Printable View
Again, talking over someone is something that you see in most political debates. This kind of nastiness in a national debate is unprecedented in recent memory. As I stated earlier in the thread, I think Romney "won" his debate because people realized he's not the demon the media made him out to be, not because he was aggressive.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it has something to do with the truth. Ryan was 24 myths in 40 minutes (including a lie of the year). And Biden did a pretty job of reacting to those. Mockingly. Obama was seen as weak because he allowed Romney to say whatever the hell he wanted, 27 myths in 38 minutes (hence your view that people saw something that wasn't evil). Biden nipped that in the bud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
A) Biden did his share of lying.
B) Since when is nastiness and disrespect the proper way to respond to your debate opponent? I believe the proper term for Biden's performance is "Coulteresque".
Are you talking about these:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...in-40-minutes/
??
Is Biden's performance really considered some kind unprecedented escalation of aggressiveness over there? Shit, son, if Ryan ever set foot in the House of Commons he'd likely be reduced to a blubbering wreck, and if he set foot in the Australian or Irish Parliament they'd eat him alive. They would literally cook and eat him.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...n-in-VP-Debate
Lies are only bad when the other side does it.
Good thing Ryan isn't running for the British or Australian parliament. You act according to the norms of the institution you do run for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I'd like to see a comparison of those two lists :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
But you're acting as if Biden had just unleashed this torrent of unrelated hatred at Ryan for 40 minutes, rather than stepping a little outside the tepid norms American politics.
By American standards, he did.
Half of those don't seem to be lies, in fact one could argue that "thinkprogress" is lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Point 3: "Medicare 88% of obligation, Social Security 75%" ... even if you believe these claims are either paying those percentages today? No, I don't think so. Ryan is right to say its unsustainable and adjustments need to be made.
etc
#2 has some truth to it. #3 isn't a lie. #4 Ryan said it went to special interests, which isn't entirely false. #5 Think Progress is the liar. Money spent by the Energy Department are taxpayer funds. #6 Yet another distortion by Think Progress. Just because the Israeli Defense Minister says something doesn't make it true. #7 can be argued either way. #8 is a blatant lie by Think Progress. #9 isn't a lie. #12 isn't a lie. #13 isn't a lie; there are many ways to measure unemployment. #15 isn't a lie; no idea why it's even mentioned other than to attack Ryan for something he didn't mention in the debate. #17 isn't a lie. #19 is a lie by Think Progress. #23 isn't a lie (at most, he's claiming more certainty than can be justified). #25 isn't a lie. So I count about as many lies by Think Progress as I do by Ryan. Who's checking the fact checkers?
Even Republicans know that you can't take Biden seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
As a totally random sample, the debate transcript quotes ryan with that exact statement. Right before Raddatz moves over the the 20% question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That was rated mostly false when Romney used to think 5 was a big enough number to sound convincing.
Correct number?Spoiler:
Who checks the Loki? :coffee:
15) “He’ll keep saying this $5 trillion plan, I suppose. It’s been discredited by six other studies.”
The studies Ryan cites actually further prove that Romney/Ryan would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.
The claim has to do with Obama's plan. The retort talks about Ryan's budget. :bored: Who checks those who can't read?
no... Biden attacks Romney/Ryan's plan cause it won't be able to find $5 in loopholes. Ryan retorts with that quote, and the $5 trillion remark is thrown in to claim that Biden is lying that Romney's tax cut plan would come in at $5 trillionQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
BIDEN: The middle class will pay less and people making $1 million or more will begin to contribute slightly more. Let me give you one concrete example. The continuation of the Bush tax cuts -- we are arguing that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire. Of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, $800 million -- billion of that goes to people making a minimum of $1 million.
We see no justification in these economic times for those, and they're patriotic Americans. They're not asking for this continued tax cut. They're not suggesting it, but my friends are insisting on it; 120,000 families by continuing that tax cut will get an additional $500 billion in tax relief in the next 10 years and their income is an average of $8 million.
We want to extend permanently the middle-class tax cut for -- permanently, from the Bush middle-class tax cut. These guys won't allow us to. You know what they're saying? We say "let's have a vote -- let's have a vote on the middle-class tax cut and let's have a vote on the upper (ph) tax cut; let's go ahead and vote on it."
They're saying no. They're holding hostage the middle class tax cut to the super wealthy. And on top of that, they've got another tax cut coming that's $5 trillion that all of the studies point out will in fact give another $250 million -- yeah, $250,000 a year to those 120,000 families and raise taxes for people who are middle income with a child by $2,000 a year.
This is unconscionable. There is no need for this. The middle class got knocked on their heels. The great recession crushed them. They need some help now. The last people who need help are 120,000 families for another -- another $500 billion tax cut over the next 10 years.
RADDATZ: Congressman?
RYAN: Our entire premise of these tax reform plans is to grow the economy and create jobs. It's a plan that's estimated to create 7 million jobs. Now, we think that government taking 28 percent of a family and business's income is enough. President Obama thinks that the government ought to be able to take as much as 44.8 percent of a small business's income.
RYAN: Look, if you taxed every person and successful business making over $250,000 at 100 percent, it would only run the government for 98 days. If everybody who paid income taxes last year, including successful small businesses, doubled their income taxes this year, we'd still have a $300 billion deficit. You see? There aren't enough rich people and small businesses to tax to pay for all their spending.
And so the next time you hear them say, "Don't worry about it, we'll get a few wealthy people to pay their fair share," watch out, middle class, the tax bill's coming to you.
