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

Post Reply
Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate - October 11 - Biden v. Ry

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:15 pm

Ian wrote: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.
:roll:
He didn't give details about the surge or the withdrawal from Iraq. Just general guidelines and benchmarks.

Of course, he HAS increased taxes for middle class taxpayers, and he did not say what his tax plan would be in specifics. Romney, too, says he is not going to raise taxes on the middle class, but that's not good enough for you -- yet it was good enough for you when it comes to Obama -- fuck you just called the mere promise of "no middle class tax cuts" a "detail" -- are you fucking kidding me, Ian?

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate - October 11 - Biden v. Ry

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:17 pm

kiki5711 wrote:
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.?? :shock: :shock: :shock:
What are you, half-retarded or just whacked out because of all the acid you took in the 70s?

This is a discussion about the details given BEFORE a candidate is elected. The Republicans didn't block him from "giving details." The point is that none of the Obama supporters clamoring for all these "details" from Romney never cared a bit about getting details about Obamacare before it was passed. They just closed their eyes and put their fingers in their ears and supported anything.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate - October 11 - Biden v. Ry

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:20 pm

kiki5711 wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote: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!
Bullshit -- the fact that he later changed his opinion on Iraq because of the way Bush executed the war, doesn't mean he didn't vote for the war in the first place. He fucking said he VOTED AGAINST THEM -- quote unquote. He did not vote against them. He voted for them.

He did vote for the prescription drug benefit -- item 4 -- how the fuck does your quoting of the short title of the law change anything? How was he "misinterpreted?" He voted for the fucking thing, and he said he did not vote for it. Christ, Kiki -- do you drink the Kool Aid by the gallon? :funny:

User avatar
Gerald McGrew
Posts: 611
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:32 pm
About me: Fisker of Men
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate - October 11 - Biden v. Ry

Post by Gerald McGrew » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:20 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote: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.
Nowhere did he say any part of that policy was due to his religious faith. He simply pointed out what the policy was in response to what Ryan claimed.
So, women can be denied contraception by a Catholic institution? LOL. Love it. Notre Dame University health clinic? Really?
Jesus fucking Christ...the institution itself doesn't have to pay for the contraception. But the insurance company does have to offer it in at least one of their plans. Fuck.
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.
WTF? The Obama administration is trying to ban abortions for women who are 2 weeks pregnant? Dude, stop trying to change the subject. The fact is, Ryan specifically stated that he cannot and will not separate his religion from his public work. Biden said he can, does, and will. And here you are, defending Ryan.
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."
Again, bullshit. He didn't say "it's difficult", he directly stated that he can't separate the two, period. And you're just totally fine with that.
I'm not supporting anyone imposing their religion on anyone else.
Oh no, you're just supporting the party and candidate who directly states they're going to do exactly that. :roll:
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.
Riiiiiiiiight....the GOP platform is not at all based on Christianity in any way. Their denial of civil rights for gays, their denial of evolution, their desire to ban abortions....none of that have anything at all to do with Christianity.

Stop insulting the intelligence of everyone in here. It makes you look like a blind ideologue (or a serial liar).
If you don't like being called "stupid", then stop saying stupid things.

User avatar
Gerald McGrew
Posts: 611
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:32 pm
About me: Fisker of Men
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate - October 11 - Biden v. Ry

Post by Gerald McGrew » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:23 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote: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.
IOW, there is no plan, just a vague list of right-wing philosophies (cut taxes, increase the military, deregulate, balance the budget, free trade, drill baby drill).

Romney is W. Bush 2.0.
If you don't like being called "stupid", then stop saying stupid things.

User avatar
Gerald McGrew
Posts: 611
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:32 pm
About me: Fisker of Men
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate - October 11 - Biden v. Ry

Post by Gerald McGrew » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:33 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:He didn't give details about the surge or the withdrawal from Iraq. Just general guidelines and benchmarks.
FFS.

There's a big difference between, "I'm going to send more troops to Afghanistan, but I'll have to sit down with the military to work out how and when" and, "Everyone gets a 20% tax cut, the military gets more money than they want, Medicare and SS will remain untouched, the budget will be balanced, and we'll pay down the debt".

