Paul Ryan as VP? LOL.

Wow. I cannot see how Romney can win with Mr Heartless as his running mate.

I was having a tough time seeing him win anyway. But Paul Ryan as a VP pick is just LOLterrible.

I don't see the strategy at all.

[ ] helps win a swing state
[ ] helps with any minority group
[ ] helps with women
[ ] helps with independents

Outside of picking Palin or Bachmann, I'm not sure he could have done worse.

It doesnt really matter. Obamas winning anyway

He's trying to double down on "competent to deal with the economy". The right praised Ryan's budget to the hilt and I think he's mistaken that for its actually being any good.

I'm not sure which constituency that isn't already voting for him is supposed to be attracted by "let's solve our economic problems by reducing you to penury in your retirement and shovelling the money we save to the rich" though.

OP

Oh right, dur.

From my casual reading of Nate thingymajig's blog, this seems as yet far from certain

MB is a troll, no one could be that stupid.

I agree Romney does not have a chance of winning the election. You heard it here first.

i wish romney had the balls to choose a more liberal running mate

i think he had a much better chance than the media and liberals in general gave him credit for

the black vote will be way down compared to 4 years ago

and people are not happy with the economy.

but he should have chosen a more liberal candidate; or even rice, who isn't more liberal but would have rocked the black vote


as it stands, i think it will be closer than many think. and it will rally the conservative base, sure.

but i do agree obama likely gets the moderate vote now

paul is good looking. has nobody mentioned this?

I didn't notice

how tall is he?

You're giving it the college try.

On the other hand...

McCain also picked someone the base loved. That worked.

Because they could price their factors according to non-Soviet markets.

This is just flat out wrong.

Without money you can still trade stuff. It's pretty damn inconvenient but you can still trade and get the things you want. You can trade your labour for some apples for example.
But because this trading is really annoying if you want to trade for a house and so forth guess what...people will trade for something that has certain characteristics which can serve as a medium for exchange. The famous prison camp cigaret paper pretty much explains this well. The halloween candy blogpost is also excellent.

Interesting post from DVaut.

But the pick still screams "I'm not confident that I have my base locked up" (Considering how long Santorum stuck around, there may be good reason for that). It seems extremely desperate, and the attack ads from the Democrats almost write themselves.

Ryan's no dummy though, so we'll see.

Huh? Taxation=theft makes logical sense as long as taxes are not voluntary. Property=theft makes no sense at all because it is just a self referential cluster****.

Which brings me to an interesting question. Assume your country would do something very radical and switch to an all voluntary form of taxation. You simply look at how much you made in a year and decide what %age you decide to give to government to spend on whatever programs they run.

I take it most ZOMG capitalism is evil folks would think this %age would approach 0?

I'll make a claim that whatever taxrate we'd arrive at in this mental experiment would be an excellent measuring stick for the boundaries of government size.

I don't equate the meaning of the word "theft" in those 2 examples. I don't agree that property=theft but I think it's an interesting notion that has merit and is worth exploring (for some people, not me ).

Of course taxation=theft makes sense but it's just such an obtuse way to look at taxation I find it utterly silly.

um, yea 90% of people would pay ~0%(myself included). I believe in the potential of the individual but the individual can be very selfish atm. The collective is can be ****ed. Maybe that's why I don't see taxation as theft and governments as bad. I want to elect a government that would make it illegal for me to do things that are against the interest of the collective (within reason-I like to maximize freedom of the individual, so long as it isn't at the expense of a minority subset of the collective).

fwiw, I do think capitalism was a decent stepping stone for lolhumanity and we'll have some form of capitalism for a long time in the future. It's just lolobvious to me that reforms are necessary and slow steps to shorten the gap between the rich and poor need to be taken (as they have been and will continue to be taken). We need regulations, humans can't handle a free market, imo.

/lolrant with lolterminology

I think this is a mindset I can't ever (fully) understand. It's like we are living in different paradigms.

I immediately regret reading some posts itt.

Won't happen again.