It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vice Presidential Debate Discussion Thread

page: 31
23
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by signalfire
 


You forgot the part about the guy being found guilty of plagiarism on multiple occasions. The guy named Biden... that guy, yeah.




posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Are you going to even attempt to give any specifics from Ryan?

Or are you just going to continue to dodge?

And here is where he talked about the jobs bill

www.foxnews.com...

are 5.2 million new jobs, private-sector jobs. We need more, but 5.2 million -- if they'd get out of the way, if they'd get out of the way and let us pass the tax cut for the middle class, make it permanent, if they get out of the way and pass the -- pass the jobs bill, if they get out of the way and let us allow 14 million people who are struggling to stay in their homes because their mortgages are upside down, but they never missed a mortgage payment, just get out of the way.


You can't get more specific then fully written legislation.
edit on 12-10-2012 by HostileApostle because: (no reason given)


Compared to birth, death and retirement rate how many are needed to keep economy vibrant? sorry to blow the bubble but I just cant resist when hearing out of context crap like this.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by Phoenix
 



Actually if you've ever ever read our constitution, it says " congress shall make no law" I read that as niether for or against - do you disagree.


They made no law regarding religion.

They made a law regarding insurance.

For as much as the Right complains about Muslims and Sharia law, you guys sure seem to support religious tyranny, as long as it is the flavor you prefer.


But, you have no trouble applying that law to a religous organization, again no law for or against, the laws of man do not apply and it really does not matter the religion. The constitution supports this bud or are you as many here and only support whats conveniant to you and not the rest. This lies right there in the first amendment - you have a problem with that amendment?



Insurance companies are not religious institutions
and when a company hires you, they are required to follow law, to include insurance and other mandates to function as a society.

Religious objections means jack. Let me explain something to you...
Mormans used to believe that black people were fallen angels..demons.
Does that mean then that a morman place of business can refuse employment to black people simply based on their (outdated) belief that blacks were demons?

This is why personal morality does not trump law.

To say a business can choose moral grounds in order to do something leads into a whole host of horrible outcomes. Sorry, but if the church wants to go into business, they must play by the rules.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 



Excuse it all you want, they still held a majority and all you've proved is filibuster proofing, nary a mention of changes made in rules of the house and senate when that party took control. I stand with they could have passed anything they wanted at the time but choose re-election over that course - course being voting on the record for a budget that later they would have been hung with. History being they did not vote on Obamas budget bear my truth.


It's not excuses, it's fact.

Again, your facts were wrong, just admit it. You claimed he had complete control for 2 years, and he did not.

Obama did pass a 2010 budget when he had control of congress.

articles.cnn.com...
OLITICS

Please get your facts straight, you are making a fool of yourself.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Much of the world runs on little money, but here you are right "we are massive consumers" Even so many who should not be, still are. Even when the cost of living basically doubled in the last four years so many are still massive spenders.

Add up smart phones, internet, cable TV, nice car so on and so on...it's just crazy...how we spend and what we FEEL is minimum living standards.


One of my favorite genres are zombie flicks.
I think I fell in love with the premise equally. They feed because that is all they want..endless consumption, never to be satiated..never stopping no matter what happens. just keep consuming, consume until there is nothing left on earth to consume.

Romero, you brilliant bastage.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Biden actually blamed Ryan for what took place in Libya.

*shakes head*


I saw one part of it. Apparently, Ryan voted to cut 300,000,000 dollars from the budget of the security for US missions abroad. Blaming others for not caring about that security... strikes me as rather sick.


I gotta say here this is very disingenious by Biden, congress does hold the purse strings and I'd have to fact check this but off the cuff I also say the executive branch has the responsibility to put resources where they are needed, Ryan mentioned that Paris ambassador had marine detail while bengazi did not - thats fair no matter the budget because it obvious who was in more danger based on news reports and hearings today. The Administration has the leeway in how these resources are spent.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

I saw one part of it. Apparently, Ryan voted to cut 300,000,000 dollars from the budget of the security for US missions abroad. Blaming others for not caring about that security... strikes me as rather sick.


That might be a very viable cut, and most likely is. They needed to come up with something to counter their blunder/cover-up, right?

Here is something else...an Embassy in one of the most dangerous countries doesn't have a Marine detachment, but Paris does...lol

Also, an urgent request for the extra security there has nothing to do with a Strategic cost cutting measure. They should have flown in what was needed..and it is actually different funds too.