The first is reasonable (I'd rather have that than a candidate announcing troop deployment plans on the campaign trail) and the latter is "eat all the sweets you want and you'll never gain a pound".
Of course, he HAS increased taxes for middle class taxpayers
The overall net effect has been a decrease in federal taxes for the middle class. If you know that, then you're just trying to bullshit everyone. If you don't, then you're not paying attention.
Romney, too, says he is not going to raise taxes on the middle class, but that's not good enough for you -- yet it was good enough for you when it comes to Obama -- fuck you just called the mere promise of "no middle class tax cuts" a "detail" -- are you fucking kidding me, Ian?
Again, Romney is saying "Everyone gets a 20% tax cut, the military gets more money than they want, Medicare and SS will remain untouched, the budget will be balanced, and we'll pay down the debt".

Do you seriously believe that?
If you don't like being called "stupid", then stop saying stupid things.

User avatar
kiki5711
Forever with Ekwok
Posts: 3954
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:51 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Contact:

Re: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate - October 11 - Biden v. Ry

Post by kiki5711 » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:35 pm

Image

User avatar
kiki5711
Forever with Ekwok
Posts: 3954
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:51 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Contact:

Re: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate - October 11 - Biden v. Ry

Post by kiki5711 » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:37 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
kiki5711 wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote: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!
Bullshit -- the fact that he later changed his opinion on Iraq because of the way Bush executed the war, doesn't mean he didn't vote for the war in the first place. He fucking said he VOTED AGAINST THEM -- quote unquote. He did not vote against them. He voted for them.

He did vote for the prescription drug benefit -- item 4 -- how the fuck does your quoting of the short title of the law change anything? How was he "misinterpreted?" He voted for the fucking thing, and he said he did not vote for it. Christ, Kiki -- do you drink the Kool Aid by the gallon? :funny:
Talking to you is like talking to a toilet full of dhiaria. It's stinks and it's pointless. I don't care what you think or say, cuz your reasoning just blows in the wind with no meaning towards where flies like to gather. On a pile a shit,.

User avatar
kiki5711
Forever with Ekwok
Posts: 3954
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:51 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Contact:

Re: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate - October 11 - Biden v. Ry

Post by kiki5711 » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:40 pm

Medicare and SS will remain untouched, the budget will be balanced, and we'll pay down the debt".
YES, BUT FOR WHOM?

FOR THOSE THAT ARE 55 AND OLDER.

sorry, the rest of you are on your own.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate - October 11 - Biden v. Ry

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:45 pm

Gerald McGrew wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote: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.
Nowhere did he say any part of that policy was due to his religious faith. He simply pointed out what the policy was in response to what Ryan claimed.
Just read the quote again. It's all one quote -- all part of the answer as to how his religious faith informs his public life.
Gerald McGrew wrote:
So, women can be denied contraception by a Catholic institution? LOL. Love it. Notre Dame University health clinic? Really?
Jesus fucking Christ...the institution itself doesn't have to pay for the contraception. But the insurance company does have to offer it in at least one of their plans. Fuck.
Christ on a bicycle. dfHe said they didn't -- read it the fuck AGAIN. It doesn't just say "have to pay" -- they don't even have to make them available, he says.
Gerald McGrew wrote:
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.
WTF? The Obama administration is trying to ban abortions for women who are 2 weeks pregnant? Dude, stop trying to change the subject. The fact is, Ryan specifically stated that he cannot and will not separate his religion from his public work. Biden said he can, does, and will. And here you are, defending Ryan.
No, stupid, and that isn't what I said. I didn't change the subject. The shit he spouted on abortion was pandering bullshit, and did not accurately reflect his viewpoint, Obama's viewpoint or the Democratic Party's viewpoint.

