FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

okie wrote:

Me too. I took Foxfyre's word for it, but that would make all the difference on this gaffe. It would show intent, or probably no intent.

I am just going by what I heard our local radio commentators talking about this morning and I believe somebody mentioned it also last night. I haven't been able to find a transcript of the speech including audience participation--Huffington Post usually posts transcripts of Obama speeches but has sort of omitted this one so far at least as of earlier this morning. If it happened, it would have been before the YouTube clip kicks in. If you google "No pitbulls, no pitbulls' though, you will see that this is a chant given at Obama rallies since the GOP convention.

kicky, Let's face it; these diversions are working better for the conservatives than it is for Obama. They're winning this war on words and "appearance."

ci, its working because of other comments and behavior by Obama to this point. Who is Obama? And as people try to figure that out, Obama makes dumb statements, like clinging to guns, Barack the bomb thrower, my Muslim faith, 57 states, etc., and so even the ones that are just dumb with no ill intent also are picked up on, whereas if someone less suspicious said it, it would cause no stir. Lets face it, Obama's sophomorish performance is becoming more apparent. Whether he can recover and turn this around, or he continues to slide, that is the question?

Foxfyre wrote:

okie wrote:

Me too. I took Foxfyre's word for it, but that would make all the difference on this gaffe. It would show intent, or probably no intent.

I am just going by what I heard our local radio commentators talking about this morning and I believe somebody mentioned it also last night. I haven't been able to find a transcript of the speech including audience participation--Huffington Post usually posts transcripts of Obama speeches but has sort of omitted this one so far at least as of earlier this morning. If it happened, it would have been before the YouTube clip kicks in. If you google "No pitbulls, no pitbulls' though, you will see that this is a chant given at Obama rallies since the GOP convention.

See, this is part of your problem, Fox - you make claims without actually knowing they are true or not.

Cycloptichorn

Obama's campaign has accused the GOP camp of engaging in a "pathetic attempt to play the gender card." In an e-mail to reporters Wednesday, the campaign noted two other instances of McCain using the phrase "lipstick on a pig" and its use by other Republicans such as House Minority Leader John Boehner and Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

okie wrote:

Me too. I took Foxfyre's word for it, but that would make all the difference on this gaffe. It would show intent, or probably no intent.

I am just going by what I heard our local radio commentators talking about this morning and I believe somebody mentioned it also last night. I haven't been able to find a transcript of the speech including audience participation--Huffington Post usually posts transcripts of Obama speeches but has sort of omitted this one so far at least as of earlier this morning. If it happened, it would have been before the YouTube clip kicks in. If you google "No pitbulls, no pitbulls' though, you will see that this is a chant given at Obama rallies since the GOP convention.

See, this is part of your problem, Fox - you make claims without actually knowing they are true or not.

Cycloptichorn

Really what claim did I make? I claimed what I heard. I actually know that I heard it. And I claimed that 'no pitbulls, no pitbulls' has become a chant at Obama rallies. You surely aren't going to pretend I dont' know whether that is true or not when it is all over the internet. I claimed that Obama used the lipstick on a pig quip knowing about all this other stuff which has to put him in the dumb, naive, or intentionally insulting category. The last is opinion, but I know that I have good reason to believe that it's true.

And what do you have to rebut any of it other than accusations about what I don't know that you can't back up?

Using that assumption as a baseline, the Tax Policy Center looked at the impact of all the changes in tax law that each of the candidates has proposed. If McCain's proposed tax changes were put into effect, the Treasury would lose $3.7 trillion in revenue for the 10-year period between 2009 and 2018, compared with what it would take in under current law. If all of Barack Obama's tax plans were put into effect, the loss to the Treasury would be $2.7 trillion in revenues.

However, no one in Washington believes all the Bush tax cuts will be rescinded. Even under a Democratic Congress and Administration, the Bush tax cuts are likely to be kept in place for most taxpayers. So economic advisers to both campaigns argue it is more realistic to judge the impact of their campaign proposals against the tax policies and rates currently in effect.

Under that scenario, the numbers for both candidates look far better, although Obama still comes out well ahead. Indeed, when compared with current tax policy, his proposals would actually increase revenues coming into government coffers. Although he has promised tax cuts to many middle- and working-class families, along with the elderly, the TPC concludes that those cuts would be offset by his plans to increase taxes on high-income families and to close corporate tax loopholes. Together, those moves would bring an estimated additional $734 billion to the Treasury over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center study.