Maybe Obama needs some flip flops now too
- Thread starter Gygax1974
- Start date
LoudBlunts
Well-Known Member
damn.... that is good to know. good looking out on the post!
medicineman
New Member
Obama will not prosecute medical MJ patients or approve raids on state legal pot stores.
Sen. Obama has publicly promised to end the federal raids on state medical marijuana patients and their caregivers. Sen. Obama also voted against an amendment in the U.S. Senate that was intended to undermine state medical marijuana laws.
http://granitestaters.com/candidates/barack_obama.html
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=GUze-oYsswI&feature=related
A presidential candidate that openly endorsed legalizing pot would lose millions of votes in the general election, just wait untill he gets in then petition the government for MJ reform
Sen. Obama has publicly promised to end the federal raids on state medical marijuana patients and their caregivers. Sen. Obama also voted against an amendment in the U.S. Senate that was intended to undermine state medical marijuana laws.
http://granitestaters.com/candidates/barack_obama.html
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=GUze-oYsswI&feature=related
A presidential candidate that openly endorsed legalizing pot would lose millions of votes in the general election, just wait untill he gets in then petition the government for MJ reform
Smoke2Live420
New Member
No one should even vote for him..i cant believe hes winning these primaries...id rather see hillary clinton win..hopefully she stops the drug war..and i think that if its good enough to use as medicinal reasons, then everyone should be able to smoke it..its not like were not going to anyways..tehy need to stop being dumb and end the drug war period..thats whats cost the states billions!!
medicineman
New Member
Why would you recommend voting for Hillary, same old shit all over again? Do you actually like what Bush has been doing minus the tax cuts? Because that is what you get with Hillary.
medicineman
New Member
Let's see, Maybe those 65 million disenfranchised Americans will get health care, Is that a change? Maybe He'll bring home the troops and stop the war, is that a change? maybe he'll roll back the tax cuts for the richest 2% and start funding things like no child left behind, the gutted program the Bush regime pushed for change then didn't fund, would that be a change? Maybe he'll start taxing corporate loopholes and rewarding those corporations that don't hire illegals and or ship jobs overseas, would that be a change. There are many more changes on his agenda, like repealing the Patriot act and getting ahold of the FISA Laws and make damn sure the govt. has a warrant before spying on you, would that be a change. don't come on here and talk shit about what you know nothing about. McCain would be the President of no changes, in fact he would continue on the Bush path of total domination of the population and war everywhere.
closet.cult
New Member
tax changes are the only thing a president ever does. besides starting wars.
i concur: without monetary reform, nothing substantial is going to change in washington, democratic president or not.
i highly doubt obama would even end the war with the time frame he says. "oh look, a terrorist just bombed oklahoma city again."-is all it would take. the president doesn't control the CIA.
i concur: without monetary reform, nothing substantial is going to change in washington, democratic president or not.
i highly doubt obama would even end the war with the time frame he says. "oh look, a terrorist just bombed oklahoma city again."-is all it would take. the president doesn't control the CIA.
ViRedd
New Member
Here's what we need ... global socialism!
Obama bill: $845 billion more for global poverty
[FONT=Palatino,][SIZE=+1]Democrat sponsors act OK'd by Senate panel that would cost 0.7% of gross national product[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1]Posted: February 16, 2008
1:02 am Eastern
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]WorldNetDaily [/SIZE]
Barak Obam
Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.
The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, "We can – and must – make … a priority," said Obama, a co-sponsor.
It would demand that the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.
When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate.
"It's not our job to cut global poverty," said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. "These people need to learn how to fish themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot."
Many Americans were alerted to the legislation by a report from Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media. He published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels "of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."
He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."
The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."
A statement from Obama's office this week noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.
"Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued.
The bill institutes the United Nations Millennium Summit goals as the benchmarks for U.S. spending.
"It is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day," a statement issued by supporters, including Obama, said.
Specifically, it would "declare" that the official U.S. policy is to eliminate global poverty, that the president is "required" to "develop and implement" a strategy to reach that goal and requires that the U.S. efforts be "specific and measurable."
Kincaid said that after cutting through all of the honorable-sounding goals in the plan, the bottom line is that the legislation would mandate the 0.7 percent of the U.S. GNP as "official development assistance."
"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," he said.
Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims.
Kincaid also reported Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the "Millennium Project," confirms a U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP would add about $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already donates overseas.
And the only way to raise that funding, Sachs confirms, "is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels," Kincaid writes.
On the forum run by Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, one writer reported estimates of taxes from 35 cents to $1 dollar a gallon on gasoline would be needed.
"This is disgusting, sickening and angers me to the depths of my soul," the forum author wrote. "Obama wants us to support the world. I wonder how they intend to eliminate poverty. Most of the money always winds up in some dictator hands and in the U.N. coffers."
WND calls to Obama's office, as well as the offices of others who supported the plan, were not successful in obtaining a comment.
Another forum participant said, "Yes, and we should also eliminate sickness of any kind and get rid of poverty as well. Then, too, we should make certain that everyone in the world has equal assets, equal money, a college education, etc… After that, or maybe while we are solving all of the world's little problems, we can take care of the polar bears, eliminate the internal combustion engine, and, and, and… Oh dear, if only we would just go ahead and do all the things the dreamers want us to do. Let's stop using oil and burning coal while we're at it. Then we can make it illegal to be overweight and then we can. ..."
One forum contributor said since the legislation doesn't specifically demand "taxes," but instead leaves the mandatory "implementation" up to the president, "maybe the tooth fairy will leave [this new money] under the president's pillow."
Kincaid reported several more budget-minded senators have put a hold on the legislation "in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote."
The legislation requires the president to do whatever is required to fulfill a strategy that would result in "the elimination of extreme global poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide … who live on less than $1 per day."
It further requires the president not only to accomplish that goal but, "not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this act," to submit a report on "the contributions provided by the United States" toward poverty reduction.
Obama bill: $845 billion more for global poverty
[FONT=Palatino,][SIZE=+1]Democrat sponsors act OK'd by Senate panel that would cost 0.7% of gross national product[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1]Posted: February 16, 2008
1:02 am Eastern
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]WorldNetDaily [/SIZE]
Barak Obam
Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.
The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, "We can – and must – make … a priority," said Obama, a co-sponsor.
It would demand that the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.
When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate.
"It's not our job to cut global poverty," said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. "These people need to learn how to fish themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot."
Many Americans were alerted to the legislation by a report from Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media. He published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels "of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."
He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."
The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."
A statement from Obama's office this week noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.
"Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued.
The bill institutes the United Nations Millennium Summit goals as the benchmarks for U.S. spending.
"It is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day," a statement issued by supporters, including Obama, said.
Specifically, it would "declare" that the official U.S. policy is to eliminate global poverty, that the president is "required" to "develop and implement" a strategy to reach that goal and requires that the U.S. efforts be "specific and measurable."
Kincaid said that after cutting through all of the honorable-sounding goals in the plan, the bottom line is that the legislation would mandate the 0.7 percent of the U.S. GNP as "official development assistance."
"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," he said.
Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims.
Kincaid also reported Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the "Millennium Project," confirms a U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP would add about $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already donates overseas.
And the only way to raise that funding, Sachs confirms, "is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels," Kincaid writes.
On the forum run by Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, one writer reported estimates of taxes from 35 cents to $1 dollar a gallon on gasoline would be needed.
"This is disgusting, sickening and angers me to the depths of my soul," the forum author wrote. "Obama wants us to support the world. I wonder how they intend to eliminate poverty. Most of the money always winds up in some dictator hands and in the U.N. coffers."
WND calls to Obama's office, as well as the offices of others who supported the plan, were not successful in obtaining a comment.
Another forum participant said, "Yes, and we should also eliminate sickness of any kind and get rid of poverty as well. Then, too, we should make certain that everyone in the world has equal assets, equal money, a college education, etc… After that, or maybe while we are solving all of the world's little problems, we can take care of the polar bears, eliminate the internal combustion engine, and, and, and… Oh dear, if only we would just go ahead and do all the things the dreamers want us to do. Let's stop using oil and burning coal while we're at it. Then we can make it illegal to be overweight and then we can. ..."
One forum contributor said since the legislation doesn't specifically demand "taxes," but instead leaves the mandatory "implementation" up to the president, "maybe the tooth fairy will leave [this new money] under the president's pillow."
Kincaid reported several more budget-minded senators have put a hold on the legislation "in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote."
The legislation requires the president to do whatever is required to fulfill a strategy that would result in "the elimination of extreme global poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide … who live on less than $1 per day."
It further requires the president not only to accomplish that goal but, "not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this act," to submit a report on "the contributions provided by the United States" toward poverty reduction.
medicineman
New Member
Geeze, it's about time we start helping people instead of bombing them, I'm liking this guy already. What a concept, Helping poverty stricken people around the world. What would Jesus think????
ViRedd
New Member
Geeze, it's about time we start helping people instead of bombing them, I'm liking this guy already. What a concept, Helping poverty stricken people around the world. What would Jesus think???[/quote]
Jesus would admonish the totalitarian leaders of governments that are causing poverty in their respective countries. He would also speak out against theft ... even if that theft is made legal by government edict. After all, theft is in violation of the Commandments of His Father.
Vi
mockingbird131313
Well-Known Member
Jesus said charity begins at home and I agree. Why are we doing anything abroad when there is so much that needs to be accomplished here?