the McCain camp should hire you as an apologist...rather at address, redirect...good use of Wright and Mrs. Obama...which of course doesn't address anything..
again, nicely spun...
by the way, where can I find a evidence supporting your assertion that McCain was called a "pussy" during the Keating Five...
It's ironic that you say I am "spinning", yet you call me Karl Rove and don't respond to any of the substantive things I say. I think what you do is more likely to meet the definition of "spin"
I certainly don't feel the need to apologize for McCain's religious affiliations in light of the Rev. Wright debaucle. No relationship of McCain's is as crazy as that. Call that spin if you want. It's reality. In all of my Obama 'bashing" I've never even brought up Wright, except as in response to "Falwell". I think neither are important enough to base my vote around.
It is VERY TELLING that the only response anyone has is about Wright - none of the political issues or positions. Everything I posted are simply facts from the candidates mouths.
Don't attack me, attack my ARGUMENTS.
I can't remember where I read the "pussy" remark. I think I cited it in another post, somewhere. wikipedia has changed it to "wimp". I very clearly read that DeConcini called him something else though.
The challenge still stands, and has been up for 3 days. Any Obama supporter please provide a POLICY reason for voting for Obama. Please ensure that you know what his policies REALLY are, though. It's amazing that there are so many supporters on this board and someone hasn't just crushed everything I am saying. Your candidate should give you more ammo.
LOFL! No it isn't! You listen to Hannity to much which destroys your credibility. Show me, in print, from her thesis, where it says "i hate white people. i will hate white people for the rest of my life", and i'll give you a point. Heck, show me in her thesis where it even implies a hatred of white people and i'll give you half of a point.
And since you would, theoretically be comparing the candidate's spouse to the candidate himself, you couldn't draw a parallel any damn way.
Hannity is a hack and I never listen to anything he says. I'll agree that I'm probably not qualified to discuss her thesis. I can't read it all because she has had it pulled from the public domain. That alone makes me very suspicious - why wouldn't you want it read?(http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/thesis.asp)
I have read a few excerpts here or there and that seems to be what it focusses on. I'll concede that I probably shouldn't have said that. You probably shouldn't of said the tings you did about Cindy McCain either.
Clinton was the virtual incumbent. She started February with about a 30 point lead in all polls. The underdog challenger is not "threatened" by the champ. That it isn't how it works. If anything, it was the other way around.
too hard to discern from all the anti-Hillary hate rhetoric....
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
It's ironic that you say I am "spinning", yet you call me Karl Rove and don't respond to any of the substantive things I say. I think what you do is more likely to meet the definition of "spin"
I certainly don't feel the need to apologize for McCain's religious affiliations in light of the Rev. Wright debaucle. No relationship of McCain's is as crazy as that. Call that spin if you want. It's reality. In all of my Obama 'bashing" I've never even brought up Wright, except as in response to "Falwell". I think neither are important enough to base my vote around.
It is VERY TELLING that the only response anyone has is about Wright - none of the political issues or positions. Everything I posted are simply facts from the candidates mouths.
Don't attack me, attack my ARGUMENTS.
I can't remember where I read the "pussy" remark. I think I cited it in another post, somewhere. wikipedia has changed it to "wimp". I very clearly read that DeConcini called him something else though.
The challenge still stands, and has been up for 3 days. Any Obama supporter please provide a POLICY reason for voting for Obama. Please ensure that you know what his policies REALLY are, though. It's amazing that there are so many supporters on this board and someone hasn't just crushed everything I am saying. Your candidate should give you more ammo.
well, you really didn't discuss too much policy...
anyhoo, I'll answer your question as to a policy Obama is espousing of which makes me want to support him....he focuses on the need to focus on our crumbling infrastructure...
and to address your repeated repeated repeated assertion that obama supporters are not providing a POLICY reason for voting for Obama...I guess I wonder what you expect one to say...what I mean is, every candidate running office will say the following:
I support education policy
I support security policy
I support strong economic policys
I support policies that support freedom
I want a sound energy policy
and so on...
and so on...my point is this, if you'd like to find out his policies, and more importantly, the how's and what's[/ii] take a look for yourself...
my reason for supporting Mr. Obama can be summed up in a post by the great Abuskedti...
I like his approach, I like that he thinks. I like what he says. This is a huge ship moving pretty fast. Its not easy to turn. There are no easy answers. No simple solutions. No "correct" policies. Everything is interconnected - everything is right in some ways and wrong in others.
I like him because he is thinking and doesn't pretend that there are simple solutions.
guess I can only go with my intuition since there is not truth to review.
You didn't discuss ANY policy...you discussed ships and generalizations based on nothing.
I will vote AGAINST Obama because he supports continuing to erode US sovereignty with policies like the Global Anti-Poverty Act which is a tax on US Citizens that transfers our resources to the UN. Do you support that? That's what I mean by policies.
I will vote FOR McCain because, he has the military experience and sense to get us out of Iraq without creating so much instability that we'll be forced to go back. I base that around is Congress and military record. He also has enough honesty to support a policy that may be unpopular, but is right. Obama's policy is nearly the same, but he rhetorically tries to pretend it is something else - that coupled with his lack of ANY real experience in foreign policy is worrisome to me.
Education SHOULD be an issue that Obama supporters can rally around. The problem is that he hasn't offered any policy beyond a critique of Bush's policy.
"Obama described the American public-education system as "morally unacceptable" and talked about making a "truly historic commitment" to improve it. Some of the highlights included his proposals to train more teachers and pay them better, to make college more affordable for those who commit to public service, and to fix the "broken promises" of the No Child Left Behind law. It's not entirely clear how he plans to pay for some of these proposals. For example, he promised to make community college completely free and offer a $4,000 tax credit to cover two thirds of the tuition at an average public college. He also made this pledge to those who sign up to become teachers: "If you commit your life to teaching, America will commit to paying for your college education." http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2008/5/30/obama-finally-talks-tough-on-education-policy.html)
So, which education policy do you support? None, because there is none.
Virtually the only "policy" that Obama has articulated beyond the garbled Iraq message he is sending is his tax plan, which really isn't HIS - it's Albert Goolsbee's. Most economic experts indicate that he will generate so little revenue that he wouldn't be able to pay for any services. Let alone the teacher raise he alludes to above.
Infrastructure policy? His only strategy is throw money at it, which seems to be his answer to everything
So much for the "sound economic policy" you were talking about.
By the way, did you know that while Obama was an Illinois Senator, the Chicago Skyway as well as other Chicago and Illinois roadways were SOLD to a Spanish conglomerate. That makes a lot of sense. Let's let the transportation around one of America's most populated and strategic cities be owned by a European country that less than 75 years ago supprted Hitler.
You didn't know that did you? Of course not. Barry doesn't talk about it . Dont trust me, read it yourself. They own it for 99 YEARS. I don't think I have to explain the economic as well as SECURITY implications that selling off our infrastructure to foreign firms carries. It is a lot different than buying a building.
It makes a lot of sense when you examine Obama's policy towards the UN. The organization that Michelle is on the board of directors of - The Chicago Council on Global Affairs (which is like a mini-CFR), helped negotiate it.
well, you really didn't discuss too much policy...
anyhoo, I'll answer your question as to a policy Obama is espousing of which makes me want to support him....he focuses on the need to focus on our crumbling infrastructure...
and to address your repeated repeated repeated assertion that obama supporters are not providing a POLICY reason for voting for Obama...I guess I wonder what you expect one to say...what I mean is, every candidate running office will say the following:
I support education policy
I support security policy
I support strong economic policys
I support policies that support freedom
I want a sound energy policy
and so on...
and so on...my point is this, if you'd like to find out his policies, and more importantly, the how's and what's[/ii] take a look for yourself...
my reason for supporting Mr. Obama can be summed up in a post by the great Abuskedti...
If this quote from Abueskedti is the best you can do as far as rationale for your decision, then this post proves what I've been saying all along, more than I every could.
Obama supporters, for the most part, are unaware of his policies (or lack thereof) and are going to cast their vote based around nothing more than a "hunch". There is no substance to anything Barry is saying, but he looks pretty while he does it. There is no legislative record to really looks at because he ducked anythign controversial, there is no real work history to even look at besides being a lawyer for a few years, everything else was non-profit. You're left with his book to tell you what he believes in.
You guys owe it to yourselves and everyone else in this country to inform yourselves about what a candidate really stands for. You can probably better articulate why you want a particular American Idol contestant to win.
Talking shit? Oh, this one is not too hard to figure out.
It's a recurring trend everywhere I look. Hillary is the oil to Obama's water. It's practically vote for Bobo, and in the next breath I hope Hillary dies...
Bobo fans felt VERY threatened (at the time) by Hillary from what I could see.
really..
i think it was the other way around..
can't recall obama or any of his supporters making comments about assasination attempts on HER. can you?
Multiple people have jumped in and out of this conversation. I apologize for not keeping straight who said what. It obvously wasn't pj_gurl either, but someone started on the whole Cindy McPills deal and saif a few crazy things in the context of our discussion. I responded with remarks about Michelle Obama's thesis that I can't really back up. I went off of second-hand shit I'd heard here and there, because her thesis has been pulled from the public domain.
Regardless, all I was doing was trying to post that I wasn't qualified to make the remarks I did because I hadn't read all of her thesis, and to apologize for saying something I couldn't back up.
You didn't discuss ANY policy...you discussed ships and generalizations based on nothing.
I will vote AGAINST Obama because he supports continuing to erode US sovereignty with policies like the Global Anti-Poverty Act which is a tax on US Citizens that transfers our resources to the UN. Do you support that? That's what I mean by policies.
I will vote FOR McCain because, he has the military experience and sense to get us out of Iraq without creating so much instability that we'll be forced to go back. I base that around is Congress and military record. He also has enough honesty to support a policy that may be unpopular, but is right. Obama's policy is nearly the same, but he rhetorically tries to pretend it is something else - that coupled with his lack of ANY real experience in foreign policy is worrisome to me.
Education SHOULD be an issue that Obama supporters can rally around. The problem is that he hasn't offered any policy beyond a critique of Bush's policy.
"Obama described the American public-education system as "morally unacceptable" and talked about making a "truly historic commitment" to improve it. Some of the highlights included his proposals to train more teachers and pay them better, to make college more affordable for those who commit to public service, and to fix the "broken promises" of the No Child Left Behind law. It's not entirely clear how he plans to pay for some of these proposals. For example, he promised to make community college completely free and offer a $4,000 tax credit to cover two thirds of the tuition at an average public college. He also made this pledge to those who sign up to become teachers: "If you commit your life to teaching, America will commit to paying for your college education." http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2008/5/30/obama-finally-talks-tough-on-education-policy.html)
So, which education policy do you support? None, because there is none.
Virtually the only "policy" that Obama has articulated beyond the garbled Iraq message he is sending is his tax plan, which really isn't HIS - it's Albert Goolsbee's. Most economic experts indicate that he will generate so little revenue that he wouldn't be able to pay for any services. Let alone the teacher raise he alludes to above.
Infrastructure policy? His only strategy is throw money at it, which seems to be his answer to everything
So much for the "sound economic policy" you were talking about.
By the way, did you know that while Obama was an Illinois Senator, the Chicago Skyway as well as other Chicago and Illinois roadways were SOLD to a Spanish conglomerate. That makes a lot of sense. Let's let the transportation around one of America's most populated and strategic cities be owned by a European country that less than 75 years ago supprted Hitler.
You didn't know that did you? Of course not. Barry doesn't talk about it . Dont trust me, read it yourself. They own it for 99 YEARS. I don't think I have to explain the economic as well as SECURITY implications that selling off our infrastructure to foreign firms carries. It is a lot different than buying a building.
It makes a lot of sense when you examine Obama's policy towards the UN. The organization that Michelle is on the board of directors of - The Chicago Council on Global Affairs (which is like a mini-CFR), helped negotiate it.
If this quote from Abueskedti is the best you can do as far as rationale for your decision, then this post proves what I've been saying all along, more than I every could.
Obama supporters, for the most part, are unaware of his policies (or lack thereof) and are going to cast their vote based around nothing more than a "hunch". There is no substance to anything Barry is saying, but he looks pretty while he does it. There is no legislative record to really looks at because he ducked anythign controversial, there is no real work history to even look at besides being a lawyer for a few years, everything else was non-profit. You're left with his book to tell you what he believes in.
You guys owe it to yourselves and everyone else in this country to inform yourselves about what a candidate really stands for. You can probably better articulate why you want a particular American Idol contestant to win.
Good Morning raszputini,
Allow me to retort. Please let us go slow, it is common in political bashing to give laundry lists of "facts" so overwhelming that there can only be one conclusion. so please may we isolate yours for further review.
In your first statement you actually said "Obama supports continuing to erode US sovereignty"
Is that based in fact or intuition? Do you want to discuss policy and debate the pros and cons of the Global Anti-Poverty Act or shall we all accept your "hunch" and allow you to build from there?
The Great and Powerful Abuskedti knows why you have come. Step forward.
like the Global Anti-Poverty Act which is a tax on US Citizens that transfers our resources to the UN. Do you support that? That's what I mean by policies.
I just wanted say every country inside the UN has (as in, it's an obligation if you're a member) to fund the UN. The US is way late in paiments (see : http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=475727). Being a member of the security council gives you a lot of power and it also gives you the capacity to decide major directions for the UN policies.
You didn't discuss ANY policy...you discussed ships and generalizations based on nothing.
I will vote AGAINST Obama because he supports continuing to erode US sovereignty with policies like the Global Anti-Poverty Act which is a tax on US Citizens that transfers our resources to the UN. Do you support that? That's what I mean by policies.
I will vote FOR McCain because, he has the military experience and sense to get us out of Iraq without creating so much instability that we'll be forced to go back. I base that around is Congress and military record. He also has enough honesty to support a policy that may be unpopular, but is right. Obama's policy is nearly the same, but he rhetorically tries to pretend it is something else - that coupled with his lack of ANY real experience in foreign policy is worrisome to me.
Education SHOULD be an issue that Obama supporters can rally around. The problem is that he hasn't offered any policy beyond a critique of Bush's policy.
"Obama described the American public-education system as "morally unacceptable" and talked about making a "truly historic commitment" to improve it. Some of the highlights included his proposals to train more teachers and pay them better, to make college more affordable for those who commit to public service, and to fix the "broken promises" of the No Child Left Behind law. It's not entirely clear how he plans to pay for some of these proposals. For example, he promised to make community college completely free and offer a $4,000 tax credit to cover two thirds of the tuition at an average public college. He also made this pledge to those who sign up to become teachers: "If you commit your life to teaching, America will commit to paying for your college education." http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2008/5/30/obama-finally-talks-tough-on-education-policy.html)
So, which education policy do you support? None, because there is none.
Virtually the only "policy" that Obama has articulated beyond the garbled Iraq message he is sending is his tax plan, which really isn't HIS - it's Albert Goolsbee's. Most economic experts indicate that he will generate so little revenue that he wouldn't be able to pay for any services. Let alone the teacher raise he alludes to above.
Infrastructure policy? His only strategy is throw money at it, which seems to be his answer to everything
So much for the "sound economic policy" you were talking about.
By the way, did you know that while Obama was an Illinois Senator, the Chicago Skyway as well as other Chicago and Illinois roadways were SOLD to a Spanish conglomerate. That makes a lot of sense. Let's let the transportation around one of America's most populated and strategic cities be owned by a European country that less than 75 years ago supprted Hitler.
You didn't know that did you? Of course not. Barry doesn't talk about it . Dont trust me, read it yourself. They own it for 99 YEARS. I don't think I have to explain the economic as well as SECURITY implications that selling off our infrastructure to foreign firms carries. It is a lot different than buying a building.
It makes a lot of sense when you examine Obama's policy towards the UN. The organization that Michelle is on the board of directors of - The Chicago Council on Global Affairs (which is like a mini-CFR), helped negotiate it.
If this quote from Abueskedti is the best you can do as far as rationale for your decision, then this post proves what I've been saying all along, more than I every could.
Obama supporters, for the most part, are unaware of his policies (or lack thereof) and are going to cast their vote based around nothing more than a "hunch". There is no substance to anything Barry is saying, but he looks pretty while he does it. There is no legislative record to really looks at because he ducked anythign controversial, there is no real work history to even look at besides being a lawyer for a few years, everything else was non-profit. You're left with his book to tell you what he believes in.
