Paul Ryan's speech RNC speech. No actual facts required.

comebackgirl

fife wrote:

Got home late lst night but decided to watch Mitt speech and found it to be very interesting. I found the part where he was talking about his mom running for the senate to be very interesting.

How can Mitt say that his mom believe that woman have a right to participate in the highest decision in government but Mitt still does not believe that woman should also have the right to their own body.

I found the speech was inconsistent with his platform in way.

Yes - this was my exact thought. I can have a say about what goes on in government, but not about what goes on in my uterus? :?

pandora

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Maybe Pandora can explain why, if Trickle Down economics works so well, Paul Ryan had to instead talk about things that didn't happen to get votes.

previous posts he did not lie
as far as the Janesville plant ... maybe read it this time!

(CNN) -- Paul Ryan on Wednesday night told a story about then-presidential candidate Barack Obama telling automotive workers that government can help keep their plant going -- an account that Ryan reportedly got wrong previously.
Did the Wisconsin congressman get it right as he accepted the GOP nomination for vice president at the Republican National Convention?
Ryan discussed Obama's February 2008 speech at the General Motors plant in Janesville, Wisconsin -- a plant that eventually closed. According to Ryan, Obama had said that "if our government is there to support you ... this plant will be here for another hundred years."
The statement:
"When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory. A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: 'I believe that if our government is there to support you, this plant will be here for another hundred years.' That's what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day."
The facts:
First, some context. Ryan reportedly recalled this event incorrectly just days ago, during an August 16 speech in Ohio.
Ryan reportedly alleged that Obama said he'd "keep that plant open," and therefore broke his promise because the plant closed.
"That plant was shut down in 2009. I remember President Obama visiting it when he was first running, saying he'll keep that plant open," Ryan said, according to the Janesville Gazette. "One more broken promise."
The Detroit News pointed out that Obama made no such promise in the February 13, 2008, speech, and indeed, we've seen no account suggesting that Obama did. Here is the quote at issue, according to an account kept by the Council on Foreign Relations:
"I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday, and I know how hard your governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant. But I also know how much progress you've made -- how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles you're churning out," Obama said. "And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years."
By "bad news," Obama apparently was referring to GM's February 12, 2008, announcement that it had a $38.7 billion adjusted net loss for 2007.
So, back on August 16 of this year, it does appear Ryan was wrong for saying Obama promised to keep it open.
The News and the Gazette went further, reporting that the plant halted production in December 2008, and saying that Ryan essentially was criticizing Obama for failing to save a plant that closed before Obama took office.
However, while December 2008 saw the end of the vast majority of the plant's work, the Gazette itself has reported that the plant didn't close fully until April 2009. Here's a timeline:
June 2008: GM announces that the Janesville plant will stop production of medium-duty trucks by the end of 2009, and stop production of large SUVs such as the Chevy Tahoe and Suburban and the GMC Yukon in 2010 or sooner, depending on market demand.
December 23, 2008: SUV production ends, and more than 2,000 GM workers are laid off, according to the Gazette. Medium truck production continues.
April 23, 2009: The plant's medium-duty assembly line, which produced an Isuzu line, closes, ending vehicle production at the plant and resulting in the loss of 57 production jobs, according to the Gazette.
GM then put the plant on standby, meaning it could reactivate the facility if it decides it needs to ramp up production.
Now, compare Ryan's Wednesday night statement with the one he gave on August 16. On Wednesday, Ryan said nothing of Obama making a promise, but rather quoted him.
The quote is truncated (in Ryan's prepared remarks released to the media, an ellipsis replaces the missing words, "give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition") but essentially is correct.
The only thing Ryan appears to have gotten technically wrong in Wednesday's version was saying that the plant didn't last another year. It did last another year -- more like 14 months -- if the Isuzu line and its 57 workers count.
So, though Ryan might have been incorrect in the August 16 telling, he cleaned it up for Wednesday's convention. Obama said what Ryan said he said.
But to fairly evaluate Obama's statement, at least two pieces of context -- missing from Ryan's account -- would be useful: First, that Obama wasn't telling this plant that he'd save it from a pending closure. He wasn't addressing a plant that he knew to be closing, because the closure announcement didn't come until four months after his speech. Second, although the plant's last bit of production stopped early in Obama's presidency and the plant remains closed, the closure was planned before Obama became president.
Verdict: True, but incomplete.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/politics/ ... index.htmlas far as the jobs created by the stimulus ....

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/05/cbo-ob ... ion-a-job/

wow 4.1 million a job holy crapola...

Stimulating employers will bring jobs...

novel idea.

We are broke let's stop spending...

novel idea.

Stop relying on the Federal government to provide solutions with funny money
is that made in China

novel idea.

RYAN: "And the biggest, coldest power play of all in Obamacare came at the expense of the elderly. ... So they just took it all away from Medicare. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama."

Ryan As Chairman of the Budget Committee uses the money for deficit reduction.
And the cuts do not affect Medicare recipients directly, but rather reduce payments to hospitals, health insurance plans and other service providers.

Ryan's plan to remake Medicare would shift future retirees into a system in which they would get a fixed payment to shop for coverage among private insurance plans.


People plan their own retirement and health needs ...

novel idea.

Boxes&Books

pandora wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Maybe Pandora can explain why, if Trickle Down economics works so well, Paul Ryan had to instead talk about things that didn't happen to get votes.

previous posts he did not lie
as far as the Janesville plant ... maybe read it this time!

(CNN) -- Paul Ryan on Wednesday night told a story about then-presidential candidate Barack Obama telling automotive workers that government can help keep their plant going -- an account that Ryan reportedly got wrong previously.
Did the Wisconsin congressman get it right as he accepted the GOP nomination for vice president at the Republican National Convention?
Ryan discussed Obama's February 2008 speech at the General Motors plant in Janesville, Wisconsin -- a plant that eventually closed. According to Ryan, Obama had said that "if our government is there to support you ... this plant will be here for another hundred years."
The statement:
"When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory. A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: 'I believe that if our government is there to support you, this plant will be here for another hundred years.' That's what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day."
The facts:
First, some context. Ryan reportedly recalled this event incorrectly just days ago, during an August 16 speech in Ohio.
Ryan reportedly alleged that Obama said he'd "keep that plant open," and therefore broke his promise because the plant closed.
"That plant was shut down in 2009. I remember President Obama visiting it when he was first running, saying he'll keep that plant open," Ryan said, according to the Janesville Gazette. "One more broken promise."
The Detroit News pointed out that Obama made no such promise in the February 13, 2008, speech, and indeed, we've seen no account suggesting that Obama did. Here is the quote at issue, according to an account kept by the Council on Foreign Relations:
"I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday, and I know how hard your governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant. But I also know how much progress you've made -- how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles you're churning out," Obama said. "And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years."
By "bad news," Obama apparently was referring to GM's February 12, 2008, announcement that it had a $38.7 billion adjusted net loss for 2007.
So, back on August 16 of this year, it does appear Ryan was wrong for saying Obama promised to keep it open.
The News and the Gazette went further, reporting that the plant halted production in December 2008, and saying that Ryan essentially was criticizing Obama for failing to save a plant that closed before Obama took office.
However, while December 2008 saw the end of the vast majority of the plant's work, the Gazette itself has reported that the plant didn't close fully until April 2009. Here's a timeline:
June 2008: GM announces that the Janesville plant will stop production of medium-duty trucks by the end of 2009, and stop production of large SUVs such as the Chevy Tahoe and Suburban and the GMC Yukon in 2010 or sooner, depending on market demand.
December 23, 2008: SUV production ends, and more than 2,000 GM workers are laid off, according to the Gazette. Medium truck production continues.
April 23, 2009: The plant's medium-duty assembly line, which produced an Isuzu line, closes, ending vehicle production at the plant and resulting in the loss of 57 production jobs, according to the Gazette.
GM then put the plant on standby, meaning it could reactivate the facility if it decides it needs to ramp up production.
Now, compare Ryan's Wednesday night statement with the one he gave on August 16. On Wednesday, Ryan said nothing of Obama making a promise, but rather quoted him.
The quote is truncated (in Ryan's prepared remarks released to the media, an ellipsis replaces the missing words, "give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition") but essentially is correct.
The only thing Ryan appears to have gotten technically wrong in Wednesday's version was saying that the plant didn't last another year. It did last another year -- more like 14 months -- if the Isuzu line and its 57 workers count.
So, though Ryan might have been incorrect in the August 16 telling, he cleaned it up for Wednesday's convention. Obama said what Ryan said he said.
But to fairly evaluate Obama's statement, at least two pieces of context -- missing from Ryan's account -- would be useful: First, that Obama wasn't telling this plant that he'd save it from a pending closure. He wasn't addressing a plant that he knew to be closing, because the closure announcement didn't come until four months after his speech. Second, although the plant's last bit of production stopped early in Obama's presidency and the plant remains closed, the closure was planned before Obama became president.
Verdict: True, but incomplete.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/politics/ ... index.htmlas far as the jobs created by the stimulus ....

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/05/cbo-ob ... ion-a-job/

wow 4.1 million a job holy crapola...

Stimulating employers will bring jobs...

novel idea.

We are broke let's stop spending...

novel idea.

Stop relying on the Federal government to provide solutions with funny money
is that made in China

novel idea.

RYAN: "And the biggest, coldest power play of all in Obamacare came at the expense of the elderly. ... So they just took it all away from Medicare. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama."

Ryan As Chairman of the Budget Committee uses the money for deficit reduction.
And the cuts do not affect Medicare recipients directly, but rather reduce payments to hospitals, health insurance plans and other service providers.

Ryan's plan to remake Medicare would shift future retirees into a system in which they would get a fixed payment to shop for coverage among private insurance plans.


People plan their own retirement and health needs ...

novel idea.

Pandora,
Why do you continue to defend Ryan? It is clear he lied several times and it's been stated clearly by numerous credible sources. Is this your idea of wholesome? As a woman how can you defend a man who doesn't even support equal pay for women?
You should be asking John B. where the jobs are because his congress has created zero jobs!?! Ryan voted for all the big spending, is that not clear? Don't you realize that from day one the GOP's number one goal was to make sure Obama failed, not to work together, but as Mitch M. said, " we want to make sure Obama fails" is that your idea of wholesome and commitment to our country? Obama has cut taxes for small business owners and has done everything in his power to support small business - heck the taxes rates are the lowest they have ever been... We still have the Bush tax cuts in affect.

pandora

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

pandora wrote:

Trickle down.

And there it is.

The "Trickle Down" theory which has been shown to NEVER WORK. It doesn't work because the mega-rich take those tax cuts and instead of investing them in new businesses like we wanted them to, they just socked the money away in foreign accounts and didn't pay taxes on them.

Jobs are not created by giving tax cuts to people who don't need them. Jobs are created by consumer demand and THAT is only created by a strong middle class with disposable income.

In the 90s, Bill Clinton delivered unprecedented growth and a surplus. In 2002, George W Bush brought us back to the trickle-down debacle, giving those "job creators" huge tax cuts and the result was cut services, crumbling infrastructure, the burden shifted to the middle class who can no longer afford to buy magazines and has turned to the internet for their news and current events, general and hobby interest articles and recipes.

Do you have any other turds of wisdom you'd like to share with the class? :roll:

Bill Clinton did raise income tax rate but it was Greenspan's money-printing
and the 1997 capital gains tax cut that bumped up the economy not the tax hikes.
Fed policy is a economic stimulator.

The economic boom of the 90’s can be linked to Gingrich and other GOP
Clinton fought reforms then took credit for them. :fp: while enjoying a cigar

We can see the Democratic plan has not worked....
it is not bringing the confidence in our future which is needed to create new jobs.

Time for a new plan...

