taxpayer funding for abortion just isnt true.

Ryan's got such a punchable face

pacino wrote:i dont understand what ryan would want to actually DO. he only leaves himself one option with syria: go to war alone

radatz caught him out after his long ramble on why we should be doing something in Syria, which made no case for a strategic US interest, by asking for his criteria for US engagement. Predictably, he replied "when strategic interests of US are involved." Radatz: "so no humanitarian criteria". Ryan, realizing he'd at best only made a case for a humanitarian intervention in Syria, came back weakly with "every situation needs to be evaluated..." blah, blah, blah

oh wow, so now ryan isn't FOR overturning roe v wade

i love that he brought up the 1-2 justices thing

wow what a question

ryan voted against exceptions for abortion, fwiw. if facts matter.

traderdave wrote:This "my friend" business is awesome.

Been avin a laff all night with this.

drsmooth wrote:

pacino wrote:i dont understand what ryan would want to actually DO. he only leaves himself one option with syria: go to war alone

radatz caught him out after his long ramble on why we should be doing something in Syria, which made no case for a strategic US interest, by asking for his criteria for US engagement. Predictably, he replied "when strategic interests of US are involved." Radatz: "so no humanitarian criteria". Ryan, realizing he'd at best only made a case for a humanitarian intervention in Syria, came back weakly with "every situation needs to be evaluated..." blah, blah, blah

I don't think it's tough to make a sound argument that humanitarian interventions are/can be in our strategic interests. Paul failed to say that in the moment. Bad exchange for him, but the point you cited was one of his lesser mistakes there.

lol hope and change blah blah

Why would he run on hope and change again when he's already president, you idiot

kruker wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

pacino wrote:i dont understand what ryan would want to actually DO. he only leaves himself one option with syria: go to war alone

radatz caught him out after his long ramble on why we should be doing something in Syria, which made no case for a strategic US interest, by asking for his criteria for US engagement. Predictably, he replied "when strategic interests of US are involved." Radatz: "so no humanitarian criteria". Ryan, realizing he'd at best only made a case for a humanitarian intervention in Syria, came back weakly with "every situation needs to be evaluated..." blah, blah, blah

I don't think it's tough to make a sound argument that humanitarian interventions are/can be in our strategic interests. Paul failed to say that in the moment. Bad exchange for him, but the point you cited was one of his lesser mistakes there.

oh ok

he has a really weird style of talking. is this a wisconsin thing?

Feel like it's slowed and is less interesting now.

Either that or I'm tanked.

radatz bungling the close

Biden's voice sounding worn. From all that lie-refuting.

the deficit has shrank every year the president's been in office

mozartpc27 wrote:Feel like it's slowed and is less interesting now.

Either that or I'm tanked.

They're both playing ballads now

mozartpc27 wrote:Feel like it's slowed and is less interesting now.

Either that or I'm tanked.

Both?

HONESTY!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!

LOL

LOL

LOL

LOL

pacino wrote:he has a really weird style of talking. is this a wisconsin thing?

Yes...

But the Wisconsin accent is not Paul Ryan's.

Dontchyaknow.