Well, I'm not going to waste my time to retort to all of your statements most of which are just emotional sophistry based on anecdotal information. You might also consider that DT accused America of racism.

The poll tax was only applied in the south and then only as of the early 1900s. In Texas, it was initiated in 1906. The White Primary in Texas was intitaed in 1923 and all white primaries anywhere were declared unconsitutional in 1944.

Cite your historical evidence for widespread racial discrimination in public facilities outside of the south.

Again, without the compromises embodied in the US Constitution there would not be a US Constitution and, thus, no US, and thus, no end to slavery.

The 14th amendment only requires that governmental processes that seek to deprive a citizern of life, liberty, or property follow due process of law. Its equal protection clause only requires that citizens have equal access to and application of the law. It is moot regarding the content of those processes or those laws. Again, and consistent with the amendment's legislative history, the Supreme Court ruled that the applicable Louisiana law was not violative of that amendment's provisions.

Try taking a constitutional law course and and read a book or two about US History. You might also want to read James Madison's or Rufus King's notes taken at the Constitutional Convention. Also, learn the difference between due process arguments and substantive due process arguments in the meantime. Until then, you might want to exercise the better part of valor and think before you write.

DT, you give some excellent examples. And I agree that the USA has a racist history.

HOWEVER, hate-mongering is hate-mongering, I don't care WHO says it, be it Pat Robertson, Hagee, Reverend Wright, or Bozo the Clown. And if a candidate aligns him- or herself as closely with such a person as Obama has aligned himself with Reverend Wright, then chances are they will be painted with the same brush.

I just want one answer: Are the statements of white evangelical ministers subjected to the same standards of judgment as those being applied to Wright's statements?

Look, I know that Obama is not responsible for what other people say. However, if the pastor of my church, which is a Roman Catholic church, started preaching that the Church did the right thing by hushing up the Pedophile Priests, and that it was perfectly OK for the priests to do what they did, and that more priests should have sex with young children, I would find a statement like that so against my personal beliefs that I would demand his resignation.

If my parish felt that it was okay for him to stay, I would leave and go to a different church.

Obama, who says that he despises the sentiment of these statements, would make the leap to despising the man who said them. However, he remained fairly close with him and is still a member of his church (and please correct me if I'm wrong). How can you expect anyone who spews such venom to act as your spiritual and moral guide, which is what a pastor is supposed to do.

I have found Obama to be incredibly bright, charismatic, quick on his feet, and wonderfully refreshing. This whole thing does bother me, though.

They certainly should be. If they're not, there's no valid reason for it.

Should be, but they aren't.

Hey guys, check out this site. They were breaking down the state of North Carolina today on CNN and showing all the cuts that have been made to state funded programs, such as programs for health care, anti-poverty programs, and even transit programs. Just go here and click on your state or city. It's pretty sad that so much of our money is being spent on this war. They also show the cost of the war for your state, compared to the tax cuts for the richest 10 percent. For PA, the war has cost $139 billion. The tax cuts for the richest 10 percent was $116.6 billion. How fucked up is that?

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxday2008

Pat, you make valid points about the cost of the war. However, if it wasn't for the wealthy, this economy would really be in the tank (if it's not already). The working class can barely pay for essentials. Think of the arts, the restaurants, the theaters, the museums, that would be forced to close if it wasn't for the patronage of the wealthy.

And let me tell you, what was once wealthy, no longer is. It used to be that $100,000 annual salary made you rich. Where I live, you can barely make ends meet if you make that. Especially if you are raising children, who will require $30,000 per year for college.

Don't knock the rich. If it wasn't for them, lots of us would be unemployed and homeless.

Fucked up?

if you want to squeeze more tax from the rich, cut their tax rates. As JFK said it's "the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run".

These sermons weren't played on automatic loop. Only a few screamed that McCain separate himself as much from Hagee as they asked Obama to from Wright:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qNi7tPanUA
(Catholics especially should be pissed)

And let me tell you, what was once wealthy, no longer is. It used to be that $100,000 annual salary made you rich. Where I live, you can barely make ends meet if you make that. Especially if you are raising children, who will require $30,000 per year for college.

Isn't this reality pathetic? You hit the nail on the head, SB. For a family of four, $25,000 per person should be more than sufficient. The increasing tax rates over the past 20 years, the steady inflation, the high cost of fuel, and the always escalating cost of educating our children have seriously derailed many working parents' ability to survive beyond paycheck to paycheck.

I received my first raise of a measley 2.5% last year, which was the first pay increase since 2004. Thankfully, my wife makes good money as an attorney, so we are comfortable. But if I were the main breadwinner, a 2.5% raise does not cover the cost of increased fuel, parking rates, and food costs that have skyrocketed since 2005's aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina & Rita.

I would say the new standard of "wealthy" that SB is referring would be at least $125,000. But in bigger cities like NY, LA, or Chicago, the much higher cost of living would probably only classify such a salary as "upper middle class."

Well, I'm not going to waste my time to retort to all of your statements most of which are just emotional sophistry based on anecdotal information. You might also consider that DT accused America of racism.

The poll tax was only applied in the south and then only as of the early 1900s. In Texas, it was initiated in 1906. The White Primary in Texas was intitaed in 1923 and all white primaries anywhere were declared unconsitutional in 1944.

Cite your historical evidence for widespread racial discrimination in public facilities outside of the south.

Again, without the compromises embodied in the US Constitution there would not be a US Constitution and, thus, no US, and thus, no end to slavery.

The 14th amendment only requires that governmental processes that seek to deprive a citizern of life, liberty, or property follow due process of law. Its equal protection clause only requires that citizens have equal access to and application of the law. It is moot regarding the content of those processes or those laws. Again, and consistent with the amendment's legislative history, the Supreme Court ruled that the applicable Louisiana law was not violative of that amendment's provisions.

Try taking a constitutional law course and and read a book or two about US History. You might also want to read James Madison's or Rufus King's notes taken at the Constitutional Convention. Also, learn the difference between due process arguments and substantive due process arguments in the meantime. Until then, you might want to exercise the better part of valor and think before you write.

Nice dodge Olivant. Almost as rife with sophistry as your disingenuous and intellectually flawed response to my earlier post.

Well if you were to make $125,000 and Obama is president you would be another member of the evil rich who need to be taxed more in order to fund his social welfare programs. Instead of maybe just cutting spending and being happy with the amount of money the government takes from individuals, we don't pay taxes.

The current Republicans have most definitly lived pretty high on the hog the last 8 years. They of course say it is only because of the war.

Klyd, if Obama were to only lose PA by 5 points (as current polls are showing), it would be a remarkable "comeback," wouldn't it?

She won all the big states, yes, but not by the landslide amounts that Obama has won the small states. There's the difference.

By the way---If she wins PA by less than 4 or 5 percentage points, she only "nets" about 10 more electoral votes on the night than he does.