I just dont trust McCain NOT to raise taxes.

I think putting their stances in quantifiable measures makes the vote clear.

Was this copied from someone's Livejournal?  Hehe.

~Zoo

Unfortunately many of your points are misleading or altered to be sensationalist:

So are you saying McCain wouldn't support an abortion if the mothers life was in severe risk? Or are you saying Obama would support an abortion at 8 1/2 months for no other reason than that the mother doesn't want to have to give birth? You need to specify if you're purporting to allow a clear comparison between the two.

2 problems here. "troops" - are we talking all troops, or some? Obama did clarify his comments afterall to add in the provision for leaving some troops behind. Meanwhile immediately - you mean the instant Obama is elected troops will be pulled out?

care to clarify what socialized is, or was it just stuck in there again to sensationalise the issue? A bit like saying 'candidate A supports X. I'll state "Candidate A supports extreme liberal proposal X"'.

Less of an issue with this one, but is Obama saying no-one should be allowed to own a gun? Or that there are situations where you should be able to? Since you fail to specify what these rights specifically are (e.g. supporting the right of people to own guns for the purposes of hunting is technically supporting gun ownership rights, even if you also believe people more generally shouldn't be allowed to own guns for the purposes of protecting themselves/home/other)

Big problem here, you've inserted the word "huge". Not a fact, but sensationalist, and subjective. Depending on how you look at it, both McCain and Obama are actually proposing tax cuts, Obama's aren't as extensive as McCains though. Therefore to say his programs will mean a tax increase is again highly debatable (if you're talking about a particular group, you need to specify this, e.g. 'proposed programs will mean on average a x% increase for people earning x amount per year', or 'proposed programs will mean people earning over x face tax increase compared to other candidate').

I'm also curious to know where the figures for tax paid on dif incomes were obtained from, since the last report I looked at recently (which was to be used by an international tax company whose job was to look at the tax implications to advise clients, and hence would need to be reliable+not be politically influenced) basically said that (personal) taxes would be roughly similar with Obama+McCain except for higher rate taxpayers who would face a steep increase in the proportion of income they'd be paying in taxes.

Having a look through your links given to back up your claims (you didn't say which ones), I thought I'd focus on the tax issue since I knew that to be highly questionable. From cnn money (one of the links you provided), you're given a rough projection of taxes as follows:
0-112k: Obama taxes less than McCain

112k+ Obama taxes more than McCain

Basically in line with what I recall seeing - Obama focuses on raising taxes on high incomes and lowering them on lower incomes. Your bulletin.aarp also backs this up as well (both are referencing to the same report). So unless I've missed something obvious here, you've provided links that at worst completely contradict what you put on taxes, and at best simply point to how misleading your 'statement' is (i.e. if it turns out that a very small demographic within an income group ends up worse rather than better while the others in that group end up better, and then using that small demographic to implicitely give the impression that everyone in that demographic suffers those negative effects).

Anyway I don't have the time to go through each and every other statement so I'll restrict myself to just pointing out how many of them are biased in phrasing, and leave it to someone else to check if they want to.

I think I've seen this before.  It's been emailed around, and like most of these incessant forwards, is not entirely accurate.  The earlier, simpler stuff is more accurate, although the one about how long they have searved is not correct.  (That's the amount of time Obama served when he wasn't running for President, rather than the full amount of time in the Senate.  While this is significant I think, it still should not be presented as a different fact than what it is.)

The long and short of it is, never, ever, ever trust anything passed onto you by email that was not composed directly from them.  You never know whose been editing these things, how carefully they checked the facts, which is usually not very.