Who is Paul Ryan and what does he stand for?

[Juan_Bottom]

You obviously haven't been following the thread at all and are just looking to cherry-pick words to suit your anti-Juan agenda.

Not only did you choose not to weigh in on the discussion about Satanism and Randism, but that was also a joke about the discussion. Don't come in here using subtle innuendo's that I'm intolerant when I was maintaining a fair and honest discussion about Satanism and Ryan. You could say anything constructive about that at anytime, but instead you're just lying around looking for a chance to twist my words around. In fact, you're not even discussing the OP, you're just taking whatever steps you feel that you can to attack me. And for what reason? What have I done? I created a legitimize thread to discuss Paul Ryan's politics after he was chosen as Mitt's running mate. I posted a related video showing him being harassed at a parade. I said several times that I like him as a person. And you have the audacity to try to use all this as a weapon against me as a person, like I'm the bad guy. You're the bad guy!

[patrickaa317]

You obviously haven't been following the thread at all and are just looking to cherry-pick words to suit your anti-Juan agenda.

Not only did you choose not to weigh in on the discussion about Satanism and Randism, but that was also a joke about the discussion. Don't come in here using subtle innuendo's that I'm intolerant when I was maintaining a fair and honest discussion about Satanism and Ryan. You could say anything constructive about that at anytime, but instead you're just lying around looking for a chance to twist my words around. In fact, you're not even discussing the OP, you're just taking whatever steps you feel that you can to attack me. And for what reason? What have I done? I created a legitimize thread to discuss Paul Ryan's politics after he was chosen as Mitt's running mate. I posted a related video showing him being harassed at a parade. I said several times that I like him as a person. And you have the audacity to try to use all this as a weapon against me as a person, like I'm the bad guy. You're the bad guy!

Sorry to burst your ego but there is no anti-Juan agenda, nor will there ever be one. You won't see me constantly following you around like woodruff & scotty do to each other (probably more one than the other)...

You are right, I didn't weigh in on the Satanism or the Randism though neither have anything to do with the interview you posted, yet you referred to Ryan as a Satanist there. If that was meant simply as a joke, just say so and I'll admit that I missed your sarcasm on the comment.

So I guess my question is the below:
Do you feel the interviewer was in line doing what he did? I have heard you comment that I was taking the comment out of context but I haven't heard where you stand on the process of the interviewer approaching the VP candidate the way that was done in the video.

[Symmetry]

You obviously haven't been following the thread at all and are just looking to cherry-pick words to suit your anti-Juan agenda.

Not only did you choose not to weigh in on the discussion about Satanism and Randism, but that was also a joke about the discussion. Don't come in here using subtle innuendo's that I'm intolerant when I was maintaining a fair and honest discussion about Satanism and Ryan. You could say anything constructive about that at anytime, but instead you're just lying around looking for a chance to twist my words around. In fact, you're not even discussing the OP, you're just taking whatever steps you feel that you can to attack me. And for what reason? What have I done? I created a legitimize thread to discuss Paul Ryan's politics after he was chosen as Mitt's running mate. I posted a related video showing him being harassed at a parade. I said several times that I like him as a person. And you have the audacity to try to use all this as a weapon against me as a person, like I'm the bad guy. You're the bad guy!

Sorry to burst your ego but there is no anti-Juan agenda, nor will there ever be one. You won't see me constantly following you around like woodruff & scotty do to each other (probably more one than the other)...

You are right, I didn't weigh in on the Satanism or the Randism though neither have anything to do with the interview you posted, yet you referred to Ryan as a Satanist there. If that was meant simply as a joke, just say so and I'll admit that I missed your sarcasm on the comment.

So I guess my question is the below:
Do you feel the interviewer was in line doing what he did? I have heard you comment that I was taking the comment out of context but I haven't heard where you stand on the process of the interviewer approaching the VP candidate the way that was done in the video.

I think Juan was referring to the actual ideals of Satanism (as opposed to theistic ideals), that is, complete selfishness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism

I appreciate the terminology is controversial, but Juan wasn't incorrect to make the comparison in philosophy.

[patrickaa317]

You obviously haven't been following the thread at all and are just looking to cherry-pick words to suit your anti-Juan agenda.

Not only did you choose not to weigh in on the discussion about Satanism and Randism, but that was also a joke about the discussion. Don't come in here using subtle innuendo's that I'm intolerant when I was maintaining a fair and honest discussion about Satanism and Ryan. You could say anything constructive about that at anytime, but instead you're just lying around looking for a chance to twist my words around. In fact, you're not even discussing the OP, you're just taking whatever steps you feel that you can to attack me. And for what reason? What have I done? I created a legitimize thread to discuss Paul Ryan's politics after he was chosen as Mitt's running mate. I posted a related video showing him being harassed at a parade. I said several times that I like him as a person. And you have the audacity to try to use all this as a weapon against me as a person, like I'm the bad guy. You're the bad guy!

Sorry to burst your ego but there is no anti-Juan agenda, nor will there ever be one. You won't see me constantly following you around like woodruff & scotty do to each other (probably more one than the other)...

You are right, I didn't weigh in on the Satanism or the Randism though neither have anything to do with the interview you posted, yet you referred to Ryan as a Satanist there. If that was meant simply as a joke, just say so and I'll admit that I missed your sarcasm on the comment.

So I guess my question is the below:
Do you feel the interviewer was in line doing what he did? I have heard you comment that I was taking the comment out of context but I haven't heard where you stand on the process of the interviewer approaching the VP candidate the way that was done in the video.