Finally, securing the embassy took what 10 days...lol They should have secured it in hours, but the HW was all confused...just another example of a major screw-up.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Yeah, per capita is misleading because it favors small populations.

Economic growth is misleading because it favors developing countries new to industrialization.

Government debt is the best argument against the US being top economy.

Still, I'd say America takes it if you had to award a vague statement like "best economy" to any one country.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
One of my favorite genres are zombie flicks.
I think I fell in love with the premise equally. They feed because that is all they want..endless consumption, never to be satiated..never stopping no matter what happens. just keep consuming, consume until there is nothing left on earth to consume.

Romero, you brilliant bastage.


Romero called them zombies, today we call them 99%ers....



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 



But, you have no trouble applying that law to a religous organization, again no law for or against, the laws of man do not apply and it really does not matter the religion. The constitution supports this bud or are you as many here and only support whats conveniant to you and not the rest. This lies right there in the first amendment - you have a problem with that amendment?


Yes, Religions have to follow the law as well. They aren't immune to US law, and you are misquoting the Constitution.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


It says nothing about "for or against", just that they can't pass a law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of it.

It is alarming that you think Churches don't have to abide by the "law of man". Mormons have been dinged by the law for their polygomy. Rastafarians can't freely practice their religion in the United States. Muslims can't commit their honor killings in the US. And yes, Christians can't force their employees the right to contraception that everyone else has.

You are very cafeteria in your beliefs, unless you openly support all the above that I just stated. But I'm thinking you have some excuse for those.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Golly.... Biden has all but stated as absolute fact that Iran poses NO immediate threat and can't pose one. We'll know in advance if they do.



Hmmmm......


So WHY did we have drones, over Iran?




posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Feeling like this is the Ryan show. How is he getting so much time. 2 to 1 almost so far.


Biden ended up getting around 2 minutes more than Ryan, Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times where Ryan only interrupted Biden 7 times, the disrespectful smirks and laughs and smiles while Ryan was discussing serious matters is what lost him the debate.

Both Biden & Ryan believe that life begins with conception, but only Ryan sticks up for his faith.

The biggest blunder I call personally to be when Biden said Iran doesn't have a container to put their nuke into, they don't have a container? They boast having plenty of 'containers' that reach 1,200 miles, they boast of this on a regular basis, I don't think a container will be an issue for them when they've refined enough Uranium. Ryan is right, Iran is 4 years closer than they were.

Ryan spoke of facts, called them on the Youtube video lie, Biden just claimed the intelligence they received told them that for 2 weeks, how is that possible when on day 3 it was common knowledge on the entire internet that it was not a stupid Youtube video protest but clearly a terrorist attack.

Biden fails on many levels but his demeanor is the level in which he fails the most, looking at the demeanor alone I would rather have Ryan as next in line as POTUS because of his serious attitude with the issues of foreign policy and the economy, Biden seems to think these subjects are somehow hilarious, think of Biden as being the next POTUS, the thought alone makes me sick, he's clearly unqualified, from the debate I watched it seems Ryan would be a better POTUS than even Romney, in other words, when Romney becomes the next POTUS I can see a future for Ryan, he's a guy that knows what he's talking about, he takes the task seriously and every diversion they threw at him he cut through the crap and unlike Biden he didn't drift into tangents, he spoke truthfully and clearly



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by SaturnFX
One of my favorite genres are zombie flicks.
I think I fell in love with the premise equally. They feed because that is all they want..endless consumption, never to be satiated..never stopping no matter what happens. just keep consuming, consume until there is nothing left on earth to consume.

Romero, you brilliant bastage.


Romero called them zombies, today we call them 99%ers....


I'm sure you meant 1%ers, right?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix

Compared to birth, death and retirement rate how many are needed to keep economy vibrant? sorry to blow the bubble but I just cant resist when hearing out of context crap like this.


We need to see about 200k to 250k per month so that would be about his first two years in office if done correctly. Obama has averaged less than what it take to keep up with population growth in the last four years of a little over 100k per month.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by HostileApostle

I'm sure you meant 1%ers, right?


Have you seen a 99%er? Talking about people who consume endlessly but can't afford it... 1%ers can afford it so they are the smart zombies...




edit on 12-10-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Razimus

The biggest blunder I call personally to be when Biden said Iran doesn't have a container to put their nuke into, they don't have a container? They boast having plenty of 'containers' that reach 1,200 miles, they boast of this on a regular basis, I don't think a container will be an issue for them when they've refined enough Uranium. Ryan is right, Iran is 4 years closer than they were.


Little did you know that a missile is harder to build than a nuke....lol BTW he forgot one thing... Iran only needs a container that gets to Israel.

So a truck, Mule, or Cessna 172 would all work...but then they are all high tech....how about a ship to Europe that is another high tech container they just cannot get...lol

Biden just talks and talks...

Do any of you really think a "lack of container" is the issue? Biden does...well since he said it like 8 times, I just hope he doesn't actually believe it too.



Ryan spoke of facts, called them on the Youtube video lie, Biden just claimed the intelligence they received told them that for 2 weeks, how is that possible when on day 3 it was common knowledge on the entire internet that it was not a stupid Youtube video protest but clearly a terrorist attack.


You are right..it was about day three and the whole world but the WH knew it was a terrorist act...geez



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by HostileApostle

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by HostileApostle

Specifics would be nice. It's going to be hard since Ryan didn't give any specifics.


Can you name one that Biden said? I would say Biden did a lot of blame game for Obama's failures and didn't go into a SINGLE thing they plan on doing the next four years.



You have you saying Biden didn't give any specifics, you have Wrabbit saying he gave too many absolute specifics. You guys need to huddle up and get your talking points in order.


Well, on the first point....I never said Biden gave specifics on plans for the future in the way it's being said here. He didn't give plans I heard for employment, the economy or ...better...how to get OUT of those areas to let nature and the free market take it's course and fix itself. like it needs to.

I heard Biden say some absolutes and the one that stands out is absolutely, carved in granite, we ARE getting out of Afghanistan in 2014. Now, I don't mind the fact we're doing it.....I want us out yesterday. SAYING THAT however, is an invitation to kill our people still there.

History (or those who recall watching vids at the time
) shows the Soviets were asking kindly if the Mujaheddin would please please not shoot the crap out of their last convoys leaving the country. That was how merciless the Afghan fighters become at weakness. Biden just handed them weakness with bells on...and THAT is hard to swallow. It isn't the only defining absolute he uttered tonight...but it was the whammy for those of us with family either in theater over there or who may rotate through that hell hole in the next 2 years. It's a shooting gallery more than ever now.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


So are you going to even try to give some specifics from Ryan?

Or did you just give up on that whole argument?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
You forgot the part about the guy being found guilty of plagiarism on multiple occasions. The guy named Biden... that guy, yeah.


We can't forget...


on C-SPAN, a questioner asked Biden about his law school grades. In response, an angry Biden looked at his questioner and said, “I think I have a much higher I.Q. than you do.” He then stated that he had gone “to law school on a full academic scholarship -- the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship”; that he had “ended up in the top half” of his law school class; and that he had “graduated with three degrees from college.”

But each of those claims proved to be untrue. In reality, Biden had attended law school on a half scholarship that was based on financial need; he had graduated 76th in a class of 85; and he had earned only two college degrees -- in history and political science.

Quote



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Here is a little refresher why no one is giving an examples of Ryan's specifics.


RADDATZ: Well, let's talk about this 20 percent. You have refused -- and, again -- to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. Do you actually have the specifics? Or are you still working on it, and that's why you won't tell voters?

RYAN: Different than this administration, we actually want to have big bipartisan agreements. You see, I understand the...

RADDATZ: Do you have the specifics? Do you have the...

(CROSSTALK) BIDEN: That would -- that would be a first for the Republican Congress.

RADDATZ: Do you know exactly what you're doing?

RYAN: Look -- look at what Mitt Romney -- look at what Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did. They worked together out of a framework to lower tax rates and broaden the base, and they worked together to fix that.

What we're saying is, here's our framework. Lower tax rates 20 percent. We raised about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We forego about $1.1 trillion in loopholes and deductions. And so what we're saying is, deny those loopholes and deductions to higher-income taxpayers so that more of their income is taxed, which has a broader base of taxation...

BIDEN: Can I translate?

RYAN: ... so we can lower tax rates across the board. Now, here's why I'm saying this. What we're saying is, here's the framework...

BIDEN: I hope I'm going to get time to respond to this.

RADDATZ: You'll get time.

RYAN: We want to work with Congress -- we want to work with the Congress on how best to achieve this. That means successful. Look...

RADDATZ: No specifics, again.



The moderator tried really hard to get specifics out of Ryan, he flat out refused.

Now you have to ask yourself, why is he (and Romney) continuing to refuse to give specifics about this? Maybe it's because they know the specifics are going to be extremely unpopular to the American Public?




top topics



 
23
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join