You guys owe it to yourselves and everyone else in this country to inform yourselves about what a candidate really stands for. You can probably better articulate why you want a particular American Idol contestant to win.
this is amusing...you ask a question, wanting specifics, which were given, yet you don't seem to understand or even read the response given...or, since you don't agree, you discount and ask the same question again...
it's also amusing, you share nothing...I'll say it again, nothing focusing upon McCain's policy...you offer no specifics...
when I read your response, it seem as if your voting for McCain because you like him....oh my...
perhaps you could name a couple of McCain's specific policy's...other than being anti-celebrity and anti-tire gauge, and pro-turning off the lights 5 minutes sooner, he's offered nothing...
really..
i think it was the other way around..
can't recall obama or any of his supporters making comments about assasination attempts on HER. can you?
Let's just say everyone has picked their sides... right or wrong...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I will vote AGAINST Obama because he supports continuing to erode US sovereignty with policies like the Global Anti-Poverty Act which is a tax on US Citizens that transfers our resources to the UN. Do you support that?
.
Yes. i do.
i hardly see how that is an "erosion of our sovereignity".
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
you're just pissed because you wanted to make cereal box jokes about hillary too. i know what you are up to!
it's all part of the plan....
I got my Hillary cuts in. I think Obama's decisions are more a sign of an aloof public. Who is he trying to make happy to get votes from after all
viva la empire..
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Allow me to retort. Please let us go slow, it is common in political bashing to give laundry lists of "facts" so overwhelming that there can only be one conclusion. so please may we isolate yours for further review.
In your first statement you actually said "Obama supports continuing to erode US sovereignty"
Is that based in fact or intuition? Do you want to discuss policy and debate the pros and cons of the Global Anti-Poverty Act or shall we all accept your "hunch" and allow you to build from there?
The Great and Powerful Abuskedti knows why you have come. Step forward.
Cool.
Let's start with the Global Anti-Poverty Act (S2433). This program basically transfers .7% (up to 845 billion dollarsof the US Gross National Product to the United Nations for it to redistribute how it sees fit to struggling nations, basically creating a global welfare system managed by the United Nations. It was written and sponsored by Obama. I'm cool with being charitable and helping out nations that are struggling, but I have a lot of problems with this.
This act completely subverts our bilateral foreign relations. An example: regardless to what you think about the Cuban Embargo (I oppose it), it is nonetheless, US policy. This act would allow the UN to transfer funds to Cuba to improve quality of life by building infrastructure, fuding social services, and other efforts. So, US Cuban-American citizens would be bankrolling the regime they fled through paying US taxes. Beyond ironic.
It represents a global tax on US citizens, with no representation, which is unconstitutional on multiple levels. That's why it is dressed up as foreign aid. It is NOT foreign aid, however, as once we send the check out, we have no oversight on WHERE it goes or WHY it is given.
This, of course, gets paid for by US taxpayers, in an unapportioned and unrepresentative way.
This is just one of the of Obama's New Globalist policies that worry me. Under his watch as Senator in Illinois, much of the state's infrastructure was basically "auctioned off" to foreign firms, including the Chicago Skyway and a number of other important roadways and bridges. I mentioned this in a little greater detail in another post somewhere, but the bottom line is that managing, ensuring safety and maintaining the security of some of our important infrastructure, as well as the economic benefits to be reaped(tolls) have been transferred to foreign firms. These firms have ownership of this infrastructure, in most cases for 99 years.
Michelle is on the Board of Directors of the Chicago Institute for Globalization, which is like a mini-CFR at the regional level, many of the members, including Michelle, are members of both. Conspiracy-theories aside, there is a lot of evil that is spewn from them. From a humanitarian perspective, much of the repressive world bank and IMF loans and assistance programs that have resulted a never ending Third World debt as well as totally "wacko" scenarios where the UN is testing drugs on lesser developed countries to determine whether they are safe in a "Western" market, forccing sterilizations and innoculations, etc were born at the Council on Foreign Relations. The Chicago council, by the way, helped negotiate some of the infrastructure deals in IL.
Obama views himself is a Global Citizen, and while in a time of global challenges, there are benefits to that. He has demonstrated a willingness to turn a blind eye to our nation's best interest on multiple occasions to further this global "vision" he and Michelle have.
Global cooperation is imperative to resolving climate issues, curbing nuclear proliferation, and an entire host of issues, including poverty, but there have to be limits to how far you are willing to screw others over, as well as a clear indication that you are representing your constituents. Obama certainly didn't have the citizens of Illnois' best interest in one of these examples, he shows he doesn't have the nation's interest in mind on the other
this is amusing...you ask a question, wanting specifics, which were given, yet you don't seem to understand or even read the response given...or, since you don't agree, you discount and ask the same question again...
it's also amusing, you share nothing...I'll say it again, nothing focusing upon McCain's policy...you offer no specifics...
when I read your response, it seem as if your voting for McCain because you like him....oh my...
perhaps you could name a couple of McCain's specific policy's...other than being anti-celebrity and anti-tire gauge, and pro-turning off the lights 5 minutes sooner, he's offered nothing...
Look, we can all pretend that you guys are talking about policy and I'm not, and continue being two ships passing in the night, or you can talk about issues. Anyone who reads this post can very clearly see which is which
I am talking about Obama's POLICY, that he SPONSORED, called the Global Anti_poverty ACT. Senate Bill S2433. It is a POLICY.
I think it sucks, whay do you think about it? Better yet, which POLICY of Obama's do you like? I've been asking for four days now for anyone to contribute.
Saying "I like his education policy" means nothing. Saying, I agree that Community College should be free and paid for by US tax dollars is an actual policy statement.
Maybe when I used the world "policy" it confused some people.......
"Policy" - Noun -
"A plan or course of action, as of a government, political party, or business, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, and other matters: American foreign policy; the company's personnel policy."
I just wanted say every country inside the UN has (as in, it's an obligation if you're a member) to fund the UN. The US is way late in paiments (see : http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=475727). Being a member of the security council gives you a lot of power and it also gives you the capacity to decide major directions for the UN policies.
You're absolutely correct and we should pay our bill if we're going to be a member, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the Global Anti-Poverty Act.
Organization dues and allowing it to tax your people are VERY DIFFERENT
Yes. i do.
i hardly see how that is an "erosion of our sovereignity".
Then you haven't read it. This bill was passed by the Senate Freign Relations Committee with no debate and by a voice vote. That's what Congress does when they don't want you to know who voted because no record is kept of those who passed it. Those strategies were employed for a reason. I recommend you read it, and then say why you like it.
Every US citizen has a $2500 share in this. That is the estimated cost per person.
Look, we can all pretend that you guys are talking about policy and I'm not, and continue being two ships passing in the night, or you can talk about issues. Anyone who reads this post can very clearly see which is which
I am talking about Obama's POLICY, that he SPONSORED, called the Global Anti_poverty ACT. Senate Bill S2433. It is a POLICY.
I think it sucks, whay do you think about it? Better yet, which POLICY of Obama's do you like? I've been asking for four days now for anyone to contribute.
Saying "I like his education policy" means nothing. Saying, I agree that Community College should be free and paid for by US tax dollars is an actual policy statement.
Maybe when I used the world "policy" it confused some people.......
"Policy" - Noun -
"A plan or course of action, as of a government, political party, or business, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, and other matters: American foreign policy; the company's personnel policy."
I'll ask again...name a 'Policy" of McCain's of which you support...
and no need to be smarmy...I understand what a policy is, and reviewing your posts I see nothing specific pertaining to McCain's policies, in post #60 attempted to speak to policy, but fell short, by injecting your own spin...
so perhaps you can follow you own newly established posting rules....
A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.
Other Bill Titles (3 more)Hide Other Bill Titles
* Official: A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day. as introduced.
* Short: Global Poverty Act of 2007 as reported to senate.
* Short: Global Poverty Act of 2007 as introduced.
4/24/2008--Reported to Senate amended. Global Poverty Act of 2007 - Directs the President, through the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day. Requires the strategy to contain specific and measurable goals and to consist of specified components, including:
(1) continued investment or involvement in existing U.S. initiatives related to international poverty reduction and trade preference programs for developing countries;
(2) improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate;
(3) enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate;
(4) mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses and public-private partnerships;
(5) coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other internationally recognized Millennium Development Goals; and
(6) integrating principles of sustainable development and entrepreneurship into policies and programs. Sets forth specified reporting requirements. Directs the Secretary of State to designate a coordinator who will have primary responsibility for overseeing and drafting the reports, as well as responsibility for helping to implement recommendations contained in the reports. Defines specified terms.
I'll ask again...name a 'Policy" of McCain's of which you support...
and no need to be smarmy...I understand what a policy is, and reviewing your posts I see nothing specific pertaining to McCain's policies, in post #60 attempted to speak to policy, but fell short, by injecting your own spin...
so perhaps you can follow you own newly established posting rules....
Well....this post was about Obama's policies (at least my part of it was). I've suggested a few of McCain's policies that I support, particularly Iraq and why his policy for removing troops is more real-world and more likley to keep us from needing to go back later, his tax policy, campaign finance efforts, etc. That's not what the post was about, however, it was about Obama's policies.
I had issued a challenge to Obama supporters to discuss an actual POLICY they supported. For four days now, I've responded to people doing ANYTHING but that.
Your response was to answer a question with a question, which is certainly strategic, but nonetheless fails to respond to the central question, which is "Do Obama supporters actually support (or even know) his policies? If so, which ones?
We can start a thread about McCain's policies if you'd like, and I'll be happy to participate.
How SILLY! Please read the bill, not it's description. It is an unprecedented tax on American citizens by the United Nations.
I don't think anyone here believes we should say fuck the poor. This bill has great intentions, no one disputes that - it's what the bill ACTUALLY does that is the problem.
It transfers 875 Billion dollars of US taxpayer money to the UN. Your individual share is estimated at $2500. No Congressional oversight. No control over how the money gets spent. No control over which countries it is transferred to, even if it undermines US diplomatic efforts (some of the poorest nations are the most repressive).
This represents the first step to a Global Welfare State bankrolled by the good ole US, probably through an increase in the gas or sales tax (they haven't figured out where the money comes from yet).
Let's start with the Global Anti-Poverty Act (S2433). This program basically transfers .7% (up to 845 billion dollarsof the US Gross National Product to the United Nations for it to redistribute how it sees fit to struggling nations, basically creating a global welfare system managed by the United Nations. It was written and sponsored by Obama. I'm cool with being charitable and helping out nations that are struggling, but I have a lot of problems with this.
This act completely subverts our bilateral foreign relations. An example: regardless to what you think about the Cuban Embargo (I oppose it), it is nonetheless, US policy. This act would allow the UN to transfer funds to Cuba to improve quality of life by building infrastructure, fuding social services, and other efforts. So, US Cuban-American citizens would be bankrolling the regime they fled through paying US taxes. Beyond ironic.
