PaulSpoerry.com

On last night’s Colbert Report, Stephen cut through all of the doom and gloom of the Democratic Convention by profiling someone who’s flourishing in the current economy: A repo man.

Others who are probably doing well these days include unemployment-office workers, squatters, pan-handle makers, trashcan-fire emporiums, tumble-weed manufacturers and super-villains.

More proof McCain is Bush 2.0 - caters to rich, snuffs the middle class.

McCain has cultivated support from mega-corporations by promising to dole out huge tax breaks in return should he win the presidency. As the Wonk Room reported in June, McCain’s plan to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent would yield $45 billion in tax breaks for the 200 largest corporations:

McCain would deliver about $4 billion in tax cuts to the five largest oil companies. He would also hand over $2 billion to the top 10 health insurance companies. Unlike the highest-rung of the corporate ladder, much of the rest of Wall Street refuses to be bought off. Those employees are giving more to Obama than to McCain.

While McCain caters to the rich, Barack Obama’s tax plan “offers three times the break for middle class families” than the proposals of John McCain. To clarify the contrast in the two candidates’ plans, consider this fact: John and Cindy McCain would reap over $300,000 from McCain’s own tax plan. By contrast, both the Obamas and McCains would receive a substantial, albeit much smaller, savings under Obama’s plan (see a comparison here).

Via ThinkProgress

There’s really nothing to say except that you’ve been Rick Rolled election style!

The news channels (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) have all been buzzing about the impending smear campaigns that are about to launch now that Clinton is out of the race. Looks like Obama has launched a campaign to combat the rumors floating around already. He’s gone as far as even posting his birth certificate.

You can visit Fight the Smears and it’s already loaded with some of the hot topics… taking on issues about him being a Muslim, that he won’t produce a birth certificate, and that he won’t say the Pledge of Allegiance. Won’t if McCain will be launching one soon as well?

Wow, this is just an awesome speech. Alan Keyes says “Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama.” Keyes claims Obama is not a true Christian, and Barack’s response is just awesome. If we had more people in politics who held religious beliefs but understood that while it’s perfectly reasonable to expect someone to have religious beliefs, but that those beliefs cannot be the only arguement for policy, our country would be a much better place. Obama discusses how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

“For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

You can, and in fact SHOULD, watch the video above or read the full text here.