I'm saying Biden SAID he could separate abortion from his religious views, but he did not say that the separates all his views from his religion - he said exactly the fucking opposite if you would actually read what he said, rather than change it to fit what you WANT him to say. Give him the fucking credit for saying what he fucking means.
Gerald McGrew wrote:
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."
Again, bullshit. He didn't say "it's difficult", he directly stated that he can't separate the two, period. And you're just totally fine with that.
"Fine with it?" I accept it as a reality. Biden doesn't separate it from his public life either. He separates his personal view on abortion from his public policy, but he doesn't separate his religion from his public life because his fucking religion, he says, informs his decisionmaking. He said it, man. Again, give him the courtesy of taking him at his fucking word.
Gerald McGrew wrote:
I'm not supporting anyone imposing their religion on anyone else.
Oh no, you're just supporting the party and candidate who directly states they're going to do exactly that. :roll:
Look - if someone supports making alcohol unconstitutional again because of their religion, there isn't anything "wrong" with that, not anything more than if someone supports making alcohol unconstitutional again because the think it increases laziness and sloth on general principle. There is nothing "wrong" with people getting their senses of right and wrong from a philosophy or a religion, or an ethical code or from wherever.

I don't want them, if I have my 'druthers, to base their decisions on Christianity, and I don't like that about Ryan, but I have to support Romney over Obama for many other reasons which take precedence. Unlike you, I'm not a one-issue voter. Ryan is the bottom of the ticket, and Romney is not an evangelical Christian or a Catholic. Being a Mormon is actually helpful to us as atheists, because Romney has to really keep mum about religion in general. If people started delving into the details of his religion, the Christian right would leave him behind en masse.

And, just because candidates "say" one thing doesn't mean their actions follow it. Look at Obama -- he is your supposed secular wonder-boy, but he EXPANDED on Bush's "faith based initiative" programs. He doubled down on government support for churches. You don't care about that, though, I 'm sure, because you know he really didn't mean what did, I guess. Somehow, I'm sure, it's the Republicans' fault...

Gerald McGrew wrote:
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.
Riiiiiiiiight....the GOP platform is not at all based on Christianity in any way. Their denial of civil rights for gays, their denial of evolution, their desire to ban abortions....none of that have anything at all to do with Christianity.

Stop insulting the intelligence of everyone in here. It makes you look like a blind ideologue (or a serial liar).
The religious right has too much influence, and I am fighting against that in the way I can. Romney is NOT ON THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT -- he is pro evolution, and he will, most likely, not do a damn thing relative to abortion. As for civil rights for gays, until 4 months ago, the parties' platforms were basically the same, and President Wonderboy was against gay marriage, so get off your high horse.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate - October 11 - Biden v. Ry

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:46 pm

kiki5711 wrote:
Medicare and SS will remain untouched, the budget will be balanced, and we'll pay down the debt".
YES, BUT FOR WHOM?

FOR THOSE THAT ARE 55 AND OLDER.

sorry, the rest of you are on your own.
That is not correct. You'll have to read up on the Ryan plan for Medicare. It's not "you're on your own."

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate - October 11 - Biden v. Ry

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:48 pm

kiki5711 wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
kiki5711 wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote: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!
Bullshit -- the fact that he later changed his opinion on Iraq because of the way Bush executed the war, doesn't mean he didn't vote for the war in the first place. He fucking said he VOTED AGAINST THEM -- quote unquote. He did not vote against them. He voted for them.

He did vote for the prescription drug benefit -- item 4 -- how the fuck does your quoting of the short title of the law change anything? How was he "misinterpreted?" He voted for the fucking thing, and he said he did not vote for it. Christ, Kiki -- do you drink the Kool Aid by the gallon? :funny:
Talking to you is like talking to a toilet full of dhiaria. It's stinks and it's pointless. I don't care what you think or say, cuz your reasoning just blows in the wind with no meaning towards where flies like to gather. On a pile a shit,.

You're an idiot. Plain and simple.

You think that Biden changing his position on Iraq years after the war is the same thing as voting against it in the first place? Moron.

User avatar
Gerald McGrew
Posts: 611
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:32 pm
About me: Fisker of Men
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate - October 11 - Biden v. Ry

Post by Gerald McGrew » Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:15 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:Just read the quote again. It's all one quote -- all part of the answer as to how his religious faith informs his public life.
Did you even watch the debate? Were you even paying attention? The stuff Biden said about contraception coverage was in direct response to what Ryan stated:

"What troubles me more is how this administration has handled all of these issues. Look at what they're doing through "Obamacare" with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They're infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals. Our church should not have to sue our federal government to maintain their religious — religious liberties."