It represents a global tax on US citizens, with no representation, which is unconstitutional on multiple levels. That's why it is dressed up as foreign aid. It is NOT foreign aid, however, as once we send the check out, we have no oversight on WHERE it goes or WHY it is given.
This, of course, gets paid for by US taxpayers, in an unapportioned and unrepresentative way.
Where is the good faith... I deleted the part where you got carried away with extra information that takes attention away from out discussion which I thought was to be about the pros and cons of the Global Anti-Poverty Act.
the discussion was spawned by your desire to talk policy and not personality or intuition.. correct?
so please, lets begin by removing your intuition from this small post of yours.
Your example for Cuba does highlight a certain Irony. However, you'd have to agree that supporting an initiative that creates irony does not a bad man or bad policy make.
You make a claim that this is taxation without representation. Can you please explain. As I see it, the bill was already passed the body that represents every American. The money will be spent at the discression of the United Nations - a body which has the United States as a voting member with a voice and the right to review their expenditures and its rationale.
they you reiterate by saying we have no Oversight.. what do you mean by oversight? because we certainly get to see what is being spent and comment. and even vote.
Do you want to discuss the merits of the bill, or make a point about a man with whome you seem to intuitively object? Lets debate the law - prior to your making these sweeping unsupported accusations.
Quote the law - then interpret and allow me to interpret. Nothing hidden.
These are your terms, because this is about the policy - right?
Clinton was the virtual incumbent. She started February with about a 30 point lead in all polls. The underdog challenger is not "threatened" by the champ. That it isn't how it works. If anything, it was the other way around.
Hillary could still whip Barak's ass in the ring...
regardless....it was rather tense there for a while....bobo, and she beast....in this universe anyways...other ones?...feel free to speculate.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I'll ask again...name a 'Policy" of McCain's of which you support...
and no need to be smarmy...I understand what a policy is, and reviewing your posts I see nothing specific pertaining to McCain's policies, in post #60 attempted to speak to policy, but fell short, by injecting your own spin...
so perhaps you can follow you own newly established posting rules....
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
It's ironic that you say I am "spinning", yet you call me Karl Rove and don't respond to any of the substantive things I say. I think what you do is more likely to meet the definition of "spin"
I certainly don't feel the need to apologize for McCain's religious affiliations in light of the Rev. Wright debaucle. No relationship of McCain's is as crazy as that. Call that spin if you want. It's reality. In all of my Obama 'bashing" I've never even brought up Wright, except as in response to "Falwell". I think neither are important enough to base my vote around.
It is VERY TELLING that the only response anyone has is about Wright - none of the political issues or positions. Everything I posted are simply facts from the candidates mouths.
Don't attack me, attack my ARGUMENTS.
I can't remember where I read the "pussy" remark. I think I cited it in another post, somewhere. wikipedia has changed it to "wimp". I very clearly read that DeConcini called him something else though.
The challenge still stands, and has been up for 3 days. Any Obama supporter please provide a POLICY reason for voting for Obama. Please ensure that you know what his policies REALLY are, though. It's amazing that there are so many supporters on this board and someone hasn't just crushed everything I am saying. Your candidate should give you more ammo.
Hannity is a hack and I never listen to anything he says. I'll agree that I'm probably not qualified to discuss her thesis. I can't read it all because she has had it pulled from the public domain. That alone makes me very suspicious - why wouldn't you want it read?(http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/thesis.asp)
I have read a few excerpts here or there and that seems to be what it focusses on. I'll concede that I probably shouldn't have said that. You probably shouldn't of said the tings you did about Cindy McCain either.
We were both a little childish there.
Except i never mentioned Cindy McCain.
too hard to discern from all the anti-Hillary hate rhetoric....
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
My apologies. This began when pj_gurl started on Cindy McCain.
well, you really didn't discuss too much policy...
anyhoo, I'll answer your question as to a policy Obama is espousing of which makes me want to support him....he focuses on the need to focus on our crumbling infrastructure...
and to address your repeated repeated repeated assertion that obama supporters are not providing a POLICY reason for voting for Obama...I guess I wonder what you expect one to say...what I mean is, every candidate running office will say the following:
I support education policy
I support security policy
I support strong economic policys
I support policies that support freedom
I want a sound energy policy
and so on...
and so on...my point is this, if you'd like to find out his policies, and more importantly, the how's and what's[/ii] take a look for yourself...
my reason for supporting Mr. Obama can be summed up in a post by the great Abuskedti...
I will vote AGAINST Obama because he supports continuing to erode US sovereignty with policies like the Global Anti-Poverty Act which is a tax on US Citizens that transfers our resources to the UN. Do you support that? That's what I mean by policies.
I will vote FOR McCain because, he has the military experience and sense to get us out of Iraq without creating so much instability that we'll be forced to go back. I base that around is Congress and military record. He also has enough honesty to support a policy that may be unpopular, but is right. Obama's policy is nearly the same, but he rhetorically tries to pretend it is something else - that coupled with his lack of ANY real experience in foreign policy is worrisome to me.
Education SHOULD be an issue that Obama supporters can rally around. The problem is that he hasn't offered any policy beyond a critique of Bush's policy.
"Obama described the American public-education system as "morally unacceptable" and talked about making a "truly historic commitment" to improve it. Some of the highlights included his proposals to train more teachers and pay them better, to make college more affordable for those who commit to public service, and to fix the "broken promises" of the No Child Left Behind law. It's not entirely clear how he plans to pay for some of these proposals. For example, he promised to make community college completely free and offer a $4,000 tax credit to cover two thirds of the tuition at an average public college. He also made this pledge to those who sign up to become teachers: "If you commit your life to teaching, America will commit to paying for your college education."
