Joe Biden Was Right to Laugh

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/13949-joe-biden-was-right-to-laugh

"...The load of balls that both Romney and Ryan have been pushing out there for this whole election season is simply not intellectually serious. Most of their platform isn't even a real platform, it's a fourth-rate parlor trick designed to paper over the real agenda - cutting taxes even more for super-rich dickheads like Mitt Romney, and getting everyone else to pay the bill....


The essence of the whole campaign for me was crystalized in the debate exchange over Romney's 20 percent tax-cut plan. ABC's Martha Raddatz turned the questioning to Ryan:
------------------------------

MS. RADDATZ: Well, let's talk about this 20 percent.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well - (chuckles) -

MS. RADDATZ: You have refused yet 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?

Here Ryan is presented with a simple yes-or-no answer. Since he doesn't have the answer, he immediately starts slithering and equivocating:

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

"We want to have bipartisan agreements?" This coming from a Republican congressman? These guys would stall a bill to name a post office after Shirley Temple. Biden, absolutely properly, chuckled and said, "That'd be a first for a Republican congress." Then Raddatz did exactly what any self-respecting journalist should do in that situation: she objected to being lied to, and yanked on the leash, forcing Ryan back to the question.


I'm convinced Raddatz wouldn't have pounced on Ryan if he hadn't trotted out this preposterous line about bipartisanism. Where does Ryan think we've all been living, Mars? It's one thing to pull that on some crowd of unsuspecting voters that hasn't followed politics that much and doesn't know the history. But any professional political journalist knows enough to know the abject comedy of that line. Still, Ryan was banking on the moderator not getting in the way and just letting him dump his trash on audiences. Instead, she aggressively grabbed Ryan by his puppy-scruff and pushed him back into the mess of his own proposal:
-------------------------------

MS. RADDATZ: Do you have the specifics? Do you have the math? Do you know exactly what you're doing?

So now the ball is in Ryan's court. The answer he gives is astounding:

REP. RYAN: Look - look at what Mitt - 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 raise about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We forgo about 1.1 trillion [dollars] 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 -
--------------------------------

Three things about this answer:

1) Ryan again here refuses to answer Raddatz's yes-or-no question about specifics. So now we know the answer: there are no specifics.

2) In lieu of those nonexistent specifics, what Ryan basically says is that he and Romney will set the framework - "Lower taxes by 20 percent" - and then they'll work out the specifics of how to get there with the Democrats in bipartisan fashion.

3) So essentially, Ryan has just admitted on national television that the Romney tax plan will be worked out after the election with the same Democrats from whom they are now, before the election, hiding any and all details.

So then, after that, there's this exchange.
--------------------------------

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Can I translate?

REP. 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 a framework -

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

REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress -

MS. RADDATZ: I - you'll get time.

REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress on how best to achieve this. That means successful - look -

MS. RADDATZ: No specifics, yeah.
---------------------------

Raddatz did exactly the right thing. She asked a yes-or-no question, had a politician try to run the lamest kind of game on her - and when he was done, she called him on it, coming right back to the question and translating for viewers: "No specifics."

Think about what that means. Mitt Romney is running for president - for president! - promising an across-the-board 20 percent tax cut without offering any details about how that's going to be paid for. Forget being battered by the press, he and his little sidekick Ryan should both be tossed off the playing field for even trying something like that. This race for the White House, this isn't some frat prank. This is serious. This is for grownups, for God's sake..."

(credit Matt Taibbi)

poor behavior is simply poor behavior... just like with the occupy crowd. how many sets of standards do you have?

standards aren't like shoes Emelda.

Floridatexan wrote:http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/13949-joe-biden-was-right-to-laugh

"...The load of balls that both Romney and Ryan have been pushing out there for this whole election season is simply not intellectually serious. Most of their platform isn't even a real platform, it's a fourth-rate parlor trick designed to paper over the real agenda - cutting taxes even more for super-rich dickheads like Mitt Romney, and getting everyone else to pay the bill....


The essence of the whole campaign for me was crystalized in the debate exchange over Romney's 20 percent tax-cut plan. ABC's Martha Raddatz turned the questioning to Ryan:
------------------------------

MS. RADDATZ: Well, let's talk about this 20 percent.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well - (chuckles) -

MS. RADDATZ: You have refused yet 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?

Here Ryan is presented with a simple yes-or-no answer. Since he doesn't have the answer, he immediately starts slithering and equivocating:

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

"We want to have bipartisan agreements?" This coming from a Republican congressman? These guys would stall a bill to name a post office after Shirley Temple. Biden, absolutely properly, chuckled and said, "That'd be a first for a Republican congress." Then Raddatz did exactly what any self-respecting journalist should do in that situation: she objected to being lied to, and yanked on the leash, forcing Ryan back to the question.


I'm convinced Raddatz wouldn't have pounced on Ryan if he hadn't trotted out this preposterous line about bipartisanism. Where does Ryan think we've all been living, Mars? It's one thing to pull that on some crowd of unsuspecting voters that hasn't followed politics that much and doesn't know the history. But any professional political journalist knows enough to know the abject comedy of that line. Still, Ryan was banking on the moderator not getting in the way and just letting him dump his trash on audiences. Instead, she aggressively grabbed Ryan by his puppy-scruff and pushed him back into the mess of his own proposal:
-------------------------------

MS. RADDATZ: Do you have the specifics? Do you have the math? Do you know exactly what you're doing?

So now the ball is in Ryan's court. The answer he gives is astounding:

REP. RYAN: Look - look at what Mitt - 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 raise about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We forgo about 1.1 trillion [dollars] 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 -
--------------------------------

Three things about this answer:

1) Ryan again here refuses to answer Raddatz's yes-or-no question about specifics. So now we know the answer: there are no specifics.

2) In lieu of those nonexistent specifics, what Ryan basically says is that he and Romney will set the framework - "Lower taxes by 20 percent" - and then they'll work out the specifics of how to get there with the Democrats in bipartisan fashion.

3) So essentially, Ryan has just admitted on national television that the Romney tax plan will be worked out after the election with the same Democrats from whom they are now, before the election, hiding any and all details.

So then, after that, there's this exchange.
--------------------------------

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Can I translate?

REP. 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 a framework -

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

REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress -

MS. RADDATZ: I - you'll get time.

REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress on how best to achieve this. That means successful - look -

MS. RADDATZ: No specifics, yeah.
---------------------------

Raddatz did exactly the right thing. She asked a yes-or-no question, had a politician try to run the lamest kind of game on her - and when he was done, she called him on it, coming right back to the question and translating for viewers: "No specifics."

Think about what that means. Mitt Romney is running for president - for president! - promising an across-the-board 20 percent tax cut without offering any details about how that's going to be paid for. Forget being battered by the press, he and his little sidekick Ryan should both be tossed off the playing field for even trying something like that. This race for the White House, this isn't some frat prank. This is serious. This is for grownups, for God's sake..."

(credit Matt Taibbi)

...you forgot to add all of the interruptions as well by Skanky Joe

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/13949-joe-biden-was-right-to-laugh

"...The load of balls that both Romney and Ryan have been pushing out there for this whole election season is simply not intellectually serious. Most of their platform isn't even a real platform, it's a fourth-rate parlor trick designed to paper over the real agenda - cutting taxes even more for super-rich dickheads like Mitt Romney, and getting everyone else to pay the bill....


The essence of the whole campaign for me was crystalized in the debate exchange over Romney's 20 percent tax-cut plan. ABC's Martha Raddatz turned the questioning to Ryan:
------------------------------

MS. RADDATZ: Well, let's talk about this 20 percent.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well - (chuckles) -

MS. RADDATZ: You have refused yet 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?

Here Ryan is presented with a simple yes-or-no answer. Since he doesn't have the answer, he immediately starts slithering and equivocating:

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

"We want to have bipartisan agreements?" This coming from a Republican congressman? These guys would stall a bill to name a post office after Shirley Temple. Biden, absolutely properly, chuckled and said, "That'd be a first for a Republican congress." Then Raddatz did exactly what any self-respecting journalist should do in that situation: she objected to being lied to, and yanked on the leash, forcing Ryan back to the question.


I'm convinced Raddatz wouldn't have pounced on Ryan if he hadn't trotted out this preposterous line about bipartisanism. Where does Ryan think we've all been living, Mars? It's one thing to pull that on some crowd of unsuspecting voters that hasn't followed politics that much and doesn't know the history. But any professional political journalist knows enough to know the abject comedy of that line. Still, Ryan was banking on the moderator not getting in the way and just letting him dump his trash on audiences. Instead, she aggressively grabbed Ryan by his puppy-scruff and pushed him back into the mess of his own proposal:
-------------------------------

MS. RADDATZ: Do you have the specifics? Do you have the math? Do you know exactly what you're doing?

So now the ball is in Ryan's court. The answer he gives is astounding:

REP. RYAN: Look - look at what Mitt - 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 raise about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We forgo about 1.1 trillion [dollars] 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 -
--------------------------------

Three things about this answer:

1) Ryan again here refuses to answer Raddatz's yes-or-no question about specifics. So now we know the answer: there are no specifics.

2) In lieu of those nonexistent specifics, what Ryan basically says is that he and Romney will set the framework - "Lower taxes by 20 percent" - and then they'll work out the specifics of how to get there with the Democrats in bipartisan fashion.

3) So essentially, Ryan has just admitted on national television that the Romney tax plan will be worked out after the election with the same Democrats from whom they are now, before the election, hiding any and all details.

So then, after that, there's this exchange.
--------------------------------

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Can I translate?

REP. 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 a framework -

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

REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress -

MS. RADDATZ: I - you'll get time.

REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress on how best to achieve this. That means successful - look -

MS. RADDATZ: No specifics, yeah.
---------------------------

Raddatz did exactly the right thing. She asked a yes-or-no question, had a politician try to run the lamest kind of game on her - and when he was done, she called him on it, coming right back to the question and translating for viewers: "No specifics."

Think about what that means. Mitt Romney is running for president - for president! - promising an across-the-board 20 percent tax cut without offering any details about how that's going to be paid for. Forget being battered by the press, he and his little sidekick Ryan should both be tossed off the playing field for even trying something like that. This race for the White House, this isn't some frat prank. This is serious. This is for grownups, for God's sake..."

(credit Matt Taibbi)

...you forgot to add all of the interruptions as well by Skanky Joe

Who cares about interruptions? I wanted to know the facts-not lies!

Floridatexan wrote:http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/13949-joe-biden-was-right-to-laugh

"...The load of balls that both Romney and Ryan have been pushing out there for this whole election season is simply not intellectually serious. Most of their platform isn't even a real platform, it's a fourth-rate parlor trick designed to paper over the real agenda - cutting taxes even more for super-rich dickheads like Mitt Romney, and getting everyone else to pay the bill....


The essence of the whole campaign for me was crystalized in the debate exchange over Romney's 20 percent tax-cut plan. ABC's Martha Raddatz turned the questioning to Ryan:
------------------------------

MS. RADDATZ: Well, let's talk about this 20 percent.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well - (chuckles) -

MS. RADDATZ: You have refused yet 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?

Here Ryan is presented with a simple yes-or-no answer. Since he doesn't have the answer, he immediately starts slithering and equivocating:

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

"We want to have bipartisan agreements?" This coming from a Republican congressman? These guys would stall a bill to name a post office after Shirley Temple. Biden, absolutely properly, chuckled and said, "That'd be a first for a Republican congress." Then Raddatz did exactly what any self-respecting journalist should do in that situation: she objected to being lied to, and yanked on the leash, forcing Ryan back to the question.


I'm convinced Raddatz wouldn't have pounced on Ryan if he hadn't trotted out this preposterous line about bipartisanism. Where does Ryan think we've all been living, Mars? It's one thing to pull that on some crowd of unsuspecting voters that hasn't followed politics that much and doesn't know the history. But any professional political journalist knows enough to know the abject comedy of that line. Still, Ryan was banking on the moderator not getting in the way and just letting him dump his trash on audiences. Instead, she aggressively grabbed Ryan by his puppy-scruff and pushed him back into the mess of his own proposal:
-------------------------------

MS. RADDATZ: Do you have the specifics? Do you have the math? Do you know exactly what you're doing?

So now the ball is in Ryan's court. The answer he gives is astounding:

REP. RYAN: Look - look at what Mitt - 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 raise about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We forgo about 1.1 trillion [dollars] 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 -
--------------------------------

Three things about this answer:

1) Ryan again here refuses to answer Raddatz's yes-or-no question about specifics. So now we know the answer: there are no specifics.

2) In lieu of those nonexistent specifics, what Ryan basically says is that he and Romney will set the framework - "Lower taxes by 20 percent" - and then they'll work out the specifics of how to get there with the Democrats in bipartisan fashion.

3) So essentially, Ryan has just admitted on national television that the Romney tax plan will be worked out after the election with the same Democrats from whom they are now, before the election, hiding any and all details.

So then, after that, there's this exchange.
--------------------------------

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Can I translate?

REP. 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 a framework -

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

REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress -

MS. RADDATZ: I - you'll get time.

REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress on how best to achieve this. That means successful - look -

MS. RADDATZ: No specifics, yeah.
---------------------------

Raddatz did exactly the right thing. She asked a yes-or-no question, had a politician try to run the lamest kind of game on her - and when he was done, she called him on it, coming right back to the question and translating for viewers: "No specifics."

Think about what that means. Mitt Romney is running for president - for president! - promising an across-the-board 20 percent tax cut without offering any details about how that's going to be paid for. Forget being battered by the press, he and his little sidekick Ryan should both be tossed off the playing field for even trying something like that. This race for the White House, this isn't some frat prank. This is serious. This is for grownups, for God's sake..."

(credit Matt Taibbi)

To bad a grown up didn't show up in the chair for the Vice President of the United States during the debate.

As Vice President of the United States, representing the United States in front of the world, it is NEVER right to behave in a boorish manner and make a fool of yourself.

Biden was great and won.LOL!

Dreamsglore wrote:Biden was great and won.LOL!

Nothing more was expected from you.

The problem you have is that what you say contrasts with the current facts. Please show us where President Barack Hussein Obama is surging in the polls because of the VP debate...or for any reason for that matter.

VectorMan wrote:Hope & Change replaced with Smirks & Giggles. Good for you libs! That Joe guy's a real winner. You know, like Charlie Sheen. LOL

Someone should've cut Joe off after that 4th scotch and soda.

Vector,

Simple logic/math escapes the libs. For instance, what is the Federal/State royality payment for oil/gas? From Federal Lands, it all belongs to the Federal Government. Unless they decide to share. Last time I checked, in Fl. it was 8-12% of well head price. In other words, for every BBl of oil at $80-100 the state taxes it between $8-$12 a barrel. When you talk about Mililons of Barrels, per day, what is the revenue?

Think of all the poor people...the really poor people...those that suffer everyday. Are the POOR and HUNGRY against E&P offshore?

Why do Liberals deny food/shelter to the POOR? There is a means to support the POOR. Why do Liberals want to see poverty? I don't understand...

Where is the self-professed-compassion from the no-idea for solutions Libs?

Maybe Romney has included the BILLIONS of royality payments in his tax plan. You think?

What is the Obama Plan for the POOR? Let them eat day-old-cake?

NaNook wrote:

VectorMan wrote:Hope & Change replaced with Smirks & Giggles. Good for you libs! That Joe guy's a real winner. You know, like Charlie Sheen. LOL

Someone should've cut Joe off after that 4th scotch and soda.

Vector,

Simple logic/math escapes the libs. For instance, what is the Federal/State royality payment for oil/gas? From Federal Lands, it all belongs to the Federal Government. Unless they decide to share. Last time I checked, in Fl. it was 8-12% of well head price. In other words, for every BBl of oil at $80-100 the state taxes it between $8-$12 a barrel. When you talk about Mililons of Barrels, per day, what is the revenue?

Think of all the poor people...the really poor people...those that suffer everyday. Are the POOR and HUNGRY against E&P offshore?

Why do Liberals deny food/shelter to the POOR? There is a means to support the POOR. Why do Liberals want to see poverty? I don't understand...

Where is the self-professed-compassion from the no-idea for solutions Libs?

Maybe Romney has included the BILLIONS of royality payments in his tax plan. You think?

What is the Obama Plan for the POOR? Let them eat day-old-cake?

It's funny that you should mention this subject, because I think it's one on which very few people have any information, but my daughter, who researches oil leases, recently brought up to me. In Montana, it's 8% (if I remember correctly). That's what the government takes in royalties from drilling on federal leases. If you think Romney is going to increase the government revenue from these leases, you're living in some alternate reality. There is no way in hell Romney would do anything anti-corporate...no way.

a lease is not the same as the percentage of production... nor is it the permitting or refinement or taxes and fees along the process to sale. then we have the state taxes and fees. but i don't think that revenue and the jobs created are the real issue with you or the leftists... be honest.

Markle wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/13949-joe-biden-was-right-to-laugh

"...The load of balls that both Romney and Ryan have been pushing out there for this whole election season is simply not intellectually serious. Most of their platform isn't even a real platform, it's a fourth-rate parlor trick designed to paper over the real agenda - cutting taxes even more for super-rich dickheads like Mitt Romney, and getting everyone else to pay the bill....


The essence of the whole campaign for me was crystalized in the debate exchange over Romney's 20 percent tax-cut plan. ABC's Martha Raddatz turned the questioning to Ryan:
------------------------------

MS. RADDATZ: Well, let's talk about this 20 percent.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well - (chuckles) -

MS. RADDATZ: You have refused yet 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?

Here Ryan is presented with a simple yes-or-no answer. Since he doesn't have the answer, he immediately starts slithering and equivocating:

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

"We want to have bipartisan agreements?" This coming from a Republican congressman? These guys would stall a bill to name a post office after Shirley Temple. Biden, absolutely properly, chuckled and said, "That'd be a first for a Republican congress." Then Raddatz did exactly what any self-respecting journalist should do in that situation: she objected to being lied to, and yanked on the leash, forcing Ryan back to the question.


I'm convinced Raddatz wouldn't have pounced on Ryan if he hadn't trotted out this preposterous line about bipartisanism. Where does Ryan think we've all been living, Mars? It's one thing to pull that on some crowd of unsuspecting voters that hasn't followed politics that much and doesn't know the history. But any professional political journalist knows enough to know the abject comedy of that line. Still, Ryan was banking on the moderator not getting in the way and just letting him dump his trash on audiences. Instead, she aggressively grabbed Ryan by his puppy-scruff and pushed him back into the mess of his own proposal:
-------------------------------

MS. RADDATZ: Do you have the specifics? Do you have the math? Do you know exactly what you're doing?

So now the ball is in Ryan's court. The answer he gives is astounding:

REP. RYAN: Look - look at what Mitt - 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 raise about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We forgo about 1.1 trillion [dollars] 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 -
--------------------------------

Three things about this answer:

1) Ryan again here refuses to answer Raddatz's yes-or-no question about specifics. So now we know the answer: there are no specifics.

2) In lieu of those nonexistent specifics, what Ryan basically says is that he and Romney will set the framework - "Lower taxes by 20 percent" - and then they'll work out the specifics of how to get there with the Democrats in bipartisan fashion.

3) So essentially, Ryan has just admitted on national television that the Romney tax plan will be worked out after the election with the same Democrats from whom they are now, before the election, hiding any and all details.

So then, after that, there's this exchange.
--------------------------------

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Can I translate?

REP. 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 a framework -

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

REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress -

MS. RADDATZ: I - you'll get time.

REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress on how best to achieve this. That means successful - look -

MS. RADDATZ: No specifics, yeah.
---------------------------

Raddatz did exactly the right thing. She asked a yes-or-no question, had a politician try to run the lamest kind of game on her - and when he was done, she called him on it, coming right back to the question and translating for viewers: "No specifics."

Think about what that means. Mitt Romney is running for president - for president! - promising an across-the-board 20 percent tax cut without offering any details about how that's going to be paid for. Forget being battered by the press, he and his little sidekick Ryan should both be tossed off the playing field for even trying something like that. This race for the White House, this isn't some frat prank. This is serious. This is for grownups, for God's sake..."

(credit Matt Taibbi)

To bad a grown up didn't show up in the chair for the Vice President of the United States during the debate.

As Vice President of the United States, representing the United States in front of the world, it is NEVER right to behave in a boorish manner and make a fool of yourself.

You mean like Romney, who lied through the entire debate? Who tried to intimidate the moderator? Who insulted Big Bird, and in the process all the children who watch PBS and all the parents who approve of the message that Sesame Street and Big Bird portray for kids? Didn't you notice the lies, or are you just another ABO? Because that's pure stupidity.

FloridaToxin wrote:

You mean like Romney, who lied through the entire debate? Who tried to intimidate the moderator? Who insulted Big Bird, and in the process all the children who watch PBS and all the parents who approve of the message that Sesame Street and Big Bird portray for kids? Didn't you notice the lies, or are you just another ABO? Because that's pure stupidity.[/quote]

If that's all you've got....all I can say is LOL

ABO, because I'd vote for a rusty can over that sorry bastard!

VectorMan wrote:FloridaToxin wrote:

You mean like Romney, who lied through the entire debate? Who tried to intimidate the moderator? Who insulted Big Bird, and in the process all the children who watch PBS and all the parents who approve of the message that Sesame Street and Big Bird portray for kids? Didn't you notice the lies, or are you just another ABO? Because that's pure stupidity.

If that's all you've got....all I can say is LOL

ABO, because I'd vote for a rusty can over that sorry bastard![/quote]

'FT'...you are aware that immediately after the debate the WH spin control went into ot to 'clarify' some of the 'facts' the vp stated during the debate especially over the Embassy attacks...Seems 'joe being joe' just wasn't good enough but if there's anyone that thought the #2 baffoon looked like a leader then no matter what is said and/or done there will always be an excuse for the failure of this administration...

newswatcher wrote:

VectorMan wrote:FloridaToxin wrote:

You mean like Romney, who lied through the entire debate? Who tried to intimidate the moderator? Who insulted Big Bird, and in the process all the children who watch PBS and all the parents who approve of the message that Sesame Street and Big Bird portray for kids? Didn't you notice the lies, or are you just another ABO? Because that's pure stupidity.

If that's all you've got....all I can say is LOL

ABO, because I'd vote for a rusty can over that sorry bastard!

'FT'...you are aware that immediately after the debate the WH spin control went into ot to 'clarify' some of the 'facts' the vp stated during the debate especially over the Embassy attacks...Seems 'joe being joe' just wasn't good enough but if there's anyone that thought the #2 baffoon looked like a leader then no matter what is said and/or done there will always be an excuse for the failure of this administration...[/quote]

I'm sorry you're too stupid to see the truth about your candidates, who have been lying through their collective teeth since day one. The last Republican in the WH almost destroyed the country, and in a certain sense, they DID, because we now have people (like you) who think it's AOK to torture innocent people because they belong to a different race and/or culture.

Floridatexan wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

VectorMan wrote:FloridaToxin wrote:

You mean like Romney, who lied through the entire debate? Who tried to intimidate the moderator? Who insulted Big Bird, and in the process all the children who watch PBS and all the parents who approve of the message that Sesame Street and Big Bird portray for kids? Didn't you notice the lies, or are you just another ABO? Because that's pure stupidity.

If that's all you've got....all I can say is LOL

ABO, because I'd vote for a rusty can over that sorry bastard!

'FT'...you are aware that immediately after the debate the WH spin control went into ot to 'clarify' some of the 'facts' the vp stated during the debate especially over the Embassy attacks...Seems 'joe being joe' just wasn't good enough but if there's anyone that thought the #2 baffoon looked like a leader then no matter what is said and/or done there will always be an excuse for the failure of this administration...

