In-A-Gadda-Levitre

maybe put down the JD for a while. You've got 4 more years of this stuff, you're gonna need it...

wow, he really is the Messiah, he can see the future!

fixed

it's too bad that you ignore the real positions that are verified by impartial organizations and believe partisan shock jocks on the radio as your main source of information

from his tax plan: pretty clear, nothing for estates under $7M, 45% for >$7M if you're saying he NEVER promised NOT to raise it EVER AGAIN in the future, ok, you made your point.

dude, here it is, black and white from Obama's Tax Plan here's the Factchecker.org assessment: and the respected, impartial Tax Policy Center: In case you didn't know, the 0%/15% tax rates on capital gains represent the Bush tax cuts, which he makes permanent for those people under $250K/$200K. This is his plan, and it hasn't changed. If you choose to ignore it, and believe Mark freaking Levin, well, that's up to you.

they are not being made illegal, or taxed any differently than they are now. Capital gains remain the same except for those making above those $250K/$200K limits.

what the F are you talking about? There is no such exception. If you make under $250K (working family) or a single under $200K, you get a tax cut, period.

I'm so far from being an expert on this subject, but everything I've read shows that Obama's voting record was distorted by the NRA and others. He voted against legislation that provided a loophole for those were who caught violating local gun registration laws. He voted in favor of a law outlawing armor-piercing ammunition. I agree he has said things that might infuriate gun owners, but pointing to his voting record, there's no evidence that he has consistently voted against second amendment rights. Please read Factcheck's analysis of the NRA position and please try to keep an open mind. I realize I will never convince you that Obama is not the most anti-gun candidate ever, but at least understand the whole picture.

probably, I was just trying to point out that you can't call either candidate a liar for changing their position after deciding to run for president.

If I couldn't believe his campaign platform, which explicitly includes his fact sheets on the issues, I couldn't vote for him, nor could millions of others. McCain has made many, many changes in his positions since he started running for president, like offshore drilling, support for Bush's tax cuts, etc. Should we now say we can't trust McCain to do those things because he voted against them before? I think the answer is no, we have to accept that he will stand by his promises. We can call him a flip-flop, but not a liar. Obama is running for President, not Biden, so until he changes his position on gun control, I will take him at his word. I can sympathize with you regarding what California has done to legislate more stringent controls on guns and ammunition, but once again, it's Obama that's running for President, not the California state legislature. California has always led the nation with more restrictive laws on things like auto emissions and dozens of other issues. We make conscious choices about where we want to live and we either have to accept what the majority votes for (proposition x, referendum y, etc.) or go somewhere else where the laws better suit our own beliefs.

I'll repeat, you try getting in an airplane for months at a time, crossing timezones every day, making multiple stops per day, talking, meeting, and speaking and let's see if you are perfect, every time with every fact, even ones that are second nature like the number of places you've been. Until you've done that, shut up. if it's untrue, prove it... The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Where does it say anything like we cannot ban armor-piercing ammunition or give law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes? How is this changing the constitution? he want to rewrite the laws, if the laws are rewritten then the laws are legal I think I'll make this my new sig!

you're not really trying to say she was deadpanning this statement or making a joke are you?

1. Obama knows how many states there are and he made a mistake. He was tired from campaigning; he meant 47, there was still 1 state to go and he joked that his campaign wouldn't let him go to AK and HI. He admitted he was overtired. I defy you, or anyone else, to crisscross that many timezones, stop in that many cities in such a short time, and always remember where you are and what you're supposed to say. 2. He's never said he wanted to, or intended to change the constitution. If you wanna believe he intends to do that, go ahead. 3. He has no intent to interfere with your right to bear legal arms. Factcheck.org has analyzed this issue and found that the NRA has cherry-picked, twisted and misrepresented Obama's record to come up with a bogus "plan." Maybe you believe that things like background checks constitutes taking away your 2nd Amendment rights...again, you're entitled to your opinion.

of course every outgoing President tries to pass as much of their agenda as possible before vacating the White House, but the Bush administration is setting new lows in many areas. This smells of Cheney, now we know what he's been doing lately... WaPo describes a wide range of fed regulations that will weaken consumer protections and the environment. clearly it's not all bad and there's some regulations that didn't make sense, but they're going way, way too far this time

are f'ing kidding? Osama Bin Laden, and you wouldn't follow him into Pakistan or wherever and kill him if you didn't believe the country he was hiding in would do the deed? Dude, you're in the minority...

this is freaking hilarious. Watch McCain's national spokesperson Michael Goldfarb wiff about his own accusation regarding Obama's ties to anti-Israel people:

yeah, but even the-media-that's-in-the-tank-for-The-Messiah (politico, cnn, etc.) thought he was talking about Obama's tax plan at the time. I think we're saying the same thing, his choice of words gets him in trouble...

ok, I hear you on that and I've said before that is something stupid that the campaign does; sometimes use $250K and sometimes use $200K depending on the context. This campaign is very well run, from a "stay on message" standpoint, but this is an example where they could do a lot better. Anyone who has heard Joe Biden over the years knows he constantly says dumb stuff, and doesn't know when to shut up. That was wrong, and I'm sure he wishes he could take it back. Dana Milbank had a pretty funny column about the King of the Rhetorical Jungle.

When I said mistake, I meant he shouldn't have made the statement "What we're saying is that $87 billion tax break doesn't need to go to people making an average of $1.4 million - it should go like it used to. It should go to middle class people - people making under $150,000 a year" because his choice of words connects his response to Obama's tax plan in people's minds.

How has his campaign kept changing it's message on taxes? The $150K screwup statement by Biden? Beat him up for that, but what else you got? What is so freaking hard to understand, Mr. Small Business Owner, about any working families under $250K and any singles under $200K get a tax break? There is no moving target, except if you want to create a smokescreen. The Tax Policy Center has crunched this in detail and has made no changes in the tax rates nor whom was affected since it was first proposed. Newsflash: both candidates will be tested, you can bet on it.

That was a mistake by Biden. It was, and continues to be $250K for working families and $200K for singles.

yes, only those in the new 36% and $39.6% brackets get a bump, and then it goes from 15% to 20%. Anyone under $250K pays the same as before.

of course, but if you're filing as a married couple and you're under $250K, the income tax and cap gains remain the same as they are today, and those over $250K only pay the new, higher rates on the difference. Am I missing something?

CNN Fact Checker Politifact The Tax Foundation and the lie is?