Speaker Ryan: "...honest differences honestly stated."

[Little-Acorn]

In his speech accepting the election as Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan said we should encourage people airing their disagreements. But he put a major caveat into his endorsement: "We have nothing to fear from honest differences honestly stated."

And that's the rub.

Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written.

But Democrats cannot possibly state publicly that they want more government involvement, regulation and restriction far beyond anything authorized by the Constitution, more taxes, more govt control over routine parts of people's lives. Even though that's what virtually every Democrat policy winds up promoting, however intentional.

Democrats know that they would be turfed out of office so fast the seats of their pants would smoke, if they honestly stated what they were going to do. On the few occasions the liberals (in both parties) did reveal their agenda when the public was actually listening (passing Obamacare and other new entitlements, passing unconstitutional gun restrictions, etc.), they HAVE been kicked out of office in large numbers (congressional elections in 1994, 2010, 2014; Presidential elections of 2008 and 2012).

The rest of the time, they have successfully lied and pretended to be somehow conservative or innovative, which got them enough votes to survive. And they have promised to give more and more free stuff without the people having to pay for it ("Make the rich pay instead"), without mentioning the soaring debts and dwindling economy that has resulted from such policies every time.

Today Paul Ryan called for "honest differences honestly stated".

But he was addressing the wrong people. The ones causing the strife in the House (liberals in both parties) have no intention to state anything honestly, since they know that would get them voted out of office.

Rep. Paul Ryan Elected Speaker of the House

 

[JakeStarkey]

The problem with "Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written." is that they want to turn Constitutional interpretation to pre 1803.

That is why the far hard right "conservatives" always will fail.

They don't understand the Constitution.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The problem with "Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written." is that they want to turn Constitutional interpretation to pre 1803.

That is why the far hard right "conservatives" always will fail.

They don't understand the Constitution.

Reactionary Jake is a Progressive First Reponder

 

[Contumacious]

In his speech accepting the election as Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan said we should encourage people airing their disagreements. But he put a major caveat into his endorsement: "We have nothing to fear from honest differences honestly stated."

And that's the rub.

Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written.

But Democrats cannot possibly state publicly that they want more government involvement, regulation and restriction far beyond anything authorized by the Constitution, more taxes, more govt control over routine parts of people's lives. Even though that's what virtually every Democrat policy winds up promoting, however intentional.

Democrats know that they would be turfed out of office so fast the seats of their pants would smoke, if they honestly stated what they were going to do. On the few occasions the liberals (in both parties) did reveal their agenda when the public was actually listening (passing Obamacare and other new entitlements, passing unconstitutional gun restrictions, etc.), they HAVE been kicked out of office in large numbers (congressional elections in 1994, 2010, 2014; Presidential elections of 2008 and 2012).

The rest of the time, they have successfully lied and pretended to be somehow conservative or innovative, which got them enough votes to survive. And they have promised to give more and more free stuff without the people having to pay for it ("Make the rich pay instead"), without mentioning the soaring debts and dwindling economy that has resulted from such policies every time.

Today Paul Ryan called for "honest differences honestly stated".

But he was addressing the wrong people. The ones causing the strife in the House (liberals in both parties) have no intention to state anything honestly, since they know that would get them voted out of office.

Rep. Paul Ryan Elected Speaker of the House

Disagree.

Mr. Ryan supported TARP.


Comrade Bernard Sanders is drawing large crowds in spite of the fact that he is an avowed socialist.


Let's face it. Americans are narcotized.


.

 

[OKTexas]

The problem with "Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written." is that they want to turn Constitutional interpretation to pre 1803.

That is why the far hard right "conservatives" always will fail.

They don't understand the Constitution.

We understand the Constitution, we just don't like the courts rewriting it, it is NOT the roll of the courts to redefine the Constitution, that's what Article 5 is for.

 

[daws101]

Ryan was about as sincere as a evangelical caught with his pants down.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right and libertarian reactionaries like Frank, Conty, and OK are simply unhappy the good ship USS America has passed them by for a better type of passenger.

 

[Contumacious]

The far right and libertarian reactionaries like Frank, Conty, and OK are simply unhappy the good ship USS America has passed them by for a better type of passenger.