I'm sorry you're too stupid to see the truth about your candidates, who have been lying through their collective teeth since day one. The last Republican in the WH almost destroyed the country, and in a certain sense, they DID, because we now have people (like you) who think it's AOK to torture innocent people because they belong to a different race and/or culture. [/quote]

I guess if i was forced to choose... i would rather be tortured than shot in the head by a team of seals or blown to bits by a remote control drone. but maybe that's just me... which would you prefer? what if we tortured them by remote control... would that be ok?

newswatcher wrote:

VectorMan wrote:FloridaToxin wrote:

You mean like Romney, who lied through the entire debate? Who tried to intimidate the moderator? Who insulted Big Bird, and in the process all the children who watch PBS and all the parents who approve of the message that Sesame Street and Big Bird portray for kids? Didn't you notice the lies, or are you just another ABO? Because that's pure stupidity.

If that's all you've got....all I can say is LOL

ABO, because I'd vote for a rusty can over that sorry bastard!

'FT'...you are aware that immediately after the debate the WH spin control went into ot to 'clarify' some of the 'facts' the vp stated during the debate especially over the Embassy attacks...Seems 'joe being joe' just wasn't good enough but if there's anyone that thought the #2 baffoon looked like a leader then no matter what is said and/or done there will always be an excuse for the failure of this administration...[/quote]

****************************************************

I think Biden made a valid point that America wants more specifics about his tax loophole changes he proposes. It simply becomes a question of math and most reputable economists say it does not add up to produce the results Romney professes it will. That said, Obama also needs to lay out his plan as to how it will lay a groundwork for our future. Both are lacking in specifics. The politicization of the Libyan embassy attack seems just as inappropriate as Biden guffawing at Ryan.

knothead wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

VectorMan wrote:FloridaToxin wrote:

You mean like Romney, who lied through the entire debate? Who tried to intimidate the moderator? Who insulted Big Bird, and in the process all the children who watch PBS and all the parents who approve of the message that Sesame Street and Big Bird portray for kids? Didn't you notice the lies, or are you just another ABO? Because that's pure stupidity.

If that's all you've got....all I can say is LOL

ABO, because I'd vote for a rusty can over that sorry bastard!

'FT'...you are aware that immediately after the debate the WH spin control went into ot to 'clarify' some of the 'facts' the vp stated during the debate especially over the Embassy attacks...Seems 'joe being joe' just wasn't good enough but if there's anyone that thought the #2 baffoon looked like a leader then no matter what is said and/or done there will always be an excuse for the failure of this administration...

****************************************************

I think Biden made a valid point that America wants more specifics about his tax loophole changes he proposes. It simply becomes a question of math and most reputable economists say it does not add up to produce the results Romney professes it will. That said, Obama also needs to lay out his plan as to how it will lay a groundwork for our future. Both are lacking in specifics. The politicization of the Libyan embassy attack seems just as inappropriate as Biden guffawing at Ryan.[/quote]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see the correlation between a smirking demeanor during a debate and the politicization of a tragedy. So, "just as inappropriate" is not accurate.

Yes, I agree that specifics are needed, but first we have to get past the lies. Then we have to hope that the next moderator does a better job.

the "politicization" of the assassination of our ambassador by the right?

LOL... that's about as far from reality as it gets. the intelligence officials knew within 24hrs that it was a coordinated attack... but obama spewed disinformation for weeks. what's that called?

do you still think it was caused by a youtube video that was allowed because of our antiquated rights and freedoms?

PkrBum wrote:the "politicization" of the assassination of our ambassador by the right?

LOL... that's about as far from reality as it gets. the intelligence officials knew within 24hrs that it was a coordinated attack... but obama spewed disinformation for weeks. what's that called?

do you still think it was caused by a youtube video that was allowed because of our antiquated rights and freedoms?

Our Prez doesn't go to the classroom often.



http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-skips-intelligence-briefings/2012/09/11/id/451438