I will be enjoying the convention next week to see what our President's new plan is.

pandora

tonifig8 wrote:

Pandora,
Why do you continue to defend Ryan? It is clear he lied several times and it's been stated clearly by numerous credible sources. Is this your idea of wholesome? As a woman how can you defend a man who doesn't even support equal pay for women?
You should be asking John B. where the jobs are because his congress has created zero jobs!?! Ryan voted for all the big spending, is that not clear? Don't you realize that from day one the GOP's number one goal was to make sure Obama failed, not to work together, but as Mitch M. said, " we want to make sure Obama fails" is that your idea of wholesome and commitment to our country? Obama has cut taxes for small business owners and has done everything in his power to support small business - heck the taxes rates are the lowest they have ever been... We still have the Bush tax cuts in affect.

this is the detriment to our political system and both parties are guilty of this.

Did you read the credible article I posted ? It is truth...

This one is good
our President wants to punish any small business making over 250,000
a year ...
this will cost jobs

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/if-the- ... ve-to-pay/

extension for one more year for all
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-201 ... 21653.html


Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 ...have you read the act?

I am an Independent voter as my core beliefs do not set with liberal or conservative.
I am against all discrimination and fully believe this is still a man's world obviously.

In our small business people earn the wage they deserve.

pandora

I am more than disturbed at the candidates reaction to Clint's message.
The cameras on them showed scowling. :shock:

They better learn to put a game face on quick....
cause the game is on.

pandora

comebackgirl wrote:

fife wrote:

Got home late lst night but decided to watch Mitt speech and found it to be very interesting. I found the part where he was talking about his mom running for the senate to be very interesting.

How can Mitt say that his mom believe that woman have a right to participate in the highest decision in government but Mitt still does not believe that woman should also have the right to their own body.

I found the speech was inconsistent with his platform in way.

Yes - this was my exact thought. I can have a say about what goes on in government, but not about what goes on in my uterus? :?

I have a sneaking suspicion that Mitt's mom is pro life. Murdering unborn babies is not a choice
pro lifers think should be had.

gimmesometruth27

tonifig8 wrote:

Pandora,
Why do you continue to defend Ryan? It is clear he lied several times and it's been stated clearly by numerous credible sources. Is this your idea of wholesome? As a woman how can you defend a man who doesn't even support equal pay for women?
You should be asking John B. where the jobs are because his congress has created zero jobs!?! Ryan voted for all the big spending, is that not clear? Don't you realize that from day one the GOP's number one goal was to make sure Obama failed, not to work together, but as Mitch M. said, " we want to make sure Obama fails" is that your idea of wholesome and commitment to our country? Obama has cut taxes for small business owners and has done everything in his power to support small business - heck the taxes rates are the lowest they have ever been... We still have the Bush tax cuts in affect.

you can not have a debate with someone who absolutely refuses to acknowledtge things called FACTS. i see it every day on AMT and in the national political scene. people are in denial of facts, and that is dangerous because it dumbs down all of american politics. our politicians, and by default, our own population must look like fucking morons to the rest of the world....the republicans are all about rhetoric and creating their own rhetoric with the outright dismissal and denial of basic facts. as evidence, try to see last night's real time with bill maher. he takes down this conservative director that made the hatchet job anti obama movie with FACTS, and the guy wilted. it was pretty sad and pethetic to watch...

pandora, why don't you just come out and say you are voting for romney and ryan? this reasonable and indecisive schtick is not working... we see right through it...

pandora

comebackgirl wrote:

pandora wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

So would these people that we're getting off of aid and employing, would they have to work one day a week for free? Would they be required to forfeit one fifth of their salaries (in addition to the typical taxes, etc)? Or is that only if they go into a helping profession?

I will say I believe everyone can compromise, everyone can learn to do with less,
everyone can give to their fellow man. Everyone can help.
If we don't all will be sorry.
Unfortunately not everyone does help.
And actually like with the Aurora killing some feed off those who give...
all the money raised for the victims families only a small portion has been given to them,
an even smaller portion to another charity the rest is being held.
Millions... nice interest there. Lawsuits to follow ... good lord.

I believe the people on aid should be required to do community service,
I think everyone should. I do. A tax break for me or my business there would be nice.
I think I did mention any generosity would be tax exempt in the other thread.

Must have hit a nerve the thought you would give your time to help others free of charge. :?
Or is it because to would be required?

I think it would be great if everyone did community service as you and I both seem to do. Requiring it may run counter to the spirit of it though. Would it be required for everyone to do community service or just required for the poor, disabled and those in the helping professions? Would the people required to do community service also get a tax break or just those who get to choose to do it?

Totally disagree many would never think to help their fellow man, they know not what they miss,
the feel good. Once required ... forever hooked.

I think you know the answers to your other questions, I'm for fair play.

comebackgirl

pandora wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

fife wrote:

Got home late lst night but decided to watch Mitt speech and found it to be very interesting. I found the part where he was talking about his mom running for the senate to be very interesting.

How can Mitt say that his mom believe that woman have a right to participate in the highest decision in government but Mitt still does not believe that woman should also have the right to their own body.

I found the speech was inconsistent with his platform in way.

Yes - this was my exact thought. I can have a say about what goes on in government, but not about what goes on in my uterus? :?

I have a sneaking suspicion that Mitt's mom is pro life. Murdering unborn babies is not a choice
pro lifers think should be had.

Yeah I'm pretty sure most people frown upon the killing of babies

comebackgirl

pandora wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

pandora wrote:

I will say I believe everyone can compromise, everyone can learn to do with less,
everyone can give to their fellow man. Everyone can help.
If we don't all will be sorry.
Unfortunately not everyone does help.
And actually like with the Aurora killing some feed off those who give...
all the money raised for the victims families only a small portion has been given to them,
an even smaller portion to another charity the rest is being held.
Millions... nice interest there. Lawsuits to follow ... good lord.

I believe the people on aid should be required to do community service,
I think everyone should. I do. A tax break for me or my business there would be nice.
I think I did mention any generosity would be tax exempt in the other thread.

Must have hit a nerve the thought you would give your time to help others free of charge. :?
Or is it because to would be required?

I think it would be great if everyone did community service as you and I both seem to do. Requiring it may run counter to the spirit of it though. Would it be required for everyone to do community service or just required for the poor, disabled and those in the helping professions? Would the people required to do community service also get a tax break or just those who get to choose to do it?

Totally disagree many would never think to help their fellow man, they know not what they miss,
the feel good. Once required ... forever hooked.

I think you know the answers to your other questions, I'm for fair play.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with and I'm not sure what your answers to the other questions are

pandora

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

tonifig8 wrote:

Pandora,
Why do you continue to defend Ryan? It is clear he lied several times and it's been stated clearly by numerous credible sources. Is this your idea of wholesome? As a woman how can you defend a man who doesn't even support equal pay for women?
You should be asking John B. where the jobs are because his congress has created zero jobs!?! Ryan voted for all the big spending, is that not clear? Don't you realize that from day one the GOP's number one goal was to make sure Obama failed, not to work together, but as Mitch M. said, " we want to make sure Obama fails" is that your idea of wholesome and commitment to our country? Obama has cut taxes for small business owners and has done everything in his power to support small business - heck the taxes rates are the lowest they have ever been... We still have the Bush tax cuts in affect.

you can not have a debate with someone who absolutely refuses to acknowledtge things called FACTS. i see it every day on AMT and in the national political scene. people are in denial of facts, and that is dangerous because it dumbs down all of american politics. our politicians, and by default, our own population must look like fucking morons to the rest of the world....the republicans are all about rhetoric and creating their own rhetoric with the outright dismissal and denial of basic facts. as evidence, try to see last night's real time with bill maher. he takes down this conservative director that made the hatchet job anti obama movie with FACTS, and the guy wilted. it was pretty sad and pethetic to watch...

pandora, why don't you just come out and say you are voting for romney and ryan? this reasonable and indecisive schtick is not working... we see right through it...

I would be a liar if i did so...
and your cynicism is showing and is always arrogant and insulting.
Are you not accustomed to independent thinking?

I will be watching the Democratic convention next week to see what future plans
this administration has that will help solve the problems.

The fact is we see many debating who consistently twist "facts" to fit their agenda.
This is seen very much so in politics.

But when a married President comes on national TV,
and blatantly lies to the people who trust him, denying having sex,
Well now that's a lie! ...
one that shows true lack of character.

pandora

comebackgirl wrote:

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with and I'm not sure what your answers to the other questions are

your statement ..."Requiring it may run counter to the spirit of it though."



and I guess you must not get the idea behind fairness :?

comebackgirl

pandora wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with and I'm not sure what your answers to the other questions are

your statement ..."Requiring it may run counter to the spirit of it though."



and I guess you must not get the idea behind fairness :?

I think people often bring a different attitude when they choose to do something than when they're forced to do something. That's the reason motivational interviewing was developed Working with people who are mandated to some type of service takes a whole different approach...for a reason. That being said, service learning is incorporated into a lot of educational programs and is often a very positive experience for both sides...depending on the people. I've also seen it be destructive when really resistant people are involved.

Is that your answer to the questions? Guessing that I don't know the idea behind fairness? Maybe you could just answer the questions directly rather than trying to engage me in a guessing game.

pandora

comebackgirl wrote:

Is that your answer to the questions? Guessing that I don't know the idea behind fairness? Maybe you could just answer the questions directly rather than trying to engage me in a guessing game.

comebackgirl wrote:

[ Would it be required for everyone to do community service or just required for the poor, disabled and those in the helping professions? Would the people required to do community service also get a tax break or just those who get to choose to do it?

In fairness of course everyone would do community service and receive incentive...
really you couldn't gather the concept of fairness :?

comebackgirl wrote:

So would these people that we're getting off of aid and employing, would they have to work one day a week for free? Would they be required to forfeit one fifth of their salaries (in addition to the typical taxes, etc)? Or is that only if they go into a helping profession?

This is a topic from another thread that you brought up here ...
I guess it really must bother you yes? The thought of communities working together for a better
life for all...

for me that is the answer to our problems, less greed and more giving,
working together for a common goal...
individually, in business, in politics.

Can't put a dollar sign on that although you seem to be very hung up on
the one fifth of a salary thing. I used to be the same I guess.

This is moving away from this thread ... agreed?

Perhaps you could start a new thread on ideas to improve volunteerism.

comebackgirl

pandora wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Is that your answer to the questions? Guessing that I don't know the idea behind fairness? Maybe you could just answer the questions directly rather than trying to engage me in a guessing game.

comebackgirl wrote:

[ Would it be required for everyone to do community service or just required for the poor, disabled and those in the helping professions? Would the people required to do community service also get a tax break or just those who get to choose to do it?

In fairness of course everyone would do community service and receive incentive...
really you couldn't gather the concept of fairness :?

comebackgirl wrote:

So would these people that we're getting off of aid and employing, would they have to work one day a week for free? Would they be required to forfeit one fifth of their salaries (in addition to the typical taxes, etc)? Or is that only if they go into a helping profession?

This is a topic from another thread that you brought up here ...
I guess it really must bother you yes? The thought of communities working together for a better
life for all...

for me that is the answer to our problems, less greed and more giving,
working together for a common goal...
individually, in business, in politics.

Can't put a dollar sign on that although you seem to be very hung up on
the one fifth of a salary thing. I used to be the same I guess.

This is moving away from this thread ... agreed?

Perhaps you could start a new thread on ideas to improve volunteerism.

Ok...so in all of that I got that you won't be answering those questions. Which is fine, because while the spirit of what you are suggesting is a good one, the practicality isn't there. It was your idea Pandora, not mine.

Moonpig

pandora wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

fife wrote:

Got home late lst night but decided to watch Mitt speech and found it to be very interesting. I found the part where he was talking about his mom running for the senate to be very interesting.

How can Mitt say that his mom believe that woman have a right to participate in the highest decision in government but Mitt still does not believe that woman should also have the right to their own body.

I found the speech was inconsistent with his platform in way.