Talking about Americans being narcotized ........and here is the Mother of all zombies Comrade Starkiev

How many pictures of Comrade Sanders adorn your living room? Be honest.


.

 

[Avorysuds]

The far right and libertarian reactionaries like Frank, Conty, and OK are simply unhappy the good ship USS America has passed them by for a better type of passenger.

Mainstream Progressive Republicans have proven they can't win a Presidential election anymore.

 

[TNHarley]

The problem with "Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written." is that they want to turn Constitutional interpretation to pre 1803.

That is why the far hard right "conservatives" always will fail.

They don't understand the Constitution.

We understand the Constitution, we just don't like the courts rewriting it, it is NOT the roll of the courts to redefine the Constitution, that's what Article 5 is for.

They didn't re-define anything. They did their job. Interpretation. That shit shouldn't have even WENT to them. When the federal govt got involved with marriage, that would include gays. Do you support institutional discrimination?

 

[gipper]

In his speech accepting the election as Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan said we should encourage people airing their disagreements. But he put a major caveat into his endorsement: "We have nothing to fear from honest differences honestly stated."

And that's the rub.

Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written.

But Democrats cannot possibly state publicly that they want more government involvement, regulation and restriction far beyond anything authorized by the Constitution, more taxes, more govt control over routine parts of people's lives. Even though that's what virtually every Democrat policy winds up promoting, however intentional.

Democrats know that they would be turfed out of office so fast the seats of their pants would smoke, if they honestly stated what they were going to do. On the few occasions the liberals (in both parties) did reveal their agenda when the public was actually listening (passing Obamacare and other new entitlements, passing unconstitutional gun restrictions, etc.), they HAVE been kicked out of office in large numbers (congressional elections in 1994, 2010, 2014; Presidential elections of 2008 and 2012).

The rest of the time, they have successfully lied and pretended to be somehow conservative or innovative, which got them enough votes to survive. And they have promised to give more and more free stuff without the people having to pay for it ("Make the rich pay instead"), without mentioning the soaring debts and dwindling economy that has resulted from such policies every time.

Today Paul Ryan called for "honest differences honestly stated".

But he was addressing the wrong people. The ones causing the strife in the House (liberals in both parties) have no intention to state anything honestly, since they know that would get them voted out of office.

Rep. Paul Ryan Elected Speaker of the House

Disagree.

Mr. Ryan supported TARP.


Comrade Bernard Sanders is drawing large crowds in spite of the fact that he is an avowed socialist.


Let's face it. Americans are narcotized.


.

Agreed. Ryan is a typical do nothing R. Talks a good game, then sides with big gov Dems. He likely is no different then Boner.

Americans are not only narcotized, they have become socialists, weak minded, and willing to allow government to control them.

 

[gipper]

The far right and libertarian reactionaries like Frank, Conty, and OK are simply unhappy the good ship USS America has passed them by for a better type of passenger.

Talking about Americans being narcotized ........and here is the Mother of all zombies Comrade Starkiev

How many pictures of Comrade Sanders adorn your living room? Be honest.


.

Yeah Jake is out there.

He fantasizes about a threesome with Hillary and Bernie.

 

[TNHarley]

In his speech accepting the election as Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan said we should encourage people airing their disagreements. But he put a major caveat into his endorsement: "We have nothing to fear from honest differences honestly stated."

And that's the rub.

Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written.

But Democrats cannot possibly state publicly that they want more government involvement, regulation and restriction far beyond anything authorized by the Constitution, more taxes, more govt control over routine parts of people's lives. Even though that's what virtually every Democrat policy winds up promoting, however intentional.

Democrats know that they would be turfed out of office so fast the seats of their pants would smoke, if they honestly stated what they were going to do. On the few occasions the liberals (in both parties) did reveal their agenda when the public was actually listening (passing Obamacare and other new entitlements, passing unconstitutional gun restrictions, etc.), they HAVE been kicked out of office in large numbers (congressional elections in 1994, 2010, 2014; Presidential elections of 2008 and 2012).

The rest of the time, they have successfully lied and pretended to be somehow conservative or innovative, which got them enough votes to survive. And they have promised to give more and more free stuff without the people having to pay for it ("Make the rich pay instead"), without mentioning the soaring debts and dwindling economy that has resulted from such policies every time.

Today Paul Ryan called for "honest differences honestly stated".

But he was addressing the wrong people. The ones causing the strife in the House (liberals in both parties) have no intention to state anything honestly, since they know that would get them voted out of office.

Rep. Paul Ryan Elected Speaker of the House

Disagree.

Mr. Ryan supported TARP.


Comrade Bernard Sanders is drawing large crowds in spite of the fact that he is an avowed socialist.


Let's face it. Americans are narcotized.


.

Agreed. Ryan is a typical do nothing R. Talks a good game, then sides with big gov Dems. He likely is no different then Boner.

Americans are not only narcotized, they have become socialists, weak minded, and willing to allow government to control them.

Like I have been telling everyone else... look at his vote record... Then they can come back and apologize to you and I

 

[gipper]

In his speech accepting the election as Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan said we should encourage people airing their disagreements. But he put a major caveat into his endorsement: "We have nothing to fear from honest differences honestly stated."

And that's the rub.

Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written.

But Democrats cannot possibly state publicly that they want more government involvement, regulation and restriction far beyond anything authorized by the Constitution, more taxes, more govt control over routine parts of people's lives. Even though that's what virtually every Democrat policy winds up promoting, however intentional.

Democrats know that they would be turfed out of office so fast the seats of their pants would smoke, if they honestly stated what they were going to do. On the few occasions the liberals (in both parties) did reveal their agenda when the public was actually listening (passing Obamacare and other new entitlements, passing unconstitutional gun restrictions, etc.), they HAVE been kicked out of office in large numbers (congressional elections in 1994, 2010, 2014; Presidential elections of 2008 and 2012).

The rest of the time, they have successfully lied and pretended to be somehow conservative or innovative, which got them enough votes to survive. And they have promised to give more and more free stuff without the people having to pay for it ("Make the rich pay instead"), without mentioning the soaring debts and dwindling economy that has resulted from such policies every time.

Today Paul Ryan called for "honest differences honestly stated".

But he was addressing the wrong people. The ones causing the strife in the House (liberals in both parties) have no intention to state anything honestly, since they know that would get them voted out of office.

Rep. Paul Ryan Elected Speaker of the House

Disagree.

Mr. Ryan supported TARP.


Comrade Bernard Sanders is drawing large crowds in spite of the fact that he is an avowed socialist.


Let's face it. Americans are narcotized.


.

Agreed. Ryan is a typical do nothing R. Talks a good game, then sides with big gov Dems. He likely is no different then Boner.

Americans are not only narcotized, they have become socialists, weak minded, and willing to allow government to control them.

Like I have been telling everyone else... look at his vote record... Then they can come back and apologize to you and I

Yes he is a big gov progressive, but the media will portray him as this strident uncompromising nasty conservative, so that the feeble minded (like Jake), will keep believing the lie that Rs are different from Ds.

 

[Contumacious]

In his speech accepting the election as Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan said we should encourage people airing their disagreements. But he put a major caveat into his endorsement: "We have nothing to fear from honest differences honestly stated."

And that's the rub.

Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written.

But Democrats cannot possibly state publicly that they want more government involvement, regulation and restriction far beyond anything authorized by the Constitution, more taxes, more govt control over routine parts of people's lives. Even though that's what virtually every Democrat policy winds up promoting, however intentional.

Democrats know that they would be turfed out of office so fast the seats of their pants would smoke, if they honestly stated what they were going to do. On the few occasions the liberals (in both parties) did reveal their agenda when the public was actually listening (passing Obamacare and other new entitlements, passing unconstitutional gun restrictions, etc.), they HAVE been kicked out of office in large numbers (congressional elections in 1994, 2010, 2014; Presidential elections of 2008 and 2012).

The rest of the time, they have successfully lied and pretended to be somehow conservative or innovative, which got them enough votes to survive. And they have promised to give more and more free stuff without the people having to pay for it ("Make the rich pay instead"), without mentioning the soaring debts and dwindling economy that has resulted from such policies every time.

Today Paul Ryan called for "honest differences honestly stated".

But he was addressing the wrong people. The ones causing the strife in the House (liberals in both parties) have no intention to state anything honestly, since they know that would get them voted out of office.

Rep. Paul Ryan Elected Speaker of the House

Disagree.

Mr. Ryan supported TARP.


Comrade Bernard Sanders is drawing large crowds in spite of the fact that he is an avowed socialist.


Let's face it. Americans are narcotized.


.

Agreed. Ryan is a typical do nothing R. Talks a good game, then sides with big gov Dems. He likely is no different then Boner.

Americans are not only narcotized, they have become socialists, weak minded, and willing to allow government to control them.

Yes, indeed.


.

 

[OKTexas]

The problem with "Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written." is that they want to turn Constitutional interpretation to pre 1803.

That is why the far hard right "conservatives" always will fail.

They don't understand the Constitution.

We understand the Constitution, we just don't like the courts rewriting it, it is NOT the roll of the courts to redefine the Constitution, that's what Article 5 is for.

They didn't re-define anything. They did their job. Interpretation. That shit shouldn't have even WENT to them. When the federal govt got involved with marriage, that would include gays. Do you support institutional discrimination?

I'm sorry you lack the awareness of what's been occurring in the courts for more than a century and a half. Try reading "Men In Black" and educate yourself a bit. I'm sure you can find someone to help with the big words.

 

[TNHarley]

The problem with "Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written." is that they want to turn Constitutional interpretation to pre 1803.

That is why the far hard right "conservatives" always will fail.

They don't understand the Constitution.

We understand the Constitution, we just don't like the courts rewriting it, it is NOT the roll of the courts to redefine the Constitution, that's what Article 5 is for.

They didn't re-define anything. They did their job. Interpretation. That shit shouldn't have even WENT to them. When the federal govt got involved with marriage, that would include gays. Do you support institutional discrimination?

I'm sorry you lack the awareness of what's been occurring in the courts for more than a century and a half. Try reading "Men In Black" and educate yourself a bit. I'm sure you can find someone to help with the big words.

Please name a law that got "rewrote" by the supreme court if you are not talking about gays

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just one law that was "rewrote" would be good.

The far right and libertarians can't do it.

 

[OKTexas]

The problem with "Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written." is that they want to turn Constitutional interpretation to pre 1803.

That is why the far hard right "conservatives" always will fail.

They don't understand the Constitution.

We understand the Constitution, we just don't like the courts rewriting it, it is NOT the roll of the courts to redefine the Constitution, that's what Article 5 is for.

They didn't re-define anything. They did their job. Interpretation. That shit shouldn't have even WENT to them. When the federal govt got involved with marriage, that would include gays. Do you support institutional discrimination?

I'm sorry you lack the awareness of what's been occurring in the courts for more than a century and a half. Try reading "Men In Black" and educate yourself a bit. I'm sure you can find someone to help with the big words.

Please name a law that got "rewrote" by the supreme court if you are not talking about gays

Interstate commerce clause, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate trade between the States, Indian Tribes and foreign nations. The courts have expanded that definition to include anything that may or may not have a tangential effect on such commerce giving the feds powers they were never intended to have. The feds have now assumed powers over things that don't even enter into commerce. Like what a farmer grows for his own use, the crops never leave private property.

 

[TNHarley]

The problem with "Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written." is that they want to turn Constitutional interpretation to pre 1803.

That is why the far hard right "conservatives" always will fail.

They don't understand the Constitution.

We understand the Constitution, we just don't like the courts rewriting it, it is NOT the roll of the courts to redefine the Constitution, that's what Article 5 is for.

They didn't re-define anything. They did their job. Interpretation. That shit shouldn't have even WENT to them. When the federal govt got involved with marriage, that would include gays. Do you support institutional discrimination?

I'm sorry you lack the awareness of what's been occurring in the courts for more than a century and a half. Try reading "Men In Black" and educate yourself a bit. I'm sure you can find someone to help with the big words.

Please name a law that got "rewrote" by the supreme court if you are not talking about gays

Interstate commerce clause, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate trade between the States, Indian Tribes and foreign nations. The courts have expanded that definition to include anything that may or may not have a tangential effect on such commerce giving the feds powers they were never intended to have. The feds have now assumed powers over things that don't even enter into commerce. Like what a farmer grows for his own use, the crops never leave private property.

They didn't rewrite that. They upheld it.
I do think that is unconstitutional but that doesn't mean the SC "rewrote" anything.