That's why we're saying we need fundamental tax reform. Let's take a look at it this way. Eight out of 10 businesses, they file their taxes as individuals, not as corporations. And where I come from, overseas, which is Lake Superior, the Canadians, they dropped their tax rates to 15 percent. The average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25 percent, and the president wants the top effective tax rate on successful small businesses to go above 40 percent.
Two-thirds of our jobs come from small businesses. This one tax would actually tax about 53 percent of small-business income. It's expected to cost us 710,000 jobs. And you know what? It doesn't even pay for 10 percent of their proposed deficit spending increases.
What we are saying is, lower tax rates across the board and close loopholes, primarily to the higher-income people. We have three bottom lines: Don't raise the deficit, don't raise taxes on the middle class, and don't lower the share of income that is borne by the high-income earners.
He'll keep saying this $5 trillion plan, I suppose. It's been discredited by six other studies. And even their own deputy campaign manager acknowledged that it wasn't correct.
He even mentions the campaign manager, which points to this video, which is again about Obama's claim about Romney's $5 trillion cuts.
No one is connecting the $5 trillion cut to Obama's plan.
Claim about 5/6 other studies backing Romney's plan.
Who owns the alleged 5 trillion dollar plan?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Ok, I still fail to see what the lie is. The wording by both Biden and Ryan are very ambiguous. Is Biden's claim that Romney's/Ryan's plan would lower revenue by $5 trillion (which Ryan disputes)? If so, how does the Think Progress retort about the Romney/Ryan plan requiring a tax increase make any sense?
If Ryan is lying about whether those 6 studies agree with the $5 trillion figure, why does Think Progress not attack that claim? :confused:
The real lie is of course about there being six such studies :o but the alleged myth is that six studies have discredited the claim that Ryan's plan as it is today would cost 5 trillion over 10 years. Thinkprogress's counter-claim is that those studies (half of which aren't studies) show that their plan would have to sacrifice some of it ostensibly most important goals in order to even be revenue neutral.
The counter-claim does not prove the original claim to be a lie. :confused: Like I said, you could make the case that the claim that there are 6 studies supporting his argument is a lie, but that's not what Think Progress attacked...
Are you going to address the fact that Think Progress seems far more intent on scoring political points, including by outright lying, than on exposing Ryan's lies?
Well like I was telling some other folks no one is going to change their vote from Obama to Romney because Biden was rude. Honestly its a non-issue. Biden may have energized the base a bit but one would think Obama would have done the same thing in the next debates (we'll see).
What a brilliantly astute observation you've made there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Loki linked Breitbart? :lol:
I 'watched' most of the VP debate, but didn't like the format (with split screens) and ended up listening more than watching. The substance was short and shallow, as usual, with these timed televised "debates". But Biden interrupting Ryan was directly related to Obama NOT having interrupted Romney -- while making false claims, or presenting half-truths as fact -- and letting the substance take a back seat to style.
Toward the end, the differences became clearer. Ryan said he can't separate his religious beliefs from his politics while Biden said he could. A Romney administration would be decidedly pro-life (as the new religious minority conservatives define it) with intent to seat SCOTUS replacements that would overturn Roe v Wade. Small, non-intrusive government, protecting individual freedoms and religious tolerance, huh. :rolleyes:
Biden is a hypocrite. He states that he won't enforce his religious beliefs on others in the case of abortion. And yet he says his desire to give everyone a "fair shake" is rooted in Catholic doctrine. If you support taking care of the poor via the forced confiscation of wealth due to your religious beliefs on how the poor should be treated - how is that any different?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Yes, Catholicism has a monopoly on giving everyone a fair chance in life and in fact invented the idea. No other system of thought or morality has ever held this idea, even today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Yes Christianity has a monopoly on giving unborn children a chance at life and in fact invented the idea. NO other system of though or morality has ever held this idea, even today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
As I understand it, social Catholic doctrine teaches that church and state play complementary roles for the Greater Good. That includes non-religious, non-exempt groups *paying taxes* that help the needy. That's generally accepted as part of government's social contract with citizens, regardless of religious beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Pretty sure Illusions was being sarcastic. Not sure if you were.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
A quick Google search suggests that early Christians either did not think abortion to be wrong or did not think of it as murder; the latter position was identical to those of Jews who existed before them. :noob:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Back to Basics. Both candidates are promising "more jobs" for the US worker, and more "growth" for the USA. Obama's plan works from the middle out; Romney's plan works from the top down. Obama's plans give tax breaks to the middle class; Romney's plans give tax breaks to the wealthiest. Obama suggests a return to Clinton era tax rates, when the wealthiest had ~ 39% effective tax rates, and we saw great national gains that benefited every income group.
Romney suggests a return to the pre-1950's era, when corporate conglomerates and concentrated individual wealth had much lower effective tax rates. He (and his economic advisors) assume that post-industrial growth and its tax rates....were the recipe for "growth". They figure that if we just return to those tax rates....growth will be unleashed. Someone needs to tell them it's not the 1930's or 1950's any more. That we participate in a global economy, but can't and don't control the world...even though the USD is still recognized as the global reserve currency.
Romney/Ryan want to capitalize on our trade deficit with China, and call them currency manipulators....while claiming the Obama administration hasn't done enough to protect trade agreements. What a bunch of bunk. Or rather, malarkey. What would R/R do---start a trade or currency war? pfft, they're too busy starting four more WARS in Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Iran.....
Y'all are dense. It was an almost word for word quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT