Paul Ryan Then & Now (hint: He flip flops on Ayn Rand, suprise!)

Flip flop is such a crude concept.

What happened here is that this is a campaign promise he made to get votes and one which he probably thought was reasonably feasible at the time. However, there were clearly more stumbling blocks than he anticipated and he was unwilling to expend the political capital for the return on investment. This part can be blamed on him, but the broader reason why it failed (GOP obstructionism) cannot.

This is true in general of his entire presidency. He campaigned on changing Washington, but it turned out that the morass and realpolitik of Washington changed him. What his original intentions were is debatable, but frankly irrelevant.

Perhaps his greatest failing is in being "radical" (ie black) and "aloof" (ie intelligent), which made him an even easier target for motivating american conservatism to its new level of stupidity and destructiveness.

It's pretty simple concept unless you need to stretch it to include things that are obviously not flip flops.

Uh huh....

Sure, any word can be defined simply, but if the definition doesn't match what people mean when they use it, it's very confusing. For example, the GOP seems to use the word to mean whenever anyone does anything different than originally anticipated.

You seem to think that your opinion on the matter is valid and therefore anything different is axiomatically incorrect. However, in reality you'll find that being correct is not such a simple matter.

Sure, any word can be defined simply, but if the definition doesn't match what people mean when they use it, it's very confusing. For example, the GOP seems to use the word to mean whenever anyone does anything different than originally anticipated.

Well, then those people who use it in that manner are disingenuous. Destroying the English language for political points is shameful.

My advise is to not be like them.

Ryan clearly didn't flip flop in this situation.

He simply read a couple books, took some points that he liked from them and shared them with his staff, while ultimately rejecting the author's philosophy. Pretty simple and clear cut.

For fark sake man.
He changed his view on the matter multiple times.

Flipping and flopping...

How does the irony of your statement escape you?

Yes he did. He anointed Rand when it suited him, but now disavow it because the anti-religious trappings will hurt him.

Obama anointed the traditional meaning of marriage when it suited him, but now disavows it because the anti-gay trappings will hurt him.

See how that goes both ways?

The difference is that I think about these issues, which is what you see above. Contrast this with the product of your thought process in the reply.

His changing stance on the issue is quite similar to that of many american: from civil unions to marriage. It's debated whether this is itself simply a result of political expedience rather than personal revelation, but that's rather irrelevant given my claim above that representing americans is exactly the job of an elected representative.

The difference is, that you like a number of other poster on this forum, will spin wildly to make any issue look better for your guy.

See above....

How exactly does my representation of Obama above make him look "good"? It portrays him as an unprincipled centrist and perhaps political opportunist, which is perhaps much better than a crooked commie, but hardly what most on the american left consider a flattering picture.



You're going to have think a bit harder and put more of the result in writing.

No, it's not. And your (lack of an) argument is unconvincing.

Obama was denied the ability to close Gitmo by Congress.

He never rejected the idea and would likely still do it today if Congress would cooperate.

Now, please provide another illuminating rebuttal such as the one above.

At least it convinced one right wing ultra partisan here.