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2008/5/30/obama-finally-talks-tough-on-education-policy.html)
So, which education policy do you support? None, because there is none.
Virtually the only "policy" that Obama has articulated beyond the garbled Iraq message he is sending is his tax plan, which really isn't HIS - it's Albert Goolsbee's. Most economic experts indicate that he will generate so little revenue that he wouldn't be able to pay for any services. Let alone the teacher raise he alludes to above.
Infrastructure policy? His only strategy is throw money at it, which seems to be his answer to everything
"Sen. Barack Obama Monday proposed spending billions to revitalize the nation's economy, a plan the campaign of his likely Republican opponent said would slow economic growth with higher taxes."(http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/16/candidates.economy/index.html)
So much for the "sound economic policy" you were talking about.
By the way, did you know that while Obama was an Illinois Senator, the Chicago Skyway as well as other Chicago and Illinois roadways were SOLD to a Spanish conglomerate. That makes a lot of sense. Let's let the transportation around one of America's most populated and strategic cities be owned by a European country that less than 75 years ago supprted Hitler.
You didn't know that did you? Of course not. Barry doesn't talk about it . Dont trust me, read it yourself. They own it for 99 YEARS. I don't think I have to explain the economic as well as SECURITY implications that selling off our infrastructure to foreign firms carries. It is a lot different than buying a building.
http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2006/01/23/news/top_news/d4175b4b3b6e7890862570fe00188ac3.txt
It makes a lot of sense when you examine Obama's policy towards the UN. The organization that Michelle is on the board of directors of - The Chicago Council on Global Affairs (which is like a mini-CFR), helped negotiate it.
If this quote from Abueskedti is the best you can do as far as rationale for your decision, then this post proves what I've been saying all along, more than I every could.
Obama supporters, for the most part, are unaware of his policies (or lack thereof) and are going to cast their vote based around nothing more than a "hunch". There is no substance to anything Barry is saying, but he looks pretty while he does it. There is no legislative record to really looks at because he ducked anythign controversial, there is no real work history to even look at besides being a lawyer for a few years, everything else was non-profit. You're left with his book to tell you what he believes in.
You guys owe it to yourselves and everyone else in this country to inform yourselves about what a candidate really stands for. You can probably better articulate why you want a particular American Idol contestant to win.
i have never mentioned cindy mccain once in any conversation on this message board.....
i think it was the other way around..
can't recall obama or any of his supporters making comments about assasination attempts on HER. can you?
Regardless, all I was doing was trying to post that I wasn't qualified to make the remarks I did because I hadn't read all of her thesis, and to apologize for saying something I couldn't back up.
Good Morning raszputini,
Allow me to retort. Please let us go slow, it is common in political bashing to give laundry lists of "facts" so overwhelming that there can only be one conclusion. so please may we isolate yours for further review.
In your first statement you actually said "Obama supports continuing to erode US sovereignty"
Is that based in fact or intuition? Do you want to discuss policy and debate the pros and cons of the Global Anti-Poverty Act or shall we all accept your "hunch" and allow you to build from there?
The Great and Powerful Abuskedti knows why you have come. Step forward.
this is amusing...you ask a question, wanting specifics, which were given, yet you don't seem to understand or even read the response given...or, since you don't agree, you discount and ask the same question again...
it's also amusing, you share nothing...I'll say it again, nothing focusing upon McCain's policy...you offer no specifics...
when I read your response, it seem as if your voting for McCain because you like him....oh my...
perhaps you could name a couple of McCain's specific policy's...other than being anti-celebrity and anti-tire gauge, and pro-turning off the lights 5 minutes sooner, he's offered nothing...
Let's just say everyone has picked their sides... right or wrong...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
it's all part of the plan....
Yes. i do.
i hardly see how that is an "erosion of our sovereignity".
I got my Hillary cuts in. I think Obama's decisions are more a sign of an aloof public. Who is he trying to make happy to get votes from after all
viva la empire..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Cool.
Let's start with the Global Anti-Poverty Act (S2433). This program basically transfers .7% (up to 845 billion dollarsof the US Gross National Product to the United Nations for it to redistribute how it sees fit to struggling nations, basically creating a global welfare system managed by the United Nations. It was written and sponsored by Obama. I'm cool with being charitable and helping out nations that are struggling, but I have a lot of problems with this.
This act completely subverts our bilateral foreign relations. An example: regardless to what you think about the Cuban Embargo (I oppose it), it is nonetheless, US policy. This act would allow the UN to transfer funds to Cuba to improve quality of life by building infrastructure, fuding social services, and other efforts. So, US Cuban-American citizens would be bankrolling the regime they fled through paying US taxes. Beyond ironic.
It represents a global tax on US citizens, with no representation, which is unconstitutional on multiple levels. That's why it is dressed up as foreign aid. It is NOT foreign aid, however, as once we send the check out, we have no oversight on WHERE it goes or WHY it is given.
This, of course, gets paid for by US taxpayers, in an unapportioned and unrepresentative way.
This is just one of the of Obama's New Globalist policies that worry me. Under his watch as Senator in Illinois, much of the state's infrastructure was basically "auctioned off" to foreign firms, including the Chicago Skyway and a number of other important roadways and bridges. I mentioned this in a little greater detail in another post somewhere, but the bottom line is that managing, ensuring safety and maintaining the security of some of our important infrastructure, as well as the economic benefits to be reaped(tolls) have been transferred to foreign firms. These firms have ownership of this infrastructure, in most cases for 99 years.
Michelle is on the Board of Directors of the Chicago Institute for Globalization, which is like a mini-CFR at the regional level, many of the members, including Michelle, are members of both. Conspiracy-theories aside, there is a lot of evil that is spewn from them. From a humanitarian perspective, much of the repressive world bank and IMF loans and assistance programs that have resulted a never ending Third World debt as well as totally "wacko" scenarios where the UN is testing drugs on lesser developed countries to determine whether they are safe in a "Western" market, forccing sterilizations and innoculations, etc were born at the Council on Foreign Relations. The Chicago council, by the way, helped negotiate some of the infrastructure deals in IL.
Obama views himself is a Global Citizen, and while in a time of global challenges, there are benefits to that. He has demonstrated a willingness to turn a blind eye to our nation's best interest on multiple occasions to further this global "vision" he and Michelle have.
Global cooperation is imperative to resolving climate issues, curbing nuclear proliferation, and an entire host of issues, including poverty, but there have to be limits to how far you are willing to screw others over, as well as a clear indication that you are representing your constituents. Obama certainly didn't have the citizens of Illnois' best interest in one of these examples, he shows he doesn't have the nation's interest in mind on the other
Look, we can all pretend that you guys are talking about policy and I'm not, and continue being two ships passing in the night, or you can talk about issues. Anyone who reads this post can very clearly see which is which
I am talking about Obama's POLICY, that he SPONSORED, called the Global Anti_poverty ACT. Senate Bill S2433. It is a POLICY.
I think it sucks, whay do you think about it? Better yet, which POLICY of Obama's do you like? I've been asking for four days now for anyone to contribute.
Saying "I like his education policy" means nothing. Saying, I agree that Community College should be free and paid for by US tax dollars is an actual policy statement.
Maybe when I used the world "policy" it confused some people.......
"Policy" - Noun -
"A plan or course of action, as of a government, political party, or business, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, and other matters: American foreign policy; the company's personnel policy."
You're absolutely correct and we should pay our bill if we're going to be a member, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the Global Anti-Poverty Act.
Organization dues and allowing it to tax your people are VERY DIFFERENT
Then you haven't read it. This bill was passed by the Senate Freign Relations Committee with no debate and by a voice vote. That's what Congress does when they don't want you to know who voted because no record is kept of those who passed it. Those strategies were employed for a reason. I recommend you read it, and then say why you like it.
Every US citizen has a $2500 share in this. That is the estimated cost per person.
Here read about it, you obviously haven't yet
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70308
I'll ask again...name a 'Policy" of McCain's of which you support...
and no need to be smarmy...I understand what a policy is, and reviewing your posts I see nothing specific pertaining to McCain's policies, in post #60 attempted to speak to policy, but fell short, by injecting your own spin...
so perhaps you can follow you own newly established posting rules....
yeah, what a dick...fuck the poor...:rolleyes:
Well....this post was about Obama's policies (at least my part of it was). I've suggested a few of McCain's policies that I support, particularly Iraq and why his policy for removing troops is more real-world and more likley to keep us from needing to go back later, his tax policy, campaign finance efforts, etc. That's not what the post was about, however, it was about Obama's policies.
I had issued a challenge to Obama supporters to discuss an actual POLICY they supported. For four days now, I've responded to people doing ANYTHING but that.
Your response was to answer a question with a question, which is certainly strategic, but nonetheless fails to respond to the central question, which is "Do Obama supporters actually support (or even know) his policies? If so, which ones?
We can start a thread about McCain's policies if you'd like, and I'll be happy to participate.
How SILLY! Please read the bill, not it's description. It is an unprecedented tax on American citizens by the United Nations.
I don't think anyone here believes we should say fuck the poor. This bill has great intentions, no one disputes that - it's what the bill ACTUALLY does that is the problem.
It transfers 875 Billion dollars of US taxpayer money to the UN. Your individual share is estimated at $2500. No Congressional oversight. No control over how the money gets spent. No control over which countries it is transferred to, even if it undermines US diplomatic efforts (some of the poorest nations are the most repressive).
This represents the first step to a Global Welfare State bankrolled by the good ole US, probably through an increase in the gas or sales tax (they haven't figured out where the money comes from yet).
Where is the good faith... I deleted the part where you got carried away with extra information that takes attention away from out discussion which I thought was to be about the pros and cons of the Global Anti-Poverty Act.
the discussion was spawned by your desire to talk policy and not personality or intuition.. correct?
so please, lets begin by removing your intuition from this small post of yours.
Your example for Cuba does highlight a certain Irony. However, you'd have to agree that supporting an initiative that creates irony does not a bad man or bad policy make.
You make a claim that this is taxation without representation. Can you please explain. As I see it, the bill was already passed the body that represents every American. The money will be spent at the discression of the United Nations - a body which has the United States as a voting member with a voice and the right to review their expenditures and its rationale.
they you reiterate by saying we have no Oversight.. what do you mean by oversight? because we certainly get to see what is being spent and comment. and even vote.
Do you want to discuss the merits of the bill, or make a point about a man with whome you seem to intuitively object? Lets debate the law - prior to your making these sweeping unsupported accusations.
Quote the law - then interpret and allow me to interpret. Nothing hidden.
These are your terms, because this is about the policy - right?
Hillary could still whip Barak's ass in the ring...
regardless....it was rather tense there for a while....bobo, and she beast....in this universe anyways...other ones?...feel free to speculate.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
they wont talk about that...
its not cool enough or radical enough
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
made me chuckle:D