If you're going to talk about the debate, you should have at least watched it. You're just embarrassing yourself here.
It doesn't just say "have to pay" -- they don't even have to make them available, he says.
Shit dude, pay attention. Biden:

"No religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy — 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."

And that's all true, and to the original point, nowhere did Biden say any of that was a direct result of his Catholic faith. He was simply correcting yet another distortion by Lyin' Ryan.
No, stupid, and that isn't what I said.
Now you're just lying. You stated, "He damn fucking well does NOT stand for legal abortions at any time for any reason from 0 to 40 weeks." Now last I checked, 2 weeks falls between 0 and 40 weeks. Unless you're using some of that Romney "magic math".
The shit he spouted on abortion was pandering bullshit, and did not accurately reflect his viewpoint, Obama's viewpoint or the Democratic Party's viewpoint.
If you truly think Obama and Biden are against legal abortions for any reason at any time, then there's something fundamentally wrong with you.
I'm saying Biden SAID he could separate abortion from his religious views, but he did not say that the separates all his views from his religion - he said exactly the fucking opposite if you would actually read what he said, rather than change it to fit what you WANT him to say. Give him the fucking credit for saying what he fucking means.
You're not making any sense at all. But I guess that's what happens when you're trying to defend your candidate's and your party's imposing their religious views on the country, in an atheist forum.
"Fine with it?" I accept it as a reality.
A distinction without an effective difference. You're on the side of the religious culture warrior, and you know it.
I don't want them, if I have my 'druthers, to base their decisions on Christianity, and I don't like that about Ryan
And not only do they do exactly that, they do so in spades. Their conservative brand of Christianity is a distinct and inseparable part of who they are as a party. It is a defining characteristic of today's GOP. And you're right there with them.
but I have to support Romney over Obama for many other reasons which take precedence. Unlike you, I'm not a one-issue voter.
LOL! Nice try, but a swing and a miss. :funny:
And, just because candidates "say" one thing doesn't mean their actions follow it.
Ok, let's look at that. Who's been doing more to impose their religious beliefs on the country? Democrats or Republicans? Who's been actively trying to implement the Christian culture war agenda, Biden or Ryan?

The GOP criticizes Obama for being the "most pro-abortion President in history" and the "most pro-gay" President in history. Paul Ryan?

http://prospect.org/article/paul-ryan-culture-warrior
Look at Obama -- he is your supposed secular wonder-boy, but he EXPANDED on Bush's "faith based initiative" programs. He doubled down on government support for churches
And put specific restrictions on them, i.e. they cannot have any sort of overlap between their attempts to convert and their charity work, and if a person seeking those services is wary of the church, the church has to provide information on alternative non-religious providers. Why do you think the Christian conservatives were all up in arms about that?

I swear it's like you haven't been paying attention. Of course, if you mostly watch Fox News, your misinformation is to be expected.
The religious right has too much influence, and I am fighting against that in the way I can.
How?
Romney is NOT ON THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT -- he is pro evolution, and he will, most likely, not do a damn thing relative to abortion.
I guess on the latter, it depends on which Mitt Romney you listen to. Is he the candidate without an anti-abortion agenda, or the one who will close down Planned Parenthood?
As for civil rights for gays, until 4 months ago, the parties' platforms were basically the same, and President Wonderboy was against gay marriage, so get off your high horse.
Again, stop insulting everyone here by trying to actually pretend that there's no difference between the DNC and the GOP when it comes to gay rights. If you're seriously trying to argue that point, then you're further up the GOP's ass than I though possible.
If you don't like being called "stupid", then stop saying stupid things.

User avatar
Wumbologist
I want a do-over
Posts: 4720
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 4:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate - October 11 - Biden v. Ry

Post by Wumbologist » Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:22 pm

Gerald McGrew wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
The religious right has too much influence, and I am fighting against that in the way I can.
How?
By voting for them. Image

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate - October 11 - Biden v. Ry

Post by Warren Dew » Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:09 pm

kiki5711 wrote:
Medicare and SS will remain untouched, the budget will be balanced, and we'll pay down the debt".
YES, BUT FOR WHOM?

FOR THOSE THAT ARE 55 AND OLDER.

sorry, the rest of you are on your own.
Indeed, we get a much superior premium support plan that lets us choose our own health care plan. If you're 55 or older, you're out of luck.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests