Paul Ryan is arguing that Joe Biden and the administration, have supported abortions so much, that the Catholic church is having to sue the gov't. That support for abortions is both here, and abroad, including the forced abortions on a massive scale in China.

Ryan further points to Biden's statement of this, when he visited China.

Joe Biden replies:
"I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life and it's the core of my being."

Sure it is, Joe: To Catholics, abortion is a heinous (mortal) sin. Just in case you maybe forgot.

Has Biden had an abortion? I don't think so. Anyone that tries to push their personal view, whether from their religion or not, on other people, has no business in the government.

America was founded on principles that religion is only between you and your god. Any church that enforces a Spanish Inquistion to enforce their beliefs would be Satanic.

Pope ordered Church doctrine be imposed in law upon all Americans. Apparently you agree with his Satanic statement? Or do you believe in fundamental American principles: a person's religion is never imposed on anyone else. Many extremists oppose that fundamental American principle. Do you?

That's what Obama does in his health care law. That why the Catholic and a few other churches, are suing the feds for forcing them to accept paying for abortions AND for performing abortions, in their hospitals.

Personally, I believe abortions should be 1st trimester only, and the decision is ultimately up to the woman in consultation with her doctor, and the father, if possible.

No church is enforcing an Inquisition, Spanish or otherwise! The Pope never ordered Church doctrine be imposed in law on ANY Americans.

You know nothing about the Catholic Church, clearly.

What struck me about the debate was the lack of any plan (still) for the next four years, if the President is given a second term.

I wasn't expecting much, since it is the V.P., not Obama debating, but still. What's your plan for the next four years?

: : : Crickets : : :

You may not like the Romney plan, but at least they have one. ;)

go back and read who I quoted as my reply to your snide remark about how uninformed I am about the economy, in any detail.

by subtracting your useless stereotyping labels from your posts I clarify our discussion by keeping it on the subject at hand, Romney's proposed policies. What political church you genuflect in is irrelevant.

For example, what deductions will Romney eliminate to pay for his $5 trillion dollar tax cut?

Not what good-for-nothing Congressionally approved deductions will Conservative-in-Chief-in-Waiting Romney eliminate to conservatively save God's Greatest Nation On Earth from the Liberal mess we've been saddled with?

Like that. What's the damn point. Just let's talk about the actual facts. You can cheerlead for "conservative" and boo "liberal", I'm just going to ignore it. Just like I said up there.. That IS doing better.

Those who ignore lessons from history are doomed to repeat it. Predicted was what would happen with George Jr's tax cuts. By even citing well understood economic theory that predicts recessions. Predicted because the same recessionary effects occurred with Kennedy's tax cut. But soundbytes and ideologue rhetoric routinely ignores facts to preach a political agenda - to preach propaganda. The same ideology again ignores what happened with Kennedy's tax cut. Because extremist talk show hosts say so?

Reality posted on 11 April 2001 in
Laffer curve - the real laugh. 11 years later. And another, who never learns from history, recites the same lies. Classic ideological politics. Soundbyte replaces knowledge and history. The next tax cut (on 11 April 2001) predicted a recession. It most certainly did. Big time. Back then it "IS" a bad thing. Today is "WAS" a bad thing. But only when one learns lessons from history - and ignores wacko extremist rhetoric.

Only propaganda and ideology 'proves' tax cuts cure economic malise. Especially when that malise is directly traceable to previous tax cuts and other fiscal mismanagement before 2007.

What do we know from history and a basic grasp of economics? Tax increases to pay for deficits result in long term growth - and then more jobs.

No, it's not Obama's personal view it's the law, written and passed by congress. Sure he pushed it, but if he'd written it according to his personal view you'd be apoplectic.

Forcing them to pay for contraception like a responsible employer isn't forcing anyone to use them. I guess the Catholic church wants to try to at least keep the poor that can't afford them under control. The numbers seem to show that a great many Catholic women that can afford the pill choose to do so.

Can you site a source on this, "for performing abortions, in their hospitals"?

Just like Romney, say some shit, then walk it back.

You said "everyone's pockets", now you're admitting you really meant just half of everyone's pockets. What are you doing? Rounding up?

I noticed that Romney's in favor of reducing income tax rates by twenty percent, but supports the idea of letting the payroll tax reduction expire. In whose favor is the sum of these two proposals?

So, you're saying that money that moves fast helps restore a vibrant economy. You're saying it's less about the amount of money than it is about the speed with which it's moving around, am I right?

Then, you denigrate the poor for having no money, "THEY'RE POOR!". Classy.

Let me ask you this. How can you say it's rich people who have a lot of money in the bank and who will have more money in the bank after this massive tax cut Romney's proposing is enacted are contributing to the economy? How are these people "job creators"? Because, poor people? No one spends money faster than poor people. They get it, and boom, it's gone. Sometimes it's gone so fucking fast it leaves before it gets there. Now THAT'S some high-velocity, vibrant-economy-building patriotic American economic action, right there. Those slacker bastards with their static bank balances, not moving, just sitting there getting piled higher and deeper... what are they doing for the economy? More specifically, what are their increased savings doing for the economy?

You're right, I misspoke, I've corrected the text to more accurately reflect my thoughts.

You haven't answered it. You just call me a simpleton. But don't worry. You have good company. I just watched Paul Ryan fail to answer the same direct question. You can't answer it. He can't answer it. Romney hasn't answered it and won't answer it ("care to wager ten thousand dollars?"). There is no answer that fits his parameters.

I may be a simpleton, but I know my question is being evaded.

Translated:

Obama uncertainties bad.

Romney uncertainties good.

Got it. At least you didn't throw in a few "conservative" labels in there, but it's the thought that counts, right?

:facepalm: