Who Won the Debate?

[Hacp]

I think Paul Ryan won. Biden presented himself as a defender of the old. The tired. Ryan has new ideas that will get our country out of this fuss.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That's a shit argument from someone with shit for brains. Passing a law against murder is technically forcing your beliefs on others. Saying "the Democrats pass laws that force their beliefs on others" is akin to saying Democrats breathe air. The discussion is about passing laws that force religious beliefs on others. Let me know what religious beliefs Democrats are forcing on others. Try to do it honestly, too, since there are plenty of fact check sites to debunk lies about funding abortions with taxpayer money and forcing Catholic hospitals to promote contraception.

Religious beliefs are morality beliefs. Dems push their morality beliefs all the fucking time.

 

[sunzt]

CNN has a poll, they say that Ryan won 48% vs. Biden 44% and call it a draw and it isn't a Fox poll.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/11/cnn-poll-on-debate-winner-ryan-48-biden-44/

from your link...

A CBS News poll of uncommitted voters who watched the debate gave Biden the edge over Ryan by a 50%-31% margin. Uncommitted voters made up roughly ten percent or less of the debate audience.

 

[dank69]

Religious beliefs are morality beliefs. Dems push their morality beliefs all the fucking time.

Morality can be defined without the use of religion. Once again, saying "Dems push their morality beliefs all the fucking time" is equivalent to saying "Dems breathe air all the time." Weren't you paying attention the post you quoted?

 

[emperus]

Hint: when you are going to call somebody dumb don't screw up the grammar around the insult.

I know you don't understand basic economic principles such as supply and demand but when an economy grows you get more tax revenue. The Romney plan assumes economic growth. You democrat parrots don't think the pie gets larger therefore any tax cut is a loss in revenue.

Besides, there's a good chance that I paid more in taxes than you made, genius. Don't lecture me about taxes. How many jobs have you created? You might want to run upstairs and stop the leaky faucet and put the cap on the orange juice, you know how much mom hates that.

Also, and I can't believe you haven't caught this (well actually I can)..., a tax plan can be revenue nuetral AND you can spend $60 trillion dollars at the same time. The taxes THEMSELVES are revenue nuetral, understand Einstein?

I do understand your confusion however. If you can't understand that when you make something more expensive less people will pay for it then there is no hope. When you raise taxes it makes things more expensive therefore less people will buy these things. When you make it more expensive to hire a worker there will be less workers being hired. When you make it less profitable to sell an asset, less people will sell them. All of these burdens hinder economic activity not promote it.

Not only do you think raising taxes won't harm economic growth/activity you think it can't, which is absolutely absurd.

You raise the cap gains tax rate and people will be more inclined to avoid transactions where they have to pay this rate. You've said that people are already avoiding taxes, so what is your solution? To give them more reasons to avoid taxes by raising them!

We have a shit stain for an economy and what does Obama want to do? Raise taxes, he is either a retard or he doesn't want real job creation.

So explain to me how the economy grows by cutting taxes. Google Voodoo Economics and you may get your answer.

 

[buckshot24]

Yes and the economy will magically fix itself and grow faster than it traditionally has! Exactly how that will happen mitt doesn't say but you sure as shit eat it up and require no explanation because you believe in magic!

As usual your post is full of shit and offers nothing but empty rhetoric. I thought you were blocking me by the way?
No? Can't even stand by your own convictions?

Great rebuttal.

My post is based upon basic proven economic theory.

You want it to become more expensive for businesses to hire people and you expect more businesses to hire people. You want more economic activity by making it more costly. You don't have a clue.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Morality can be defined without the use of religion. Once again, saying "Dems push their morality beliefs all the fucking time" is equivalent to saying "Dems breathe air all the time." Weren't you paying attention the post you quoted?

Of course morality can be defined without the use of religion. Tell me...why do Dems version of morality magically supercede those who have a religious based version of morality?

 

[nehalem256]

That's a shit argument from someone with shit for brains. Passing a law against murder is technically forcing your beliefs on others. Saying "the Democrats pass laws that force their beliefs on others" is akin to saying Democrats breathe air. The discussion is about passing laws that force religious beliefs on others. Let me know what religious beliefs Democrats are forcing on others. Try to do it honestly, too, since there are plenty of fact check sites to debunk lies about funding abortions with taxpayer money and forcing Catholic hospitals to promote contraception.

So its okay to force beliefs on others so long as they are not based on religion?

And you do realize that the Democratic Platform calls for taxpayer fund abortions.

And if you want a religious belief that Democrats force on others. How about bailing out single mothers. After all if Republicans try to cut social welfare spending they are awfully quick to start asking "What would Jesus do?"

Morality can be defined without the use of religion. Once again, saying "Dems push their morality beliefs all the fucking time" is equivalent to saying "Dems breathe air all the time." Weren't you paying attention the post you quoted?

Why don't we just be honest and agree that

(1) Republicans want to force their beliefs on others

(2) Democrats want to force their beliefs on others.

 

[dank69]

Of course morality can be defined without the use of religion. Tell me...why do Dems version of morality magically supercede those who have a religious based version of morality?

Because religion is based on pixie dust, while most of Dem's morality is based on observable evidence?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Because religion is based on pixie dust, while most of Dem's morality is based on observable evidence?

Brilliant response!

 

[buckshot24]

So explain to me how the economy grows by cutting taxes. Google Voodoo Economics and you may get your answer.

Will the converse create economic growth?

Will there be more economic private sector economic activity at a 0% tax rate or at a 100% tax rate?

 

[FuzzyBee]

On politifact, Biden has nothing below half true and Ryan has everything as mostly false or false with one exception that was mostly true. :whiste:

Politi"fact" isn't always correct, and they often give leniency to some over others when it comes to "half truths" vs "mostly falses" or "completely false".

For instance:

The Romney campaign claimed that "since President Obama took office, there are over 450,000 more unemployed women."

That’s literally true, but the statistic is cherry-picked. Starting the count at the beginning of the recovery, rather than the beginning of Obama’s term, produces a starkly different result -- a decrease of 548,000 unemployed women. And the rise in women’s unemployment under Obama pales compared to the rise experienced under George W. Bush. These important pieces of context are left out of the ad. On balance, we rate the claim Half True.

Wait - it's "literally true", but it's only half-true? What world do these people live in?

Where's Politifact's insight into this statement?

By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’ It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. I was there, I voted against them. I said, no, we can’t afford that.”

 

[nehalem256]

Because religion is based on pixie dust, while most of Dem's morality is based on observable evidence?

And allowing 15 year old girls to be parents makes sense based on observable evidence?

:biggrin:

Supporting single motherhood makes sense based on observable evidence?

:biggrin:

 

[Matt1970]

Anandtech 107 Biden 46 Ryan
CNN 48% Ryan 44% Biden
ABC 14456 Ryan 13500 Biden

 

[buckshot24]

Hey, that's an encore of the George Bush song & dance routine! Bravo!

You conveniently forgot to mention that the National Debt doubled under such policy... while the incomes of the top 120K families exploded...

But, uhh, nevermind, huh?

Oh now you care about the debt? Bush spent too much it wasn't anything to do with the tax cuts. You're conflating two separate things buddy.

You complain about upper income expanding but your "solutions" aren't going to do a thing to address it. Poor people are hurt the most when the economy sucks. Your plan is to raise taxes on the rich when it won't make one poor person any wealthier.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Wait - it's "literally true", but it's only half-true? What world do these people live in?

They explained their reasoning. It seems perfectly sensible to me.

You've never heard the term "half-truth" before? Surprising.

What's your actual rebuttal? Do you think it's rational to measure unemployment statistics from the day someone takes office, given the obvious fact that it takes time for policies to take effect?

 

[buckshot24]

Anandtech 107 Biden 46 Ryan
CNN 48% Ryan 44% Biden
ABC 14456 Ryan 13500 Biden

Politics subsection here isn't very representative is it?

