lectures on all that we owe to government, as if anyone who opposes his reckless expansion of federal power is guilty of ingratitude and rank individualism.

Here we are, after four years of economic stewardship under these self-proclaimed advocates of the poor, and what do they have to show for it?

More people in poverty, and less upward mobility wherever you look.

Our opponents even have a new motto. They say, quote, “government is the only thing that we all belong to.”

i don’t know about you, but i’ve never thought of government as something i belong to. As a matter of fact, on the seven occasions i’ve been sworn in as a member of congress, i have never taken an oath to the government.

The oath that all of us take is to support and defend the constitution of the united states, under which government is limited and the people are sovereign.

In the same way, we americans give ourselves to every kind of good cause. We do so for the simple reason that our hearts and conscience have called us to work that needs doing, to fill a place that sometimes no one else can fill.

It’s like that with our families and communities, too. The whole life of this nation is carried forward every day by the endless unselfish things people do for one another, without even giving it much thought.

In books, they call this civil society. In my own experience, i know it as janesville, wisconsin – a place, like ten thousand others, where a lot of good happens without government commanding it, directing it, or claiming credit for it.

That’s how life is supposed to work in a free country. And nothing undermines the essential and honorable work of government more than the abuse of government power.

Ladies and gentlemen, you would be hard pressed to find another group in america that does more to serve the health of women and their babies than the catholic church and catholic charities. And now, suddenly, we have obamacare bureaucrats presuming to dictate how they will do it.

As governor romney has said, this mandate is not a threat and insult to one religious group – it is a threat and insult to every religious group. He and i are honored to stand with you – people of faith and concerned citizens – in defense of religious liberty.

And i can assure you, when mitt romney is elected, we will get to work – on day one – to repeal that mandate and all of obamacare.

Finally, when he tries to make big government sound reasonable and inclusive, president obama likes to say, “we’re all in this together.” and here, too, he has another handy straw man.

Anyone who questions the wisdom of his policies must be lacking in compassion. Who else would question him but those mean people who think that everybody has to go it alone and fend for themselves.

“we’re all in this together” – it has a nice ring. For everyone who loves this country, it is not only true but obvious. Yet how hollow it sounds coming from a politician who has never once lifted a hand to defend the most helpless and innocent of all human beings, the child waiting to be born.

In the clinton years, the stated goal was to make abortion “safe, legal and rare.” but that was a different time, and a different president. Now, apparently, the obama-biden ticket stands for an absolute, unqualified right to abortion – at any time, under any circumstances, and even at taxpayer expense.

For most of us, it was settled long ago that our rights come from nature and nature’s god, not from government.

A disregard for rights … a growing government and a static economy … a country where everything is free but us: This is where it is all tending.

I’m not the only one who has told mitt that maybe he needs to talk more about himself and his life.

It wouldn’t hurt if voters knew more of those little things that reveal a man’s heart and his character. This is a guy who, at the height of a successful business, turned the entire company into a search and rescue operation the moment he heard that a colleague’s young daughter was missing.

He’s a man who could easily have contented himself with giving donations to needy causes, but everyone who knows him will tell you that mitt has always given himself.

He’s one of those guys who doesn’t just exhort and oversee good works, but shows up and does the work.

Mitt romney is the type we’ve all run into in our own communities, the man who’s there right away when there’s need, but never first in line when praise and credit are being handed out. He’s a modest man with a charitable heart, a doer and a promise-keeper.

He’s the kind of person every community could use more of, and he’ll be the kind of president who brings out the best in our country.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Full Text

Full Text of Paul Ryan's Pro-Life Values Voter Summit Speech | LifeNews.com

 

[midcan5]

"This year’s Republican campaign may be the most dishonest in history. A couple of weeks ago I listed 10 major falsehoods and gaffes of Republican VP candidate Paul Ryan. He repeated several of them in his Tampa speech, and added a few more. In honest political debate, when a candidate says something that is not true, he is confronted by journalists and the public, and either gives evidence that it is true, or backs off. Ryan continues to insist on repeating known falsehoods, to the extent that even Fox Cable News lamented his dishonesty."Top Ten Repeated Paul Ryan Lies | Informed Comment

And info on Romney.

