2012 Vice Presidential Debate - October 11 - Biden v. Ryan

[Coito ergo sum]

Please, reread my post, I said no such thing. I did not say that basing public policy on Christianity is a good thing. I don't think basing public policy on Christianity is a good thing.

Then why are you not only defending the guy who said he's going to do exactly that, but you're planning on voting for him as well?

I'm not defending him on that point. I'm merely stating that he is correct that a person's faith can't really be separated from public life, if they take their faith seriously.

I'm probably voting Romney, and it will be because the alternative is worse. If I waited for a candidate who agreed with all my views, I'd never vote for anybody. Obama believes in his god, and he says that his religion informs him and his decisionmaking, and Biden said exactly that during his debate. I take them at their word on that.

I said that nobody can truly say, if they sincerely adhere to a religion, faith or philosophy that they are able to "separate" that from their decision making, including public policy. Religions, faiths and philosophies are what people use to find things like, oh, "right and wrong," "good and evil," right action and wrong action, etc. If you can honestly say that a person can separate their moral or ethical code from their policy decisions, then I think you're plainly not thinking it through.

Yes you can. It's just as Biden stated. He believes abortions go against his Catholic faith. So he and his wife don't get abortions. Yet when it comes time to write public policy, he doesn't impose that belief on the rest of the American public.

He also said his faith "informs" him how to do a whole host of things. He's not claiming to separate his faith from his public life.

Anyone who believes in any restriction on any abortion is "imposing" that view on the American public, and almost nobody believes in wholly unrestricted abortion at any time during the pregnancy, just as most people who are pro-Life still make exceptions when it is allowed. People get their views on abortion from a lot of different places, religion, philosophy, medicine, etc. Setting any public policy is an imposition the American public. The only one that would not be an imposition on someone would be to say it is legal through and including 40 weeks, and that isn't the law here, or anywhere that I'm aware of, including the UK, etc.

Now, where did I say that basing public policy on Christianity is a good thing?

You're defending a candidate's intent to do exactly that, and actively supporting that candidate.

And, I'm actively opposing one, Biden, who said that his faith informs his public policy decisions, too. And, Obama has said his Christian faith informs his economic viewpoints and there is a quote from Corinthians in the Democratic Platform. So much for a choice which removes faith from public life, eh? I don't have an option that is saying they can separate their faith from their public life.

Given your lack of reading comprehension, I suspect you of being a closet Republican.

Surprising to see you not be able to comprehend having a belief, yet not also imposing that belief on everyone else. Well, maybe not that surprising....

If one sincerely holds any philosophy or moral or ethical code, whether religious or secular, one can't really separate that from one's public life. It's only when it's not seriously held that it can be separated.

And yes, you've definitely jumped the shark. You're so far up the GOP's ass, they can propose basing public policy on religion and you'll defend it.

I didn't defend it. I stated the obvious truth that if someone is a devout X, whether Buddhist, Muslim or Christian, they aren't going to be able to separate that from their other decisions in life. That's where they get their philosophical guidance from.

[Rum]

At last - details of how Romney is going to cut trillions and not tax the squeezed middle! Go look!

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

[Gerald McGrew]

CES,

Bullshit. Total bullshit.

Biden made it extremely clear how he can separate his religion from his public service. He stated, "With regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion…life begins at conception in the church’s judgement. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews. I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that – women – they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view, and in the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that."

Ryan was equally clear, "I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do."

And here you are on an atheist forum supporting the latter. So I'm left to conclude that either the nuance Biden described is beyond your comprehensive capability, or (as I said) you're so emotionally wedded to the GOP you'll support them no matter what they say.

[Gerald McGrew]

At last - details of how Romney is going to cut trillions and not tax the squeezed middle! Go look!

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

LOL. I particularly liked the Bill Clinton video where he explained that if he got a 20% tax cut, even if you eliminated all his deductions he would still end up with a $250,000 tax break. Hell, during the Presidential debate Romney said "Make up a number" and during the VP debate Ryan admitted that there are no details ("we'll work out a bipartisan plan").

Last night on Anderson Cooper, a Romney campaign spokesman was arguing that the day Romney gets elected, the economy will start growing more. He referred to it as "planting a seed" and actually said to Cooper, "Don't you believe in agriculture?" or something like that.

I'm so sick and tired of Republicans playing to the lowest denominator and insulting everyone's intelligence like that. I mean, Romney's "plan" is nothing more than an empty shell of right-wing philosophical statements and a promise to the public that they'll be able to eat all the sweets they want and never gain a pound. Except in this case, it's everyone gets a 20% tax cut, defense gets more money than it's even asking for (imagine that!!), Medicare and SS won't be reduced and will always be there, the budget will be balanced, and the debt will start to go down.

If anyone here truly believes that, they're living in total denial of reality.

[Coito ergo sum]

At last - details of how Romney is going to cut trillions and not tax the squeezed middle! Go look!

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

I find it amazing that Democrats and other Obama supporters are now up in arms about details, as if they've ever needed details before supporting something before...lol

[Ian]

At last - details of how Romney is going to cut trillions and not tax the squeezed middle! Go look!

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

I find it amazing that Democrats and other Obama supporters are now up in arms about details, as if they've ever needed details before supporting something before...lol

Examples?

I find it amazing that Romney supporters don't seem to care about details. Don't want to know how his magic formulas are going to work, they just have faith that good things will start to happen without the debt exploding yet again, that nobody will have the screws put to them for the benefit of others. It's all snake oil, suckers Republicans.

Actually, it's not so amazing, because there are very very few Romney supporters compared to anti-Obama people. Rush Limbaugh summed it up perfectly: "What Romney should remember is that this election is not about him. He could be Elmer Fudd as far as we're concerned. We're voting to oust Obama."

[Coito ergo sum]

CES,

Bullshit. Total bullshit.

Biden made it extremely clear how he can separate his religion from his public service. He stated, "With regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion…life begins at conception in the church’s judgement. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews. I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that – women – they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view, and in the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that."

That is one issue. Look at his whole quote:

My religion defines who I am, and I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who -- who can't take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to -- with regard to abortion, I accept my church's position on abortion as a -- what we call a (inaudible) doctrine. Life begins at conception in the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life.
But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the -- the congressman. I -- I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that -- women they can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I'm not going to interfere with that. With regard to the assault on the Catholic church, let me make it absolutely clear, no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hospital, any hospital, none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 ... z29UbBNGHB

So he WILL follow his Catholic faith in making sure that religious institutions, including Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hosptial -- NONE has to either refer contraception and none has to pay for contraception, and none has to be a vehicle to get contraception. LOL. Really? That's the Democrat position now? And, that is supposed to be "not imposing" religion on others? So, women can be denied contraception by a Catholic institution? LOL. Love it. Notre Dame University health clinic? Really?

And, his statement on abortion was PURE UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT and you know it. He damn fucking well does NOT stand for legal abortions at any time for any reason from 0 to 40 weeks. If you think he or Obama does, then you don't know what you're talking about. Almost nobody does. There are ALWAYS, like in the UK, restrictions on abortions, and Roe v. Wade sets out the trimester test which gives states the power to regulate and restrict and even prohibit abortions depending on when in the term it is.

This "not our business telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies" is a total ruse. There are, all over the US, and in other countries like the UK, laws which restrict what women (and men) can do with their bodies, and that includes restrictions on abortions depending on how far along the pregnancy is, and it is not the position of the Democratic Party to make ALL abortions at ANY time from 0 to 40 weeks legal, so they are to some extent o.k. with "telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies" too.

Ryan was equally clear, "I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do."

He's right. If you have a faith that you take very seriously, then it's difficult to separate that from "public life." That doesn't mean that you have to enforce your whole religion on other people. For example, Ryan would not favor forcing everyone to take holy communion or pray to Jesus. Note the general terms --- "separate from public life" -- it doesn't mean "legislate every detail of one's religion."

And here you are on an atheist forum supporting the latter. So I'm left to conclude that either the nuance Biden described is beyond your comprehensive capability, or (as I said) you're so emotionally wedded to the GOP you'll support them no matter what they say.

Fuck off. I'm not supporting anyone imposing their religion on anyone else. Your slathering desire to pretend otherwise is just your innate douchebaggery showing through. You're the one who can't read nuance, given your silly notion that what Ryan means is that he's going to legislate his religion.

[Coito ergo sum]

At last - details of how Romney is going to cut trillions and not tax the squeezed middle! Go look!

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

I find it amazing that Democrats and other Obama supporters are now up in arms about details, as if they've ever needed details before supporting something before...lol

Examples?

Exhibit A. Obamacare. Exhibit B. Everything Obama promised when he ran for President in 2008. You think his proposed tax plan was laid out in detail? Fuck off.

I find it amazing that Romney supporters don't seem to care about details. Don't want to know how his magic formulas are going to work,

There is no magic formula. That's what we understand. However, Romney has made certain assurances that whatever is the final result, there will not be a raising of middle class taxes, and he will not reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthy. He has stated that if in the end the 20% reduction figure has to be adjusted, it will be. He said that the details will have to be worked out in negotiations with Congress.

