I was intrigued with Edwards until I saw him grovel at the feet of the
jewish lobby (along with most candidates)...Since I am neither
Dem or Rep I look elsewhere....Ron Paul may earn my vote..the man
has at least the illusion of ethics...and he did say no to the illegal
war...and wants to return to a government that respects the
constitution.

Awful truth is an awful choice because I am loathe to give my vote to
someone who cannot win but at the same time it seems that in order to
truly be in the running there is double talk, ignoring of the truth
about graft, corruption and extravagant spending of our tax dollars. If
we really had leadership that insisted on accountability, ethical
budgets and high moral character for themselves and those they appoint,
we would truly be by the people for the people. But that seems a vain
hope...I wonder if the great experiment called American is doomed to
failure.

we need to stop buying into the "wasted vote" arguement...it can be
done..
Perot could have succeeded ...it can be done if people ignore the
screams of the 2 parties..although we know they are one party...

From each according to his means, to each according to his needs. That
is from the Communist Manifesto, but it seems it is becoming the
Democratic Party's Mantra too. Why would I care what the CEO of Exxon
made last year, and do you know how much he paid in taxes Fanta? Instead
of moaning about what he made, you should be glad he made that much
because it means that much less tax you had to pay. This country became
the greatest nation on Earth through Capaitalism and now the Dems want
to scrap that for Socialism which is proven not to work just to keep
themselves in power. Like I have said before who will pay the bill for
all these give away social programs when there are no more rich to tax.
Can someone please answer that question.

John Edwards is wealthy enough that he does not need his Senate Salary,
I will believe he is genuine when he and the rest of the dems take their
salary and donate it to the general fund. The Republicans believe that
a man should be able to keep what he earned so they are exempt from
this, all they need to do is pay the tax on their earnings.

sorry Garden..you cant tell me that the current administration is
doing anything remotely republican..they are on a mad spending spree
that is destroying our future....and I would bet you can draw a straight
line from big oil profits to the "secret" energy meeting Cheney had
early on in this administration...
If republican ideals are uncontrolled spending & nation building
globally then I missed something somewhere...

Davinci I said nothing about spending, I only referred to taxes and who
pays them. Edwards wants to raise taxes for what to fund more social
programs and my question still remains unanswered, when there are no
more rich to tax where is the money for these social programs going to
come from. Perhaps instead of changing the subject you would care to
address this issue.

well garden...cant think of a time historically when there weren't rich
people
around...doubt that any democrat is gonna drive them out of america by
taxing...the old notion that democrats are tax & spend just doesnt work
anymore
...the republicans are doing just fine with that...afterall the gas
increases we a
are seeing is in a sense a tax on us...the republicans are better at
hiding taxes
maybe...

as far as I'm concerned both parties are equally guilty in that
regard...no difference
to me...washington is a black hole..sucking all the life out of this
country..and it
is the 2 party system at the head of that monster..

once again you have avoided the question. The original thread was not
that the Republicans were tax and spend, but that John Edwards said he
would raise taxes on the rich. My question still goes unanswered who
will fund the govenrment when there are no rich people left. In Russia
the Communists did away with the rich and made everybody equal so that
everybody could stand in line for hours to visit the Government Owned
Store with empty shelves.