Yeah, I stepped over the line. I apologize. I took the bait that was obviously placed for me.

As far as a fact.....Have you seen his medical records or are you going off what you think and/or have read from wherever (would love to see what the sources are)? I hope you have some form of degree or expertise to go along with lots and lots of experience in diagnosing such things if you're going to offer that opinion. Otherwise, I'm not sure how valid it can be.

This thread is as good as any (it is the only politics one that was in my New Posts search).

I don't generally think newspaper endorsements generally have much real world impact but this site is an interesting presentation of their geography.

I can't make out anything on that map. Is there a trend you see that's interesting?

The two trends I notice are that papers in blue states are more likely to make such endorsements one way or the other, and there are significantly more papers that "switched" from Bush to Obama than "switched" from Kerry to McCain.

I feel for you- I really do. I was not a Kerry fan- and his many missteps caused me great pain during the past election.

I know SS won't be there for me as well. I've always known it. I may not be very good at math, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the Boomers are going to wipe it out. They're a huge demographic, and they didn't have enough kids to pay into the system. I'm either the last year of the Boomer generation, or the first year of Gen X, depending on your sources. I've never identified with the Boomers- I think you had to have been a teen sometime during the Sixties to really be a Boomer, and I was not. I have a certain degree of resentment toward that group- they've run the world for quite a while now, and have swung every which way in the political and socio-economic spectrum, and frankly I'm tired of them holding all the cards. I do believe it's time for a change, a generational change, and I think my candidate is truly the man for the job. I hope he gets it.

So....am I reading the transcript of this quote correctly???? I can't wait to hear the spin on this one.

The Constitutional reflects the fundamental flaw of this country? What the hell is that fundamental flaw and how does the Constitution reflect it? If sworn in, he takes an oath that says he will protect and defend the Constitution. He has NO power to change it. What was the blind spot? That scares the HELL out of me.

Also, we've got this one ......in which he lamenting that the supreme court (specifically the Warren court) never addressed redistribution of wealth as an issue of economic justice.

He thinks the Warren court should have been able to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" in regards to what he refers to as "economic justice".

He wants redistribution of wealth. He says it clearly. He is simply talking about the best way to do it.

McCain now gets my vote even though I do not support him. Obama is a socialist and I cannot be part of not voting for his opposition.

As to the first part, he was obviously talking about the original constitution's hands-off attitude to slavery.

As to the second, it's a legitimate issue, but my take is that he said it in 2001 and he was using overly progressive rhetoric to talk about how to cure the lingering effects of slavery and racism. Plus, it's a question of degree. Taken to extreme, we wouldn't have a progressive tax system or antitrust laws, and most of the land in Hawaii would still be owned by a few families.

But go ahead and vote for McCain. We all knew you would. I dare you to prove us wrong.

Spout your favorite buzz phrase all you want, voting for McCain isn't going to change crap. He believes exactly the same thing despite his hypocritical cries of "socialism". The reality is our tax system is massively out of balance, the wealthy enjoy huge protections from the government (aww, you gambled and lost money? Here's a bailout!) and pay a small percentage of their income. Both Obama and McCain have called for fixing that balance.


John McCain: “We feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more… I believe that when you really look at the tax code today, the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans, when the account and payroll taxes, sales taxes, mortgage pay — all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they — you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my view… here’s what I really believe, that when you are — reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.”

http://therecord.barackobama.com/?p=3143

Oh yeah, and news flash, the Constitution is not the creation of an omniscient being and is not a perfect creation without flaws! Ooooh, did I just commit treason?

Read the part that says it is still contuniing to this day. Last I checked, there wasn't slavery any longer.

I'm so glad you can see into my head, Strangler, and knew I was going to vote for McCain all along. Yawn. You know nothing of me.

There a difference between tax relief for those that pay taxes and giving money to those who don't. Again, I ask, how is it possible for 95% of the people to get federal tax cuts when only 65% of the people pay any federal income taxes? That isn't a tax cut. That is redistribution of wealth.

Read the statitics. The top 1% of wage earners pay just shy of 40% of all federal income taxes. That has GONE UP under the Bush administration regardless of the rhetoric otherwise.

Call Obama's plans whatever you want, but taking money from taxpayers and giving it to non taxpayers, even when bogusly calling it a tax cut, is still redistribution of wealth, and it is still socialism. McCain is NOT calling for (unless I just haven't read it) taking money from tax payers, giving it to non tax payers, and calling it a tax cut. HUGE difference.