Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 VP Debate

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3114

PostSubject: VP Debate   10/12/2012, 2:01 pm

I'm startin' a new thread specifically for this one.

Rush: "Biden was no different than an SEIU official beating up a black conservative at a town hall meeting in St. Louis. It was no different than that."
Chris Wallace: "I don’t believe I have ever seen a debate in which one participant was as openly disrespectful of the other as Biden was to Paul Ryan."
Sean Hannity: "Is there bourbon in Uncle Joe's glass?"
Huckabee: "I thought Joe Biden came across like a guy you meet at a cocktail party or some political event, an obnoxious drunk who’s loud and boisterous and interrupts every conversation."

or, in other words,

The conservative media wrote:


Biden didn't sit there with his head down the whole time...

Oh, and also, it was the moderator's fault, 'cause she was in the bag for Obama.

But here's some telling ones:

Charles Krauthammer: "I think the debate happened at several levels. If you read the transcript, I think it's dead even. If you heard it on radio, Biden won. If you watched on television, he lost."

And that, as interperteted by the ever empty-headed Gretchen Carlson: "If you were listening to this on the radio or reading the transcripts, you would think Joe Biden probably won this thing based on maybe content. But when you saw the optics, and that's what it's all about..."

Making my argument for me. "Forget what Biden said, it's totally not important. Let's talk about how he looked..." This is why Dawkins doesn't debate creationists - Any display of emotion at your opponent's repeated lies, and you're perceived as "a bully". It's a loss, not because of what was said, but how you acted. And it's that perception that I think Obama was trying to avoid once it became painfully clear the epic, bullshit dance Romney was going to do at the last debate, and ended up looking weak.

But anyway, here's an analysis on what was actually said, since no one in the media wants to focus on that:

Quote :
The Biden-Ryan debate was marked by some spirited claims that didn’t always match the facts.

Ryan said Obama’s proposal to let tax rates rise for high-income individuals would “tax about 53 percent of small-business income.” Wrong. Ryan is counting giant hedge funds and thousands of other multimillion-dollar enterprises as “small” businesses.
Biden exaggerated when he said House Republicans cut funding for embassy security by $300 million. The amount approved for fiscal year 2012 was $264 million less than requested, and covers construction and maintenance, not just security.
Ryan was wrong when he said a rise in the jobless rate in Biden’s hometown was “how it’s going all around America.” The rate nationally has sunk back to where it was when Obama took office. And in Ryan’s hometown, it’s more than 4 percentage points lower that it was at the start of Obama’s term.
Biden seemed to question Ryan’s assertion that administration officials called Syrian President Bashar Assad “a reformer” even when he was killing his own civilian countrymen. Ryan was right. Early in the bloody Syrian uprising Hillary Clinton called Assad a “different leader” who many in Congress believe is “a reformer.”
Ryan claimed the Obama administration spent stimulus money on “electric cars in Finland.” Not true. Although the cars have been assembled in Finland, the money went for work in the United States.
Biden quoted Romney as saying that he would not “move heaven and earth” to get Osama bin Laden. What Romney said was that he’d go after other terrorists as well.
Ryan misquoted a Medicare official as saying “one out of six hospitals and nursing homes are going to go out of business” as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Not quite. The official said that many could become “unprofitable,” and the the situation could be monitored to head off bad outcomes.
Ryan claimed that the ACA contains “taxpayer funding” of abortion. In fact the law provides no direct funding of abortion except in cases of rape or incest or to save the mother’s life. And it’s a matter of interpretation whether subsidized private insurance would amount to indirect federal support for abortion.
Ryan was off base when he said of a cost-saving panel created by the Affordable Care Act, “not one of them even has to have medical training.” Actually, the board must include physicians and other health care professionals among its members.
Ryan at one point ground out a collection of shopworn misstatements about the health care law that we’ve had to rebut time and again, claiming “20 million people … are projected to lose their health insurance” (not true), that premiums have gone up $3,000 (no, they haven’t) and that 7.4 million seniors “are going to lose” Medicare Advantage plans (maybe, but they’d still be covered by traditional Medicare).

And both Biden and Ryan continued to twist the facts about Romney’s tax plan. Biden again misrepresented the findings of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, and Ryan repeated a misleading claim that “six studies have verified” that the plan is mathematically possible.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3114

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/12/2012, 4:21 pm

Paul Ryan: We’ll work out those pesky tax plan specifics after we're elected

Quote :
Andrew Sullivan makes a key point about Paul Ryan’s refusal during yesterday’s debate to explain how the Romney tax cuts will be paid for:

Quote :
Ryan was hampered by an insurmountable problem on the impossible mathematics of the Romney budget. I think his inability to answer that question — how do you pay for it? — has to be the driving question now. The only way to afford it is to cut middle class deductions and middle class entitlements much more than Obama-Biden would. I’d love radical tax reform — but I’m not crazy enough to believe you can actually tackle the debt by cutting taxes and increasing defense spending and leaving Medicare basically alone (no ACA-style cost-controls) and only removing deductions for the very rich. It doesn’t add up. They know it. And when challenged — even by Fox News — he cannot provide the details.
The part of the debate Sullivan is talking about came after Martha Raddatz did what Jim Lehrer utterly refused to do — ask Ryan how his massive tax cuts, which disproportionately benefit the rich, would be paid for. Ryan kept repeating that this will be worked out between Romney/Ryan and Congress. Which is to say: Never mind those pesky details for the time being, we’ll work all that out after we’re elected.

Some more random bits:

Fact Check: Ryan cites unlikely outcome under Obamacare
Fact checking the vice-presidential debate
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6026

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/12/2012, 7:28 pm

Heretic wrote:
Paul Ryan: We’ll work out those pesky tax plan specifics after we're elected


http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/09/nancy-pelosi-on-health-care-we

Nancy Pelosi on Health Care: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9393

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/12/2012, 9:56 pm

The best of the right wing freakout after Joe Biden's debate performance...

Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9393

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/12/2012, 10:00 pm

President, Vice President, and Ryan directly after the debate.

Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3114

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/13/2012, 4:35 am

happy jack wrote:
Nancy Pelosi on Health Care: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Sleep

Then apparently I'm missing something. What specifically, in your statement, makes the following equation true:

0 + (-X) = 0, where X > 0

'Cause unless you have an actual answer, you don't having any fucking clue about their tax plan, either.

And you'd be able to sell your phony skepticism easier if you had something far more impressive to offer than a two year old out-of-context quote... Laughing
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6026

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/13/2012, 3:45 pm

happy jack wrote:
Heretic wrote:
Paul Ryan: We’ll work out those pesky tax plan specifics after we're elected


http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/09/nancy-pelosi-on-health-care-we

Nancy Pelosi on Health Care: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."



Heretic wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Nancy Pelosi on Health Care: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Sleep

Then apparently I'm missing something. What specifically, in your statement, makes the following equation true:

0 + (-X) = 0, where X > 0

'Cause unless you have an actual answer, you don't having any fucking clue about their tax plan, either.

And you'd be able to sell your phony skepticism easier if you had something far more impressive to offer than a two year old out-of-context quote... Laughing

.
What you seem to be missing as far as this comparison goes is that if you are not satisfied with Paul Ryan’s answers, or lack thereof, you have the option of not voting for him. However, with Pelosi’s answers, or lack thereof, you had no choice. The plan was being shoved down your throat whether you liked it or not, and you were essentially being told, “We don’t have to tell you peasants anything about our plan. You will eat this shit, and you will smile and pretend that it is filet mignon. Because we say so.
There is quite a bit of difference between the consequences of the two situations, wouldn’t you say? After all, the acceptance of one is optional, while the acceptance of the other is mandatory.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/13/2012, 5:28 pm

happy jack wrote:
What you seem to be missing as far as this comparison goes is that if you are not satisfied with Paul Ryan’s answers, or lack thereof, you have the option of not voting for him. However, with Pelosi’s answers, or lack thereof, you had no choice. The plan was being shoved down your throat whether you liked it or not, and you were essentially being told, “We don’t have to tell you peasants anything about our plan. You will eat this shit, and you will smile and pretend that it is filet mignon. Because we say so.

There is quite a bit of difference between the consequences of the two situations, wouldn’t you say? After all, the acceptance of one is optional, while the acceptance of the other is mandatory.

First of all, Pelosi is not the most articulate politician in the world. All she meant was that she believed that the American people would be happy with the Affordable Care Act after it was passed. Pelosi wasn't hiding anything. IMHO, your characterization is way off the mark.