Biden was an asshole and it got in the way of the things he was saying.

 

[zsdersw]

You mean "Safe, legal, rare, and paid for by the taxpayer"?

No. Taxpayers shouldn't fund abortions. But pro-lifers shouldn't be able to dictate their definition of when life begins to everyone else, either.

And the Democrats don't pass laws that force their beliefs on others?

Sure they do, but what about that makes it OK for Republicans to do it?

 

[dank69]

So its okay to force beliefs on others so long as they are not based on religion?

And you do realize that the Democratic Platform calls for taxpayer fund abortions.

Unless you count cases of rape, incest or to save the life of a mother, no they do not. I asked you to try to be honest. I guess that is too much to ask of you.

And if you want a religious belief that Democrats force on others. How about bailing out single mothers. After all if Republicans try to cut social welfare spending they are awfully quick to start asking "What would Jesus do?"

Hey, why don't you stick with what actual politicians say and propose instead of reaching for what internet warriors say on a forum.

Why don't we just be honest and agree that

(1) Republicans want to force their beliefs on others

(2) Democrats want to force their beliefs on others.

Again, you said nothing.

 

[FuzzyBee]

They explained their reasoning. It seems perfectly sensible to me.

You've never heard the term "half-truth" before? Surprising.

What's your actual rebuttal? Do you think it's rational to measure unemployment statistics from the day someone takes office, given the obvious fact that it takes time for policies to take effect?

They reasoned a way to label the statement what it's not. Is their intent to find the truth in American politics, or is it to define the quality of the statement? There is no way the statement "Since President Obama took office, there are over 450,000 more unemployed women" is not true. Let's break it down:

"Since President Obama took office" <- He did take office in January 2009
"there are over 450,000 more unemployed women" <- from Politifact themselves:

If you start in January 2009, the month that Obama took office, there has been a 451,000 increase in the number of unemployed women 16 and up through the latest report, which was issued last week.

Which part of this is not true? Which important details are left out of that 11 word and 1 number sentence? How is that number taken out of context?

 

[emperus]

Will the converse create economic growth?

Will there be more economic private sector economic activity at a 0% tax rate or at a 100% tax rate?

It depends on who's getting the tax cut. If you're rich, you generally don't spend the extra tax cut, you save it, since if you needed something you have the money to buy it anyways. So the economy doesn't grow. But, then you get into the issue of the deficit. You're assuming that the cut in taxes will create enough economic activity to replace the loss to the Federal Government. When has that ever been true? Bush tried that and look where we are. Reagen tried that and ended up raising taxes.

 

[dank69]

And allowing 15 year old girls to be parents makes sense based on observable evidence?

:biggrin:

Supporting single motherhood makes sense based on observable evidence?

:biggrin:

We can't prevent those things no matter how many laws you try to make.

 

[dank69]

They reasoned a way to label the statement what it's not. Is their intent to find the truth in American politics, or is it to define the quality of the statement? There is no way the statement "Since President Obama took office, there are over 450,000 more unemployed women" is not true. Let's break it down:

"Since President Obama took office" <- He did take office in January 2009
"there are over 450,000 more unemployed women" <- from Politifact themselves:


Which part of this is not true? Which important details are left out of that 11 word and 1 number sentence? How is that number taken out of context?

Because while technically true, it is also misleading in the context in which it was used. It doesn't prove what the person using it wanted to prove. This shouldn't have to be explained to you.

 

[nehalem256]

Unless you count cases of rape, incest or to save the life of a mother, no they do not. I asked you to try to be honest. I guess that is too much to ask of you.

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay

I do not disagree that CURRENTLY the federal government does not fund abortions. But the Democratic Platform is pretty clear about wanting to change that.

 

[dank69]

...
Where's Politifact's insight into this statement?

By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’ It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. I was there, I voted against them. I said, no, we can’t afford that.”

Why don't you try to explain to us what is wrong with that statement. I would love to hear it.