That's the reality.

For me, personally, it would be nice to have a tax cut, but I'm not too worried about it. I'm more worried about avoiding a tax hike, which is what Obama wants if he gets his 'druthers. Moreover, I want spending cuts. Obama most certainly won't give them to us, and I am only thinking 30% chance that Romney/Ryan will get us spending cuts either. But, I'll take that small chance over the absolute zero chance of an Obama reelection.

they just have faith that good things will start to happen without the debt exploding yet again, that nobody will have the screws put to them for the benefit of others. It's all snake oil, suckers Republicans.

The debt hasn't stopped exploding. Who the fuck are you people kidding. Obama has raised the debt in his term as much as Bush did in two terms.

Actually, it's not so amazing, because there are very very few Romney supporters compared to anti-Obama people. Rush Limbaugh summed it up perfectly: "What Romney should remember is that this election is not about him. He could be Elmer Fudd as far as we're concerned. We're voting to oust Obama."

White noise. Who cares? The election is almost always to some extent a lesser of two evils proposition. The most embarrassing thing is the amount of whacking off to Obama that you folks do. You'd think you Democrats were watching porn... is that a thrill or jizz going down your leg....?

[kiki5711]

Biden is taking some criticisms for laughing too much throughout the debate.

Hey, constant laughing and interrupting is an excellent debate tactic when all the facts are on the other guy's side.

just like you take some picture that has some allegations, which in truth are TOTALLY OUT OF CONTENT AND THE WORDS TWISTED!!!

Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:51 pm

Warren Dew wrote:




THE TRUTH IS, IF YOU BOTHERED TO CHECK THE LINKS:



1. Passed on September 14, 2001 right after 9/11

2.

The Council on Foreign Relations reported on Biden's political positions.[44]

Iraq

Joe Biden speaking

In 1990, Biden voted against the first Gulf War after Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.[45] In 1998, Biden expressed support for the use of force against Iraq, and urged a sustained effort to "dethrone" Saddam Hussein over the long haul.[46] In 2002, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he stated that Saddam Hussein was "a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security" and that United States has "no choice but to eliminate the threat".[47] He also said, "I think Saddam either has to be separated from his weapons or taken out of power."[48] Biden also supported a failed resolution authorizing military action in Iraq only after the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts,[49] Biden argued that Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons;[50] he subsequently voted in favor of authorizing the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Biden has since said that he believes it was a mistake to support the Iraq War because it has been mismanaged by the Bush Administration. In 2005, Biden said, "We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq (but) I think that would be a gigantic mistake, or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out – equally a mistake."[51]



3., September 17, 2008: Read it again, if you have not: http://votesmart.org/bill/8053/defense- ... Hs-1tdu5qA

4.

Vote Number: 181 Vote Date: June 22, 2006, 11:07 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4442 to S. 2766 (John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007)
Statement of Purpose: To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror.



5. A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to make improvements in the medicare program, to provide prescription drug coverage under the medicare program, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003'.

(b) SENSE OF THE CONGRESS- It is the Sense of the Congress that the Congress should enact, and the President should sign, legislation to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to make improvements in the medicare program and to provide prescription drug coverage under the medicare program.

[Ian]

At last - details of how Romney is going to cut trillions and not tax the squeezed middle! Go look!

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

I find it amazing that Democrats and other Obama supporters are now up in arms about details, as if they've ever needed details before supporting something before...lol

Examples?

Exhibit A. Obamacare. Exhibit B. Everything Obama promised when he ran for President in 2008. You think his proposed tax plan was laid out in detail? Fuck off.

I find it amazing that Romney supporters don't seem to care about details. Don't want to know how his magic formulas are going to work,

There is no magic formula. That's what we understand. However, Romney has made certain assurances that whatever is the final result, there will not be a raising of middle class taxes, and he will not reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthy. He has stated that if in the end the 20% reduction figure has to be adjusted, it will be. He said that the details will have to be worked out in negotiations with Congress.

That's the reality.

For me, personally, it would be nice to have a tax cut, but I'm not too worried about it. I'm more worried about avoiding a tax hike, which is what Obama wants if he gets his 'druthers. Moreover, I want spending cuts. Obama most certainly won't give them to us, and I am only thinking 30% chance that Romney/Ryan will get us spending cuts either. But, I'll take that small chance over the absolute zero chance of an Obama reelection.

they just have faith that good things will start to happen without the debt exploding yet again, that nobody will have the screws put to them for the benefit of others. It's all snake oil, suckers Republicans.

The debt hasn't stopped exploding. Who the fuck are you people kidding. Obama has raised the debt in his term as much as Bush did in two terms.

Actually, it's not so amazing, because there are very very few Romney supporters compared to anti-Obama people. Rush Limbaugh summed it up perfectly: "What Romney should remember is that this election is not about him. He could be Elmer Fudd as far as we're concerned. We're voting to oust Obama."

White noise. Who cares? The election is almost always to some extent a lesser of two evils proposition. The most embarrassing thing is the amount of whacking off to Obama that you folks do. You'd think you Democrats were watching porn... is that a thrill or jizz going down your leg....?

Obamacare was short on details?!?! Jeebus crist, how long is that signed document? What a stupid talking point, Coito.

Actually, no - the debt has NOT been "raised by Obama" as much as Bush raised it. Much of what has gone up during Obama's term was a direct result of the recession's effects, and as for the deficit, it's gone down since Obama took office - not a claim Bush could ever hope to make!

Asking for details is a pretty reasonable request when you're proposing (another) enormous tax cut which will benefit the wealthiest few. He expects us to believe he'll cut taxes 20% and somehow suffer no serious problems, and you swallow that bs? Consider our point of view as to how dumb that sounds. Makes Republicans sound like suckers, plain and simple.

[Coito ergo sum]

Kiki - you just proved every point listed in that image with the quote to be 100% correct.... what are you trying to say?

[kiki5711]

Exhibit A. Obamacare. Exhibit B. Everything Obama promised when he ran for President in 2008.

What are you, 5 yrs old? Are you heard of hearing of have deficiency in understanding how laws are passed? The fact that Repubican Congress blocked everything Obama tried to do THEN IT blamed on him.??

[kiki5711]

Kiki - you just proved every point listed in that image with the quote to be 100% correct.... what are you trying to say?

OMFG,

Correct???? did you take your meds today?

TAKEN OUT OF CONTENT AND YEARS, DING DONG!!! IT'S WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT IT MISREPRESENTS THE FACTS ITEMIZED AND IT IMPLIES WRONG IMPRESSION!!!!! DUHHHHHH!

[Ian]

Right - as for Coito's exhibit B... you mean ending DADT, increasing Pell Grants, withdrawing from Iraq, surging our presence in Afghanistan, not increasing taxes for middle class taxpayers, etc... yeah, what a bunch of bull all that turned out to be.

[Coito ergo sum]

Obamacare was short on details?!?! Jeebus crist, how long is that signed document? What a stupid talking point, Coito.

Before it was passed? Think of time passing from past to future, Ian, and that just because we learned something at a later date, that doesn't mean we knew it all along. Remember Pelosi saying we had to pass the bill in order to know what was in it? If she didn't know, how did you?

Actually, no - the debt has NOT been "raised by Obama" as much as Bush raised it. Much of what has gone up during Obama's term was a direct result of the recession's effects, and as for the deficit, it's gone down since Obama took office - not a claim Bush could ever hope to make!

The debt has gone up every year Obama has been in office by over $1,000,000,000 ,000 to $1.3 trillion each year. The fact that you want to attribute it to something out of Obama's control doesn't change that fact. The deficit has not gone substantially down. It was $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.293 trillion in 2010, and $1.3 trillion in 2011, and is $1.1 trillion in 2012. If that's the success you're claiming, then keep it. It was not "going down "since" Obama took office, since it went up from 2010 to 2011. If you total the amount of debt added during Obama's first term, it is as much as Bush added in 8.

Asking for details is a pretty reasonable request when you're proposing (another) enormous tax cut which will benefit the wealthiest
few.

Well, he's not proposing another tax cut that will benefit only the wealthy, and given that he is promising that their share of the total tax burden will not go down, then it should be a wash for them. If he breaks that promise, then that's a big problem.

He expects us to believe he'll cut taxes 20%

He has already said that 20% is not a hard number.

and somehow suffer no serious problems, and you swallow that bs? Consider our point of view as to how dumb that sounds. Makes Republicans sound like suckers, plain and simple.

He has said much more than that about the plan, and if you refuse to listen to the whole thing, then it makes you look ridiculous.

No candidate lays out the entirety of their tax policy before they are elected. Obama didn't. In fact, he fucking HASN'T DONE SO THIS YEAR EITHER and he is suggesting a $1,000,000,000,000 tax increase. Doing that can't be done in keeping with his promise not to raise taxes only on those making $250,000 or more. Yet he refuses to provide additional details as to how it will work. Naturally, you don't care whether he gives those details at all.