My real problem with the Ryan choice

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I'll admit that I had a little fun with Ryan's randism over the weekend. Though she is clearly an atheist and Ryan's devotion, IMNSHO, is a little over the top, I can see some great truths in her feelings about government. She points out real ills, but comes to the wrong conclusion. I think Rep Ryan has been misrepresented by the media on this.

My real problem is that I like Rep Ryan. I like the way he thinks. I like the possible future for him. I think he could have made a real difference in this country.

My problem is that the GOP have relegated Ryan to the dustbin of politics. If elected Ryan will be safely tucked away where he cannot do any damage to the current Republicrat agenda. In a sense this make me want to see them defeated, because Rep Ryan will do much more good in THE House instead of in a house on 34th and Massachusetts. Former vice-presidents don't have much a track record in US politics in the last 50 or so years.

I had been looking forward to one day voting for Rep Ryan for president. Unless he loses the chance of that is now much more unlikely.

 

[Walguy]

Former vice-presidents don't have much a track record in US politics in the last 50 or so years.

I had been looking forward to one day voting for Rep Ryan for president. Unless he loses the chance of that is now much more unlikely.

Well, that depends. Look at VPs of 2 term presidents who then immediately ran for president themselves. Bush 1 won. Gore barely lost. Nixon lost an election that may have been decided by vote fraud in Illinois and Texas, but then won the presidency 8 years later. So if Romney wins and serves 2 terms, history would indicate Ryan will be in the game for moving up.

Btw, this will not be the first time I've voted for Ryan. As a lifetime resident of Wisconsin's 1st district, Paul Ryan has been my rep during his entire tenure in the House, and I've naturally voted for him every time. Since he's not resigning his House seat to run for VP, this time I'll actually be voting for him twice!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Well, that depends. Look at VPs of 2 term presidents who then immediately ran for president themselves. Bush 1 won. Gore barely lost. Nixon lost an election that may have been decided by vote fraud in Illinois and Texas, but then won the presidency 8 years later. So if Romney wins and serves 2 terms, history would indicate Ryan will be in the game for moving up.

Btw, this will not be the first time I've voted for Ryan. As a lifetime resident of Wisconsin's 1st district, Paul Ryan has been my rep during his entire tenure in the House, and I've naturally voted for him every time. Since he's not resigning his House seat to run for VP, this time I'll actually be voting for him twice!

Bush Sr was the first sitting vice-president elected president since Martin VanBuren and both of them only got one term. Nixon was later elected and had to resign in disgrace.

I don't think any two term vice-president has ever served two full terms as president.

Generally speaking 'former vice-president' has not been a great thing to be and that is my fear here.

I am glad he is staying in the House race. I wish he had not entered the 'warm bucket of, (er,um) spit' race.

 

[Salty]

...I don't think any two term vice-president has ever served two full terms as president. ...

and Ryan could be the first

So now the question is: who will win the POTUS in 2028?

 

[Crabtownboy]

I do not like his Ayn Rand philosophy. It is a philosophy of greed and selfishness. Certainly it is not what Christ taught ... IMHO.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I do not like his Ayn Rand philosophy. It is a philosophy of greed and selfishness. Certainly it is not what Christ taught ... IMHO.

I don't accept that governments need to act in a Christlike manner - that is the role of the church. Rand points out the dangers of 'hi, I'm from the government and I am here to help you.'

I hate her concept of selfishness, but I like her idea that it is up to the individual, not the government to dictate success.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

and Ryan could be the first

So now the question is: who will win the POTUS in 2028?

My problem is the track record, this never having happened makes the chance now very slim. The vice-presidency is not the road to success historically. Generally people disappear into that 'bucket of spit' never to be heard from again.

Yes, I do know that is not exactly what was said

 

[Crabtownboy]

I don't accept that governments need to act in a Christlike manner- that is the role of the church..

I have a problem with that statement. People make up the government. To me your statement says that a Christian should be a Christian in part of their life, but if they are working for the government they can forget their Christianity while on the job. I cannot accept that. This would require us to be schizophrenic Christians playing two roles, Christian in parts of our life and a materialist in other parts of our lives.

People should be Christian in all aspects of their life, not just at home or in the church. We cannot be part-time Christians.

Rand points out the dangers of 'hi, I'm from the government and I am here to help you.'

There are dangers in both directions. If my understanding is correct she was for self only and probably would not agree that others should be helped, even through the church.

I found the following article, "Ayn Rand Led Me to Christ: How the anti-Christian philosopher prepared me to hear the gospel," from Christianity Today quite interesting:

As many have noted, Rand's ethic of rational self-interest is incompatible with the gospel, and leads to social as well as spiritual disaster. "Most observers see Rand as a political and economic philosopher," wrote Gary Moore last year in Christianity Today. "I believe that she was first and foremost an anti-Christian philosopher." A six-foot dollar sign wreath towered over her casket, Moore pointed out, an icon of the false gospel she labored to proclaim. I agree entirely that Christianity and Objectivism are utterly incompatible. But my gratitude to Rand remains profound.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/june/aynrandled.html

I hate her concept of selfishness, but I like her idea that it is up to the individual, not the government to dictate success.[/QUOTE]

Naturally it is best to read the entire article.

 

[Arbo]

I don't accept that governments need to act in a Christlike manner - that is the role of the church. Rand points out the dangers of 'hi, I'm from the government and I am here to help you.'

I hate her concept of selfishness, but I like her idea that it is up to the individual, not the government to dictate success.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[OldRegular]

I do not like his Ayn Rand philosophy. It is a philosophy of greed and selfishness. Certainly it is not what Christ taught ... IMHO.

Did Jesus Christ teach acceptance or facilitation of the slaughter of the unborn? When He said: Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.[Luke 18:16] He was not advising butchers to hurry them on their way. You appear to be very selective in your view of what Jesus Christ taught!

 

[OldRegular]

I have a problem with that statement. People make up the government. To me your statement says that a Christian should be a Christian in part of their life, but if they are working for the government they can forget their Christianity while on the job. I cannot accept that. This would require us to be schizophrenic Christians playing two roles, Christian in parts of our life and a materialist in other parts of our lives.

People should be Christian in all aspects of their life, not just at home or in the church. We cannot be part-time Christians.

What can be more selfish than the slaughter of the unborn child, always for convenience. You have embraced, aided and abetted those who have advocated and facilitated this slaughter without bounds. This country with its slaughter of more than fifty million babies makes the holocaust of Nazi Germany look down right tame!

Your argument that the democrats do more for the poor and middle class than Republicans is false. Surely you don't think that all Republicans are rich. In fact the richest people in the country are democrats.

I doubt that there is a rich person on this Forum [other than perhaps you] but the vast majority seem to lean toward the Conservative philosophy of limited government. Some are sufficiently young to have parents on SS and Medicare. Do you really think they despise their parents. Yet that is the mantra of the socialist party you embrace!

 

[Crabtownboy]

What can be more selfish than the slaughter of the unborn child, always for convenience. You have embraced, aided and abetted those who have advocated and facilitated this slaughter without bounds. This country with its slaughter of more than fifty million babies makes the holocaust of Nazi Germany look down right tame!

Your argument that the democrats do more for the poor and middle class than Republicans is false. Surely you don't think that all Republicans are rich. In fact the richest people in the country are democrats.

I doubt that there is a rich person on this Forum [other than perhaps you] but the vast majority seem to lean toward the Conservative philosophy of limited government. Some are sufficiently young to have parents on SS and Medicare. Do you really think they despise their parents. Yet that is the mantra of the socialist party you embrace!

The topic is about Romney's selection as his running mate ... what we like or do not like about him. You are totally off topic. Try being on topic and saying what you like or do not like about him.
Is it that you just like to derail threads?

Now to the OP. I see nothing in Ayn Rand's philosophy that can be called Christian. Ryan says he has backed off from his belief in her philosophy. I am not so sure that is true when I read about his proposed budget.

She was an avowed athiest, not a friend to Chistian beliefs.

It is my belief thaty there is nothing in the following of Christ that allows us to accept or prohibit an action of an individual in their private life while, at the same time, saying these same action is permissible to that individual in their public life.




Thanks.

 

[OldRegular]

The topic is about Romney's selection as his running mate ... what we like or do not like about him. You are totally off topic. Try being on topic and saying what you like or do not like about him.
Is it that you just like to derail threads?

What is unique about this OP that it must be treated different than all others? However, you opened the door when you said something I agree with for a change!

Originally Posted by Crabtownboy
People should be Christian in all aspects of their life, not just at home or in the church. We cannot be part-time Christians.

I simply took the opportunity to remind you that:

Originally Posted by Crabtownboy
People should be Christian in all aspects of their life, not just at home or in the church. We cannot be part-time Christians.

By saying the following one more time!

Originally Posted by OldRegular
What can be more selfish than the slaughter of the unborn child, always for convenience. You have embraced, aided and abetted those who have advocated and facilitated this slaughter without bounds. This country with its slaughter of more than fifty million babies makes the holocaust of Nazi Germany look down right tame!

Your argument that the democrats do more for the poor and middle class than Republicans is false. Surely you don't think that all Republicans are rich. In fact the richest people in the country are democrats.

I doubt that there is a rich person on this Forum [other than perhaps you] but the vast majority seem to lean toward the Conservative philosophy of limited government. Some are sufficiently young to have parents on SS and Medicare. Do you really think they despise their parents. Yet that is the mantra of the socialist party you embrace!

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I have seen politicians from both parties do this...run for both the high profile post AND their incumbent post. Speaks a lot to me about 1. His commitment to the ticket and 2. His view of Romney's chances of actually winning. If he believes in the ticket, he should devote all energy toward that goal.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I have seen politicians from both parties do this...run for both the high profile post AND their incumbent post. Speaks a lot to me about 1. His commitment to the ticket and 2. His view of Romney's chances of actually winning. If he believes in the ticket, he should devote all energy toward that goal.

I think it is very difficult to get off the ticket in Wisconsin once you have the nomination.

I am still somewhat sad at good talent wasted. I suspect his Randian philosophy will morph and mellow as the years go by. But I fear now that being 'former vice-president' or 'losing vice presidential candidate' either way have pretty much ended his hopes of the presidency.

Unless, of course, he loses and leads the House to force President Obama to moderate his policies. If he can do that he could be ripe for 2016.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

This is some pretty astute ponderin' Rog. It is entirely possible that he is being "Hillary'ed", you know. Being put somewhere where he will be seen, not heard.

I do know Ryan would destroy Biden in a debate. That will be fun to watch.

Also, isn't it funny to see Ann Rand so hated by the same folks who have no problem with Obama's continued corporate cronyism ?

 

[carpro]

This is some pretty astute ponderin' Rog. It is entirely possible that he is being "Hillary'ed", you know. Being put somewhere where he will be seen, not heard.

I do know Ryan would destroy Biden in a debate. That will be fun to watch.

Also, isn't it funny to see Ann Rand so hated by the same folks who have no problem with Obama's continued corporate cronyism ?

Ryan would also destroy Obama in a debate on the economy.

 

[AresMan]

I have a problem with that statement. People make up the government. To me your statement says that a Christian should be a Christian in part of their life, but if they are working for the government they can forget their Christianity while on the job. I cannot accept that. This would require us to be schizophrenic Christians playing two roles, Christian in parts of our life and a materialist in other parts of our lives.

People should be Christian in all aspects of their life, not just at home or in the church. We cannot be part-time Christians.




There are dangers in both directions. If my understanding is correct she was for self only and probably would not agree that others should be helped, even through the church.

Jesus taught voluntary, charitable giving. He never taught that a small group of elites (mob) need to hold a gun to people's heads and force them to give certain amounts to certain targeted people that the elite (mob) deem appropriate.

 

[just-want-peace]

Jesus taught voluntary, charitable giving. He never taught that a small group of elites (mob) need to hold a gun to people's heads and force them to give certain amounts to certain targeted people that the elite (mob) deem appropriate.

It does seem that many (most, all??:tongue3 liberals have no problem using selected scripture totally out of context when it suits their agenda, eh wot????:thumbsup:

Just one more example of telling us what God REALLY MEANT to say, rather than just accepting His word.:BangHead:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Any chance of getting back to the topic?