BTW - She was right.

And there is indeed a difference between the "consequences of the two situations." While it's true that it's "optional" to vote for the GOP ticket, the American people are at least entitled to the truth. Romney is claiming that he can reduce taxes 20% across the board, and still reduce the deficit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-12/repealing-deductions-pays-for-4-tax-cuts-study-says.html

Quote :

Immediate repeal of some of the most popular tax benefits would pay for only a 4 percent cut in U.S. income tax rates, according to an estimate by Congress’s nonpartisan scorekeeper that illustrates the mathematical and political challenges of financing rate cuts by limiting tax breaks.

The analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation emphasizes the difficult choices facing lawmakers as they balance the benefits of rate cuts against the consequences of changing or ending deductions, such as for mortgage interest and charitable contributions. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney proposes a 20 percent income-tax rate cut and says he would pay for it by limiting deductions, credits and exemptions.

So, Romney's claim appears to be simply false. It can't be done. So he's either lying, or is completely clueless (which I seriously doubt.) Either way, he's asking the American people to vote for him based on false pretenses. If he gets elected based on a pack of lies, we're all going to suffer. So it's not really a "choice," in that sense, is it? An honest "choice" would be based on the truth, not some "chicken in every pot" bullshit.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6026

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/13/2012, 7:36 pm

Scorpion wrote:
First of all, Pelosi is not the most articulate politician in the world. All she meant was that she believed that the American people would be happy with the Affordable Care Act after it was passed. Pelosi wasn't hiding anything. IMHO, your characterization is way off the mark.


“But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it....”

My characterization is not way off the mark. Those words were directed at the Senate, not the American people, demanding that they pass the bill sight unseen.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/13/2012, 7:55 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
First of all, Pelosi is not the most articulate politician in the world. All she meant was that she believed that the American people would be happy with the Affordable Care Act after it was passed. Pelosi wasn't hiding anything. IMHO, your characterization is way off the mark.


“But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it....”

My characterization is not way off the mark. Those words were directed at the Senate, not the American people, demanding that they pass the bill sight unseen.

No, That's simply false.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/15/republican-party-texas/texas-gop-says-speaker-nancy-pelosi-said-people-wi/

Quote :
GOP spokesman Bryan Preston pointed us to the text of Pelosi’s March 9 speech in Washington to the National Association of Counties.

The full quote was “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”

So, she wasn't even talking to the Senate, but to the National Association of Counties, I don't see where you got the idea that the statement was "directed at the Senate," at all.

Exactly where did you get that idea?

Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6026

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/13/2012, 8:44 pm

Scorpion wrote:
So, she wasn't even talking to the Senate, but to the National Association of Counties, I don't see where you got the idea that the statement was "directed at the Senate," at all.

Exactly where did you get that idea?



I didn't say that she was speaking in the Senate chambers. I said that her words were directed at the Senate.
But don't take my word for it when you can hear it straight from the horse's ass:




http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-infamous-health-care-remark/2012/06/20/gJQAqch6qV_blog.html

Posted at 05:53 PM ET, 06/20/2012 TheWashingtonPost

Pelosi defends her infamous health care remark


During a lunch in the Capitol with opinion writers today, House Minority Leader Pelosi was asked about those infamous words. “It’s because we didn’t have a Senate bill,” Pelosi said forcefully before Eleanor Clift of Newsweek even finished asking her a question about the statement’s context. “We were urging the Senate to pass a bill.”
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/13/2012, 9:00 pm

Pelosi is actually completely wrong. She gave her speech in March of 2010. The Senate Bill had already passed. Here's the timeline...

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003712

Quote :
On Mar. 21, 2010 the House approved the Senate's bill (HR 3590) in a 219-212 vote and passed the House's amendments to HR 3590 as the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HR 4872) in a 220-211 vote.

Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3114

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/14/2012, 8:05 pm

happy jack wrote:
What you seem to be missing as far as this comparison goes is that if you are not satisfied with Paul Ryan’s answers, or lack thereof, you have the option of not voting for him. However, with Pelosi’s answers, or lack thereof, you had no choice.

Don't give a fuck. Your childish whining about Pelosi is old, boring, and a poor attempt to change the topic.

Now, back to Mitt's tax plan:

I wrote:
What specifically, in your statement, makes the following equation true:

0 + (-X) = 0, where X > 0

Any comment at all on Romney/Ryan's actual ideas put forth in the VP debate?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6026

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/14/2012, 8:20 pm

Heretic wrote:
happy jack wrote:
What you seem to be missing as far as this comparison goes is that if you are not satisfied with Paul Ryan’s answers, or lack thereof, you have the option of not voting for him. However, with Pelosi’s answers, or lack thereof, you had no choice.

Don't give a fuck. Your childish whining about Pelosi is old, boring, and a poor attempt to change the topic.

Now, back to Mitt's tax plan:

I wrote:
What specifically, in your statement, makes the following equation true:

0 + (-X) = 0, where X > 0

A

ny comment at all on Romney/Ryan's actual ideas put forth in the VP debate?

Heretic wrote:
I wrote:
What specifically, in your statement, makes the following equation true:

0 + (-X) = 0, where X > 0


What statement?




Heretic wrote:
Any comment at all on Romney/Ryan's actual ideas put forth in the VP debate?

No.
Why?
Is that mandatory?
I never commented on it in the first place - why am I somehow obligated to comment on it now?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/15/2012, 9:04 am

happy jack wrote:

No.
Why?
Is that mandatory?
I never commented on it in the first place - why am I somehow obligated to comment on it now?

You're not obligated to do anything. We know why you're not commenting on it.
It's because you know it's a lie and that it's bullshit and there is no way you can defend the bullshit.

So that's WHY you're not commenting on it.
It's why we got the Nancy Pelosi red herring from you.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3114

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/15/2012, 9:56 am

happy jack wrote:
What statement?

Scroll bar's on the right. You can use it to return to any given point on the page...

happy jack wrote:
Heretic wrote:
Any comment at all on Romney/Ryan's actual ideas put forth in the VP debate?

No.

I didn't think so. They're pretty indefensible.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6026

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/15/2012, 11:28 am

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

No.
Why?
Is that mandatory?
I never commented on it in the first place - why am I somehow obligated to comment on it now?

You're not obligated to do anything. We know why you're not commenting on it.
It's because you know it's a lie and that it's bullshit and there is no way you can defend the bullshit.

So that's WHY you're not commenting on it.
It's why we got the Nancy Pelosi red herring from you.



I am not commenting on it due to the simple fact that I, self-admittedly, have not made myself aware of the specifics of the plan.
If I were to comment on something I know little to nothing about, that would make me …. well, that would make me Artie.
And we already have one of those.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/15/2012, 11:36 am

happy jack wrote:


I am not commenting on it due to the simple fact that I, self-admittedly, have not made myself aware of the specifics of the plan.
If I were to comment on something I know little to nothing about, that would make me …. well, that would make me Artie.


No, that would make you a typical low information, clueless, conservative, you don't know WTF you're voting for moron.

It's fascinating how you know all about Nancy and nothing about Mitts plan.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6026

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/15/2012, 11:56 am

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:


I am not commenting on it due to the simple fact that I, self-admittedly, have not made myself aware of the specifics of the plan.
If I were to comment on something I know little to nothing about, that would make me …. well, that would make me Artie.


No, that would make you a typical low information, clueless,

Right.
Like I said - Artie.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/15/2012, 12:19 pm

nice editing

That should be:
No, that would make you a typical low information, clueless, conservative, you don't know WTF you're voting for moron.

Just curious, are you going to make any effort to inform yourself on something you know little to nothing about?



Last edited by edge540 on 10/15/2012, 1:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3114

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/15/2012, 1:00 pm

You can start here, happy:



"Revenue neutral," hence the mathematical impossibility that is their tax plan: 0 + (-X) = 0, where X > 0.

Revenue neutrality is also a tacit admission that taxes aren't choking the recovery; businesses won't have more money to spend on "job creation", but jobs will starting raining from the sky like manna on Joseph Smith's multiple wives, once "the creators" are finally released from the imagined emotional impact (as opposed to a real, measurable, economic impact) of some of the lowest tax rates we've seen in the last few decades.

But you're right. I'm not voting for him. We just can't figure out why you are, though I don't think you entirely know either.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3114

PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   10/17/2012, 6:50 pm

The Daily Show nails exactly why Lehrer made such a poor moderator.


Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: VP Debate   

Back to top Go down
 
VP Debate
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: