NoOOOOOO not that Obama couldn't know her personally.
Standard nonsense attack. Attack the points raised not the credibility of the people giving them. Doing so just makes you look like an ass unwilling to respond to arguments.
Attacking me personally does not make this fact any less true not arguing against my point makes you look like an ass and unwilling to respond to arguments.
Before they started the question about Afghanistan.
Biden: 26:03 Ryan: 24:46
They've had equal speaking time as much as it seems they haven't. Yes they tick up the clock when Biden or Ryan interrupts and both clocks can go at the same time when they talk over each other.
On October 12 2012 10:53 Serinox wrote: Is there any other stream than youtube? YouTube Live is very bad with the proxy I have to use because I'm in Germany >.>
On October 12 2012 10:58 xDaunt wrote: The fix is in for this debate. The moderator is a hack. Biden is just talking over Ryan. This is not going to play well with the public. I'm sure that the MSNBC crowd will jizz their pants about what is happening. I doubt anyone else will.
really? i think you are really taking this the wrong way, i think it will play well with independents.
On October 12 2012 10:55 xDaunt wrote: Ryan is not getting to say anything at all. This debate is a farce.
Ryan, oddly enough, has had about equal speaking time.
Bullshit, Biden has been talking over him for the past 10-15 mins.
Meh, this is the debate. You still keeping score?
I like this. If Ryan's statements can't stand up to Biden and a moderator I don't care if it's biased (it is). If you have faith in your plan to stand up to scrutiny it wouldn't matter if everything you said got fact-checked and called out by your opponent and the moderator.
On October 12 2012 10:58 xDaunt wrote: The fix is in for this debate. The moderator is a hack. Biden is just talking over Ryan. This is not going to play well with the public. I'm sure that the MSNBC crowd will jizz their pants about what is happening. I doubt anyone else will.
I'd prefer Obama win, but I have to agree with you, Biden is talking over him too much and the moderator isn't stopping him
NoOOOOOO not that Obama couldn't know her personally.
Standard nonsense attack. Attack the points raised not the credibility of the people giving them. Doing so just makes you look like an ass unwilling to respond to arguments.
He's saying that she is biased towards one of the debaters, which, if you've been watching, she is. What else is there for him to say ?
On October 12 2012 10:52 acker wrote: From the Economist:
"....Rosen concluded that Romney could pull off his tax plan without losing revenue assuming an extra 3 percent “growth effect” to the economy resulting from Romney’s rate cuts. That’s an extremely aggressive assumption, and in conflict with recent experience."
actually, that assumption is a pretty safe one, and it is a lot safer than the 0% the TPC report assumed.
TPC did not assume a 0% increase, it was 15% for the total tax reform per Mankiw's model. Mankiw is the econ advisor for Romney.
Very different from +3% to GDP. +3% GDP is ridiculous.
On October 12 2012 10:52 acker wrote: From the Economist:
"....Rosen concluded that Romney could pull off his tax plan without losing revenue assuming an extra 3 percent “growth effect” to the economy resulting from Romney’s rate cuts. That’s an extremely aggressive assumption, and in conflict with recent experience."
actually, that assumption is a pretty safe one, and it is a lot safer than the 0% the TPC report assumed.
then you add in rosen's cutting of all exemptions between 100-200k, oh and estate tax.
you should definitely read Rosen's report.
I suggest you pay attention to the assumptions made in his report.
Rosen bases his growth estimates on a study of Romney’s plan done by Rice economist John Diamond. Diamond assumes that Romney’s plan is implemented under conditions of full employment. That’s important because it means that if you eliminate tax breaks for one industry and they have to fire workers, those workers can relatively easily find jobs in another industry. But barring a miraculous labor market recovery in the next few months, that won’t be the situation when Romney takes office. In the current world, wiping out tax breaks for an industry could lead to displaced workers who simply join the ranks of the unemployed, dragging down growth.
But more damaging for Rosen’s case is that Diamond’s study assumes that Romney’s plan is revenue-neutral before you take economic growth into account.* That is, Diamond assumes that the tax cuts have been fully paid for first, and that’s part of why they do so much for growth. Rosen, conversely, is making the case that you don’t need to fully pay for the tax cuts because growth will fill in the gap. So the Diamond-Romney tax plan and the Rosen-Romney tax plan are quite different, and growth estimates that apply to the first don’t necessarily apply to the second.
NoOOOOOO not that Obama couldn't know her personally.
Standard nonsense attack. Attack the points raised not the credibility of the people giving them. Doing so just makes you look like an ass unwilling to respond to arguments.
Attacking me personally does not make this fact any less true not arguing against my point makes you look like an ass and unwilling to respond to arguments.
Meh, I prefer arguments over ideas, not people. I think arguing over people is for weak bitches. To each his own.
EPT