Yes - this was my exact thought. I can have a say about what goes on in government, but not about what goes on in my uterus? :?

I have a sneaking suspicion that Mitt's mom is pro life. Murdering unborn babies is not a choice
pro lifers think should be had.

That's a little strong Pandora, not everyone that disagrees with you is wrong. Surely everyone is entitled to an opinion, and it's not only yours that's up for grabs.

Oh and for the record, the media outlets over here have strongly called into question Paul Ryan's assertions, including SKY news, a Murdoch owned news outlet.

It is strange that you are defending something that the majority of analysts, from both sides of the fence, along with foreign news outlets have been in agreement with, at worst he lied outright to an audiance he knew wouldn't question rhetoric, or at the least, read verbatum falsehoods, provided to him, he didn't know to be untrue. Either way shows a clear lack of integrity or intelligence.

pandora

comebackgirl wrote:

pandora wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Is that your answer to the questions? Guessing that I don't know the idea behind fairness? Maybe you could just answer the questions directly rather than trying to engage me in a guessing game.

comebackgirl wrote:

[ Would it be required for everyone to do community service or just required for the poor, disabled and those in the helping professions? Would the people required to do community service also get a tax break or just those who get to choose to do it?

In fairness of course everyone would do community service and receive incentive...
really you couldn't gather the concept of fairness :?

comebackgirl wrote:

So would these people that we're getting off of aid and employing, would they have to work one day a week for free? Would they be required to forfeit one fifth of their salaries (in addition to the typical taxes, etc)? Or is that only if they go into a helping profession?

This is a topic from another thread that you brought up here ...
I guess it really must bother you yes? The thought of communities working together for a better
life for all...

for me that is the answer to our problems, less greed and more giving,
working together for a common goal...
individually, in business, in politics.

Can't put a dollar sign on that although you seem to be very hung up on
the one fifth of a salary thing. I used to be the same I guess.

This is moving away from this thread ... agreed?

Perhaps you could start a new thread on ideas to improve volunteerism.

Ok...so in all of that I got that you won't be answering those questions. Which is fine, because while the spirit of what you are suggesting is a good one, the practicality isn't there. It was your idea Pandora, not mine.

I just answered your questions! alrighty then

practicality... what a cop out ... yes lets keep it this way its so much better :fp:

pandora

Moonpig wrote:

pandora wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Yes - this was my exact thought. I can have a say about what goes on in government, but not about what goes on in my uterus? :?

I have a sneaking suspicion that Mitt's mom is pro life. Murdering unborn babies is not a choice
pro lifers think should be had.

That's a little strong Pandora, not everyone that disagrees with you is wrong. Surely everyone is entitled to an opinion, and it's not only yours that's up for grabs.

Oh and for the record, the media outlets over here have strongly called into question Paul Ryan's assertions, including SKY news, a Murdoch owned news outlet.

It is strange that you are defending something that the majority of analysts, from both sides of the fence, along with foreign news outlets have been in agreement with, at worst he lied outright to an audiance he knew wouldn't question rhetoric, or at the least, read verbatum falsehoods, provided to him, he didn't know to be untrue. Either way shows a clear lack of integrity or intelligence.

Say what? I did not disagree here just brought the opinion his Mom was most likely
pro life... that is an assumption though. I have not researched.
Are you assuming I am not pro choice?
When did he lie? Not about the Janesville plant in his speech. If you read my article
you would understand this... now Clinton lied oh boy did he lie.

And yes everyone deserves an opinion including you and me.

But when I do not agree with you... am I wrong
I have a feeling I might be

comebackgirl

pandora wrote:

I just answered your questions! alrighty then

practicality... what a cop out ... yes lets keep it this way its so much better :fp:

oh i'm sorry - I didn't realize I should be embracing ideas that have no feasibility of working in the real world. Instead of "copping out" I could personalize my argument against you and throw in the obligatory face palm.

So, in sum,the entire American population will be required to work one day a week for free, forgoing 1/5 of their salary or business profits, but they will get tax cuts

Forgot to add that anyone on public assistance will be doing this as well, including the elderly and the disabled