I think Juan was referring to the actual ideals of Satanism (as opposed to theistic ideals), that is, complete selfishness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism

I appreciate the terminology is controversial, but Juan wasn't incorrect to make the comparison in philosophy.

Hmmm. Not sure what this has to do with Juan & my current conversation. Thanks for chiming in though.

[Symmetry]

Simply hoping to clarify, just in case you weren't au fait with the Satanism part- to be fair, you seemed a bit confused by it.

[patrickaa317]

Simply hoping to clarify, just in case you weren't au fait with the Satanism part- to be fair, you seemed a bit confused by it.

Not confused. Just a label that people use. I tend not to argue labels, especially when it is intended to be more of a fear inspired label, rather than an a label of accuracy.

[Juan_Bottom]

I appreciate the terminology is controversial, but Juan wasn't incorrect to make the comparison in philosophy.

Bingo.

So I guess my question is the below:
Do you feel the interviewer was in line doing what he did? I have heard you comment that I was taking the comment out of context but I haven't heard where you stand on the process of the interviewer approaching the VP candidate the way that was done in the video.

>>>>>

Satanist Paul Ryan deals with Labor Day Parade harassment.

I posted that video under the headline of Paul Ryan being harassed.

I said that he was being harassed, and posted it because it was relevant.

Those people interrupting that parade are semi-retarded.

[Juan_Bottom]

Simply hoping to clarify, just in case you weren't au fait with the Satanism part- to be fair, you seemed a bit confused by it.

Not confused. Just a label that people use. I tend not to argue labels, especially when it is intended to be more of a fear inspired label, rather than an a label of accuracy.

If you're implying that being called a Satanist is a fear-inspiring label; you're completely wrong. In the Huxley - inspired world of scary religions its closer to being called a trekkie.
It's also a pretty accurate label in the instance that I used it.

[patrickaa317]

I appreciate the terminology is controversial, but Juan wasn't incorrect to make the comparison in philosophy.

Bingo.

So I guess my question is the below:
Do you feel the interviewer was in line doing what he did? I have heard you comment that I was taking the comment out of context but I haven't heard where you stand on the process of the interviewer approaching the VP candidate the way that was done in the video.

>>>>>

Satanist Paul Ryan deals with Labor Day Parade harassment.

I posted that video under the headline of Paul Ryan being harassed.

I said that he was being harassed, and posted it because it was relevant.

Those people interrupting that parade are semi-retarded.

Fair enough. Admitting he was being harassed, doesn't show any opposition for that type of action. The quote of you calling them semi-retarded is sufficient of answer though.

[patrickaa317]

Simply hoping to clarify, just in case you weren't au fait with the Satanism part- to be fair, you seemed a bit confused by it.

Not confused. Just a label that people use. I tend not to argue labels, especially when it is intended to be more of a fear inspired label, rather than an a label of accuracy.

If you're implying that being called a Satanist is a fear-inspiring label; you're completely wrong. In the Huxley - inspired world of scary religions its closer to being called a trekkie.
It's also a pretty accurate label in the instance that I used it.

I view calling someone a Satanist a fear-inspiring label as many people do not fully understand the Church of Satan and what it stands for.

And "pretty" accurate is another way of saying not entirely accurate; or another way of saying there were some similarities but they are not completely similar.

[BigBallinStalin]

Simply hoping to clarify, just in case you weren't au fait with the Satanism part- to be fair, you seemed a bit confused by it.

Not confused. Just a label that people use. I tend not to argue labels, especially when it is intended to be more of a fear inspired label, rather than an a label of accuracy.

If you're implying that being called a Satanist is a fear-inspiring label; you're completely wrong. In the Huxley - inspired world of scary religions its closer to being called a trekkie.
It's also a pretty accurate label in the instance that I used it.

I view calling someone a Satanist a fear-inspiring label as many people do not fully understand the Church of Satan and what it stands for.
.

Or it's good ol' trolling--especially when one glances over the differences between Ayn Randism and Satanism, but hey, it's JB. What do you expect?

[Juan_Bottom]

The only difference is their theology, as I explained. But you chose not to participate in the conversation, only to judge people based on a descriptive word they used without the context that it was used in.

[BigBallinStalin]

The only difference is their theology, as I explained. But you chose not to participate in the conversation, only to judge people based on a descriptive word they used without the context that it was used in.

I'm sure you did a bang-up job, JB.

[Symmetry]

Simply hoping to clarify, just in case you weren't au fait with the Satanism part- to be fair, you seemed a bit confused by it.

Not confused. Just a label that people use. I tend not to argue labels, especially when it is intended to be more of a fear inspired label, rather than an a label of accuracy.

If you're implying that being called a Satanist is a fear-inspiring label; you're completely wrong. In the Huxley - inspired world of scary religions its closer to being called a trekkie.
It's also a pretty accurate label in the instance that I used it.

I view calling someone a Satanist a fear-inspiring label as many people do not fully understand the Church of Satan and what it stands for.

And "pretty" accurate is another way of saying not entirely accurate; or another way of saying there were some similarities but they are not completely similar.

It's a provocative label, but I don't think JB is at fault for provoking you to think about the terms you or I employ a little more critically. Pretty accurate would suggest that he was mostly right, no? Where do you see the dissimilarities? At its core, Satanism is very similar to Rand's philosophy. It's not really enough to say that Ryan said he rejects Rand, or that Ryan doesn't identify himself as Satanic.

His arguments seem largely to be the same at their core. Where do you see a divergence?