Maybe it means 95% of people who pay taxes.

I'm sorry, I fail to see where I mentioned tax policy in the discussion of whether you are misleading people (whether intentionally or not).

But since I'm sure you'd like to change the subject from that discussion.

No, I do not believe that 95% of people will pay lower taxes under Obama's proposed tax plan. And, even if they would, I do not believe that a proposed tax plan is likely to bear much resemblance to the actual tax plan, since after all the president can do nothing more than present Congress with a power point presentation and then wait and see like the rest of us.

However, from my comparison of the two proposed tax plans, it does appear that MORE people would pay lower taxes under Obama's than under McCain's.

So, having answered that question can we go back to the topic you were trying to change away from?

So, let's grant you that one (though I don't really, but for sake of argument). You have found one spot where you told the truth and accurately presented the video. How about the other spots where you just made stuff up? You directly quoted Obama's words into a context entirely different than what he said.

Where, for example, did he say the Warren Court should have broken free of its fundamental constraints? Now, please, don't tell me where you interpret him saying that, where the tone of something he said later reflects back on what he said previously (and remember this is a severely truncated presentation of a much longer interview) shedding a new sinister light. Since you say he SAID it, please point to that.

That was in response to WB, which I was typing while you posted your most recent, so it appeared as if I was responding to you. Should have quoted her post.

Here's what I said:

I think we agree that he wants redistribution of wealth.

I believe my conclusions above to be logical in the context of his statements. I think it obvious that he is indeed lamenting that the court did not address it. You may not, OK.

Upon relistening again, I will agree and concede that he did not say the Warren court should have been able to to break free gfrom those constraints. However, he then goes on to discuss how he thinks the "tragedy" of the civil rights movement was to focus on the courts instead of elsewhere where those economic aims could have been accomplished.

My point still stands in that he WANTS those aims accomplished. He wants redistribution of wealth by taking from those who pay taxes and giving it to those who don't, and deceiving the populace by calling them tax cuts. That's a clever way to promote socialism, but it's socialism nonetheless.

I've always thought that, which is why I've refrained from commenting when the 95% of ALL people came up before. There are a great many people who don't pay taxes at all. Going to be more in this economic climate, I'm afraid.

Obama has said that he'll lower taxes for 95% of "working families". It would seem to me that would have to include a large majority of people who make below the threshhold of paying federal taxes.

My,my,my... We have been busy this morning.

Is it my imagination, or is the tone from the Right getting shriller and shriller as we get closer to the 4th?

Why is it shrill to point out what Obama is saying and has said?

Here is an opinion piece (please note I say opinion because it is and I share the opinion and believe it is well stated here....yes, it is from Bill Whittle at National Review, certainly conservative, but he explains a lot of my concerns better than I ever could....just letting the source be know up front so no one shouts about how it's a conservative source and how it is opinion) that sums up my concerns well.