"Almost immediately, however, it became clear that Romney's path to recovery was a complete failure. Bain's revenues continued to decline, and the company was soon bleeding red ink." Mitt Romney's Federal Bailout: The Documents Pictures | Rolling Stone

"How the GOP presidential candidate and his private equity firm staged an epic wealth grab, destroyed jobs – and stuck others with the bill." Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital | Politics News | Rolling Stone

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Sorry bro - But I'm not going to let you divert this thread. If you can't comment on the speech then you have nothing to offer.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ryan is so right that Romney needs to toot his own horn more, but that just isn't in Romney's DNA. He is a remarkable man who lives his values, but he doesn't have it in him to even mention it, much less brag about it.

One example recently recounted:

Glenn first sat down with the Nixon Family, whose two sons, Reed and Rob, were paralyzed in a car crash on their way home from a youth event at their church. It was a horrific crash that landed the children in different hospitals, and it took six months for Reed and Rob to complete their rehab and return home. Soon after they got home, Stuart and Sheryl Nixon, Rob and Reed’s parents, received a phone call from Mitt Romney. While the Nixon’s were not well acquainted with Romney, they knew one another through the Mormon community. Romney could have cut a check or sent some presents, but instead he asked to come over to the Nixon’s home. Mitt, Ann, and three of his sons, visited the Nixon’s on Christmas Eve, bringing along gifts for the entire family. It was a special moment, but it didn’t stop there. Romney went on to regularly attended benefits and fundraisers for the boys, and ultimately paid for both Reed and Rob to attend the college of their choice. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this story has never made it in the headlines, but it says more about Romney’s character than a policy or platform ever could.

 

[Foxfyre]

As Ryan stated, there is story after story after story illustrating Mitt Romney's value system and character, all ignored by the mainstream media and therefore unknown to most of the public.

Another one:

Earlier this week on radio, Glenn previewed the story of Ken Smith, director of Boston veteran’s shelter, whose organization benefited from Romney’s generosity. During his 1994 run for Senate in Massachusetts, Romney visited Smith’s shelter to tour the property and get a better understanding of their financial situation. . . . Romney spent 45 minutes with Smith just looking at the organization’s books before embarking on a tour of the facilities. There was a great deal of press at the walk through and on his way out, Romney asked Smith what his biggest problem was. Smith told Romney it was a lack of milk, to which Romney responded, “Well maybe you should teach them [the veterans] how to milk cows.” Needless to say, the press had a field day with the gaffe, and the following day Romney called Smith to apologize. The following Friday, the milkman arrived as usual with 7,000 pints of milk, only this time the bill for that milk was half price. When Smith inquired as to why the milk was less expensive, the man would not tell him. Two years later, on the milkman’s last day before retirement, he finally told Smith that it was Romney who picked up the tab for the milk. Again, where is the media’s coverage of a story like this?

 

[Foxfyre]

For me, it is this value, related by Ryan, that speaks the loudest to me:

For most of us, it was settled long ago that our rights come from nature and nature’s god, not from government.

A disregard for rights … a growing government and a static economy … a country where everything is free but us: This is where it is all tending.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

As Ryan stated, there is story after story after story illustrating Mitt Romney's value system and character, all ignored by the mainstream media and therefore unknown to most of the public.

Another one:

Earlier this week on radio, Glenn previewed the story of Ken Smith, director of Boston veteran’s shelter, whose organization benefited from Romney’s generosity. During his 1994 run for Senate in Massachusetts, Romney visited Smith’s shelter to tour the property and get a better understanding of their financial situation. . . . Romney spent 45 minutes with Smith just looking at the organization’s books before embarking on a tour of the facilities. There was a great deal of press at the walk through and on his way out, Romney asked Smith what his biggest problem was. Smith told Romney it was a lack of milk, to which Romney responded, “Well maybe you should teach them [the veterans] how to milk cows.” Needless to say, the press had a field day with the gaffe, and the following day Romney called Smith to apologize. The following Friday, the milkman arrived as usual with 7,000 pints of milk, only this time the bill for that milk was half price. When Smith inquired as to why the milk was less expensive, the man would not tell him. Two years later, on the milkman’s last day before retirement, he finally told Smith that it was Romney who picked up the tab for the milk. Again, where is the media’s coverage of a story like this?

That's a great story and I could not see Obama doing something like that in a million years.

 

[Foxfyre]

As Ryan stated, there is story after story after story illustrating Mitt Romney's value system and character, all ignored by the mainstream media and therefore unknown to most of the public.

Another one:

Earlier this week on radio, Glenn previewed the story of Ken Smith, director of Boston veteran’s shelter, whose organization benefited from Romney’s generosity. During his 1994 run for Senate in Massachusetts, Romney visited Smith’s shelter to tour the property and get a better understanding of their financial situation. . . . Romney spent 45 minutes with Smith just looking at the organization’s books before embarking on a tour of the facilities. There was a great deal of press at the walk through and on his way out, Romney asked Smith what his biggest problem was. Smith told Romney it was a lack of milk, to which Romney responded, “Well maybe you should teach them [the veterans] how to milk cows.” Needless to say, the press had a field day with the gaffe, and the following day Romney called Smith to apologize. The following Friday, the milkman arrived as usual with 7,000 pints of milk, only this time the bill for that milk was half price. When Smith inquired as to why the milk was less expensive, the man would not tell him. Two years later, on the milkman’s last day before retirement, he finally told Smith that it was Romney who picked up the tab for the milk. Again, where is the media’s coverage of a story like this?

That's a great story and I could not see Obama doing something like that in a million years.

The difference between Romney and Obama is that what Obama does, he makes sure there is press there to report it and make him look good. Romney doesn't do that. He does his charity in private and does not call attention to it nor speak of it to others. But as story after story after story is now coming out, years after the fact in many cases, it is obvious that this is a man who lives his convictions and there is nothing phony about him.

Obama supporters and their surrogate media take every opportunity to criticize Romney's wealth and hold it up as a badge of contempt. But there is not a single story in which Romney enriched himself at the expense of somebody else or in which the Romneys wallow in a lavish lifestyle. His critics love to point to the jobs he eliminated when he was fixing an ailing entity or corporation, but they never point out the tenfold more jobs that were created as a result of his efforts.

Conversely, where is the criticism of the Obamas enriching themselves at the expense of the taxpayer and their lavish lifestyle that we pay for?

 

[Katzndogz]

As Ryan stated, there is story after story after story illustrating Mitt Romney's value system and character, all ignored by the mainstream media and therefore unknown to most of the public.

Another one:

That's a great story and I could not see Obama doing something like that in a million years.

The difference between Romney and Obama is that what Obama does, he makes sure there is press there to report it and make him look good. Romney doesn't do that. He does his charity in private and does not call attention to it nor speak of it to others. But as story after story after story is now coming out, years after the fact in many cases, it is obvious that this is a man who lives his convictions and there is nothing phony about him.

Obama supporters and their surrogate media take every opportunity to criticize Romney's wealth and hold it up as a badge of contempt. But there is not a single story in which Romney enriched himself at the expense of somebody else or in which the Romneys wallow in a lavish lifestyle. His critics love to point to the jobs he eliminated when he was fixing an ailing entity or corporation, but they never point out the tenfold more jobs that were created as a result of his efforts.

Conversely, where is the criticism of the Obamas enriching themselves at the expense of the taxpayer and their lavish lifestyle that we pay for?

How much enrichment did obama made off of the very poor. How much did he bilk poor people out of.

Look up Parc Grove and get back to me.

 

[Zander]

Ryan gave a great speech. He will be hammering those points home as we enter the home stretch of this campaign. I hope he continues to highlight Obama's words with his deeds, his promises with his record, his utter failure to lead.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's a great story and I could not see Obama doing something like that in a million years.

The difference between Romney and Obama is that what Obama does, he makes sure there is press there to report it and make him look good. Romney doesn't do that. He does his charity in private and does not call attention to it nor speak of it to others. But as story after story after story is now coming out, years after the fact in many cases, it is obvious that this is a man who lives his convictions and there is nothing phony about him.

Obama supporters and their surrogate media take every opportunity to criticize Romney's wealth and hold it up as a badge of contempt. But there is not a single story in which Romney enriched himself at the expense of somebody else or in which the Romneys wallow in a lavish lifestyle. His critics love to point to the jobs he eliminated when he was fixing an ailing entity or corporation, but they never point out the tenfold more jobs that were created as a result of his efforts.

Conversely, where is the criticism of the Obamas enriching themselves at the expense of the taxpayer and their lavish lifestyle that we pay for?

How much enrichment did obama made off of the very poor. How much did he bilk poor people out of.

Look up Parc Grove and get back to me.

I don't recall that Obama or Romney or Ryan were involved with Parc Grove. Wasn't that a Valiere Jarrett thing? At any rate we need to be careful to keep the focus on the thesis here.

Ryan's speech has received almost no media attention but it was one of the best of this campaign season and I appreciate Gatsby featuring it here.

There is no shame or vice in earning one's wealth and Romney has very clearly earned his while helping others better themselves along the way. He does not flaunt his wealth, and as all these amazing stories are coming out, he has shared a huge amount of it for the benefit of others and has done so anonymously without personal reward, accolades, or fanfare. And it is becoming ever more apparent that the Romneys live relatively modestly without ostentacious lavishness,.

Conversely, the Obamas have enjoyed a very ostentacious, self serving, and lavish lifestyle at the expense of others, mostly the taxpayer, and apparently do nothing positive without a fawning and cooperative press there to emblazon their wonderfulness to the world. Only those things meriting criticism from everybody are done in secret. I want to throw up whenever I hear Obama, somebody who has enjoyed privilege his entire life, speaks of how tough he and Michelle have had it and how much he therefore can relate to the poor and less fortunate.

The focus of the Ryan speech is that Obama's values have produced nothing but grief for the Amerivcan economy and those who have to live with it.

Romney's values are much different and offer us a chance to start turning things around.

 

[Greenbeard]

Finally, when he tries to make big government sound reasonable and inclusive, President Obama likes to say, “We’re all in this together.” And here, too, he has another handy straw man.

Anyone who questions the wisdom of his policies must be lacking in compassion. Who else would question him but those mean people who think that everybody has to go it alone and fend for themselves.

“We’re all in this together” – it has a nice ring. For everyone who loves this country, it is not only true but obvious.

Where is the straw man he refers to? His own words and the words of his idol bespeak the truth that "we're all in this together" (which I assume his ilk would deride as "collectivism) is not at all obvious to some.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_fC6ThGtrE]Paul Ryan Ayn Rand Morality - YouTube[/ame]

I find it somewhat odd that this is the kind of thinking that appeals to the "Values Voter Summit." But then I suppose it's just a name.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I think the speech highlighted the differences between both candidates economic visions and to a smaller extent the differences in their views on liberty. I don't think that Romney/Ryan will fix these matters as much as I'd like (probably not even close). But I do know that the Obama is the opposite of everything I believe and I think he's only tempered by restrictions in the system. And even those restrictions, he's abusing more and more.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Finally, when he tries to make big government sound reasonable and inclusive, President Obama likes to say, “We’re all in this together.” And here, too, he has another handy straw man.

Anyone who questions the wisdom of his policies must be lacking in compassion. Who else would question him but those mean people who think that everybody has to go it alone and fend for themselves.

“We’re all in this together” – it has a nice ring. For everyone who loves this country, it is not only true but obvious.

Where is the straw man he refers to? His own words and the words of his idol bespeak the truth that "we're all in this together" (which I assume his ilk would deride as "collectivism) is not at all obvious to some.

I find it somewhat odd that this is the kind of thinking that appeals to the "Values Voter Summit." But then I suppose it's just a name.

The straw man is that if you aren't into big government then you must be selfish. And you have to admit; that is a straw man.

 

[Foxfyre]

Finally, when he tries to make big government sound reasonable and inclusive, President Obama likes to say, “We’re all in this together.” And here, too, he has another handy straw man.

Anyone who questions the wisdom of his policies must be lacking in compassion. Who else would question him but those mean people who think that everybody has to go it alone and fend for themselves.

“We’re all in this together” – it has a nice ring. For everyone who loves this country, it is not only true but obvious.

Where is the straw man he refers to? His own words and the words of his idol bespeak the truth that "we're all in this together" (which I assume his ilk would deride as "collectivism) is not at all obvious to some.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_fC6ThGtrE]Paul Ryan Ayn Rand Morality - YouTube[/ame]

I find it somewhat odd that this is the kind of thinking that appeals to the "Values Voter Summit." But then I suppose it's just a name.

Where do you tie Ayn Rand to that speech? Are you opposed to everything Ayn Rand taught? Or is it possible for two people with explictly opposing values on some things can also embrace the same values on others? Are you suggesting that if somebody does this, then he can't also do that?

The straw man is the 'we are all in this together' as preached by Obama suggesting that none of us can accomplish anything without the support and assistance of everybody else via government.

The Romney/Ryan model allows for plenty of joint cooperation, participation, and combined energy/ability/talents, but suggests that it is each working for his/her own interests without requiring participation of others that produces the best benefit for all.

Obama sees government as what accomplishes everything. Romney/Ryan see government as the means to allow the private sector to do its thing in the best possible way.

 

[Greenbeard]

Where do you tie Ayn Rand to that speech? Are you opposed to everything Ayn Rand taught? Or is it possible for two people with explictly opposing values on some things can also embrace the same values on others? Are you suggesting that if somebody does this, then he can't also do that?

Rand taught a narcissistic atheist philosophy whose moral structure is predicated on the non-existence of God. From this she was able derive a whole social-political worldview built around the divinity of the self-indulgent individual. The opposite of "we're all in this together" and most of the precepts of Christianity. Rand's is a philosophy Ryan has not only embraced, but one he requires all of his interns to study!

Is it possible that some folks somehow arrive at Rand's dark conclusions without embracing the world view that justifies it? I suppose anything is possible. But where they then get the stones to call themselves "Values Voters" I'll never know.

 

[Foxfyre]

Where do you tie Ayn Rand to that speech? Are you opposed to everything Ayn Rand taught? Or is it possible for two people with explictly opposing values on some things can also embrace the same values on others? Are you suggesting that if somebody does this, then he can't also do that?

Rand taught a narcissistic atheist philosophy whose moral structure is predicated on the non-existence of God. From this she was able derive a whole social-political worldview built around the divinity of the self-indulgent individual. The opposite of "we're all in this together" and most of the precepts of Christianity. Rand's is a philosophy Ryan has not only embraced, but one he requires all of his interns to study!

Is it possible that some folks somehow arrive at Rand's dark conclusions without embracing the world view that justifies it? I suppose anything is possible. But where they then get the stones to call themselves "Values Voters" I'll never know.

You are saying that Ryan and Romney base their philosophy on a moral structure predicated on the non-existance of God? Surely not. Nobody, and I mean nobody is that ignorant of Ryan and Romney's religious beliefs.

So let's set that aside and focus on the "self-indulgent" individual, that same individual exalted by the father of modern economics, Adam Smith, and those, including Ayn Rand, who understand what Smith was saying by his famous line: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”

In the view of Smith, and now Ronney and Ryan, is that you cannot be free and be required to provide bread to another. Ayn Rand's view of collectivism is that only by reverence for serving ones own interests (some interpret that as selfishness) and capitalism can there be true human freedom in which all can hope to prosper.

Freedom is each having the right to achieve what he or she is capable of achieving and is the fundamental core and foundation of the U.S. Constitution. It produced the most creative, productive, innovative, prosperous, free, and yes, benevolent, society the world has ever known.

All other systems require involuntary partcipation and contribution that invariably produces more unintended negative consequences than any good that can be identified.

And yes, thinking people take the truth they can learn from any teacher, including Ayn Rand, and disregard what they cannot accept as truth. One can embrace the truths that Ayn Rand taught without embracing the whole. And I can appreciate that Romney and Ryan are speaking truths that I can mostly embrace and at the same time disagree with either or both of them on some issues. I doubt I have ever met a soul that held 100% my views on everything. I don't require that in a leader. I look for the ones who hold values that I hold most important and can forgive them for not agreeing with me on everything.

 

[Greenbeard]

You are saying that Ryan and Romney base their philosophy on a moral structure predicated on the non-existance of God? Surely not. Nobody, and I mean nobody is that ignorant of Ryan and Romney's religious beliefs.

As far as I can tell, Romney has no governing philosophical principles.

Ryan, on the other hand, has been clear about the level of Rand's influence on his thinking: "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."

And yes, thinking people take the truth they can learn from any teacher, including Ayn Rand, and disregard what they cannot accept as truth. One can embrace the truths that Ayn Rand taught without embracing the whole.

Reading a philosophical text (particularly one seeking to indulge in political philosophy) isn't about looking for divine revelation, though I suppose Randians sometimes ironically have a quasi-religious reaction to her atheist teachings. I would not agree that "thinking people" arrive at conclusions after rejecting the premises that lead one to them.