Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I understand that there are policy differences among TFP members and I have no problem discussion our differences
.
But blammg Carter and Clinton for everything gone wrong in the last 30 years! Gimme a fucking break!
|
I was pretty specific and certainly did not blame "everything gone wrong" on Carter and Clinton.
Is this an example of one of those mischaracterizations or comments taken out of context that you get so upset about?
Is it o.k. for "everything gone wrong" to be blamed on Bush?
We have heard that before. I will cut to the chase - I apologize if I hurt your feelings. I apologize for being so extreme that my comments are not worthy of being responded to. I apologize for being an ass. I apologize for "cherry picking"? I apologize for not agreeing with you? I apologize for not giving facts. I apologize for reading non-credible publications like the WSJ and IBD. I apologize for apologizing.
-----Added 28/8/2008 at 12 : 40 : 56-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy44
Hey, I don't think anyone posted this yet. But it's a really damn easy (admittedly quick and dirty) method for figuring out the difference you will receive in tax cuts between McCain's plan and Obama's plan.
Check it out.
|
It is interesting how at a level where a family would owe no tax, they get a "tax cut" under Obama. And that although a family would get one of those "tax cuts" under McCain's plan (just not as much) they actually say McCain would tax you $xxxx dollars MORE than Obama. Then if the McCain tax plan gives a bigger cut than the Obama tax plan they don't even show the results of the McCain tax plan.
I think the intent is to be a bit misleading, and of course there is the solicitation for donations to Obama. In a situation where a family owes no tax, but gets a "tax cut" it would be more honest if both candidates clearly stated that their plans include re-distribution of wealth.