Can obama supporters explain this...

[AGirl]

S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007

A bill to impose sanctions on Iran and on other countries for assisting Iran in developing a nuclear program, and for other purposes.

Sen. Gordon Smith hide cosponsors
Cosponsors

Sen. Hillary Clinton
Sen. Barack Obama


(8) The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the IRANIAN REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS ON THE LIST OF SPECIALLY DESIGNATED GLOBAL TERRORISTS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 13224(66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism)."



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-970

[Fresh_Start]

1. Neither candidate is an anti-war candidate

both are pro-MIC.

[cgrindley]

11. Jesus. I support Obama, but yes, their platforms are indistinguishable

I support him *because* he is young and good looking and charming. He's smarter and better educated than anyone other than Clinton or Wilson. He'll go a long way to increase the country's reputation. I like the guy. But I'm not an idiot. He abstains from a lot of divisive votes, takes a pragmatic approach to politics and tends to prevaricate a bit when politically expedient. But those are good things. Jesus. Who would you guys have rather had as a leader during the last decade: Bush or Jean Chretien? One guy made no decisions. The guy was the Great Decider.

The last thing this country needs is a politician with a bunch of ideas.

[Fresh_Start]

21. you are comfortable with

"abstains from a lot of divisive votes, takes a pragmatic approach to politics and tends to prevaricate a bit when politically expedient"

I'm not comfortable with that.
A lot of Obama supporters are saying 'he says he'll compromise with the GOP but he really won't do that its just campaigning'

I'm thinking that part of my discomfort is age and religious upbringing.
He doesn't remind me of a cult.
He reminds me of a televangelist: thats the religious conflict for me.
The age conflict is after having and almost raising three children, I'm disturbed about his willingness to drive his supporters against their parents. I saw Bush do the same thing trying to privatize SS. I see Obama doing the same blaming the Boomers the diseased Democrats.

The Obama supporters seem anti-older democrats to a very disturbing degree.
And there is no worse sin in my mind than turning children against their parents and grandparents.

[cgrindley]

23. I think that the grandparents are with us on this one

I think that if you were born between 1946-1956 then Obama's probably not for you.

[Fresh_Start]

24. I was born in 1960

but its as I said is an unforegiveable sin to me to have children blaming their parents/grandparents

Maybe Obama has issues with what his parents did.
But my mom did the very best she could do every single day of her life.

[cgrindley]

25. If you are religious I'd rather you join the Republicans

There is no such thing as a "sin". There is no invisible man in the sky.

[Fresh_Start]

26. Why don't you tell Obama the same thing?

if you think that people who believe in God and sin don't belong in the Democratic party

[cgrindley]

28. If you think he's being sincere in his "belief" I've got a bridge for sale

come on. No real adult believes in fairy tales. Do you honestly think that any president other than Bush honestly actually believes in supernatural hogwash? People grow out of that when they turn 9.

[Fresh_Start]

29. So you think his numerous references to belief, having a

personal relationship to Jesus, etc are political gameplaying: i.e., lying?

Wow. And they call people who don't support Obama cynical.
Please, please, please start broadcasting the Obama is merely using religion for political reasons.

The numbers say that you really don't know what you are talking about.
The vast majority of Americans believe in God.
Its not even a close race.

Well that explains the dictomy in Obama support usually highest on frequent churchgoers and also highest in non-churchgoers.
People like you believe he is lying to the public every day - and they are happy with his lying.

[cgrindley]

33. Yes, I do.

It doesn't matter what the vast number of Americans believe. We're only talking about the people in charge, and unless you haven't noticed, the life experience, education and intellect of the people in charge does not reflect the mean or average. We're talking candidates who were educated at Ivy League schools, who have genius level IQs, who are clearly beyond the scope and ability of the people they represent. I can guarantee you that regardless of what they profess in public, they are all atheists.

[Fresh_Start]

38. No, they are not all atheists

There is lower rate of religious belief...but not following a religion is not the same was being an atheist.
Its more like a Deism: belief in God but not a belief in the human trappings religion surrounds God with.

A recent study on college professors say that only 10% are atheists, another 13.% are agnostics. The remainder believe in something spiritual.

BTW, I meet your criteria and I am not an atheist.

[cgrindley]

39. Of course they are

Come on. Get real.

[Fresh_Start]

41. not a single fact do you have

just belief and hope

Belief that you know what is other peoples minds
and
Hope that your chosen candidate is projecting an image he does not believe.

[cgrindley]

43. At least I know grammar, Yoda

Exists not the Force does.

[Fresh_Start]

44. you are probably not surrounded by Yoda

imitating children

[Fresh_Start]

45. you still have no facts

[NMMNG]

31. Obama is religious

Should he join the Republicans?

[cgrindley]

34. He like other politicians, claims to be religious

I'm sure he would put me in my place for suggesting otherwise. But come on. No one really believes in that crap. Not today.

[NMMNG]

36. Surely you jest

Read his Website. He believes, and he has no problem pandering to other believers for what he needs and what they want. LGBTs and non-believers have felt the effects of that more than once.

[cgrindley]

40. It's on a website? Must be true!

Why are religious people so intensely gullible? Oh yeah...

[NMMNG]

47. I'm an atheist, in case that wasn't apparent

But the man is clearly religious and panders to those like him. Religious rhetoric infuses his speech and his very speaking voice is Southern Preacher. He may be playing it up at times but he's definitely a believer.

[Fresh_Start]

53. I've had a similar impression

he's a believer, but he polishes his performance to cater to religious voters

[NMMNG]

55. As do they all

They're all trying to "out-Christian" one another thanks to the last election and the so-called "Values Voters". It's all a big crock. We're all Values Voters--we just value different things or put the emphasis on one thing over another. The RRRW likes to have the appearance of Leave it to Beaver while Babylon festers underneath and people die in the streets. We like to ensure that everyone is valued and cared for and to hell with pretty facades that mean nothing. Sadly we're letting them call the shots and lead us around by the nose.

[Fresh_Start]

56. absolutely, they are all playing the Christian card

I agree.
I don't see Obama as a cult leader.
I see him acting like an televangelist
It makes me very uncomfortable
I want religion where it belongs
In the home, church, heart or mind if the person so chooses
Not in public policy

[NMMNG]

30. I'd ask if you're serious

But I have the sneaking suspicion that you are. That's the most ridiculous--dare I say irresponsible--endorsement for a presidential candidate I've ever seen.

If I could I'd disown you as a member of my generation I would.

[cgrindley]

35. There really are no substantive differences between their platforms

but Obama will charge up the nation and increase America's worth in world opinion. Surely those two points are good enough. We don't need a president who proffers aggressive leadership. We've had that for the last 8 years. Instead, we need a Clinton Lite. Someone, basically, who is there and who spends at least 4 years trying to mend fences and not fuck anything up.

[NMMNG]

37. He'll fuck everything up

And that's just what we don't need. If we're going to elect somebody just because they're pretty and know how to make nice speeches then maybe we should stop holding elections and just have American Idol find our next president.

[cgrindley]

42. Um... we basically do

we have since the Nixon/Kennedy debates, or haven't you been paying attention to history?

[fenriswolf]

2. what do you want me to explain?

they both signed that stupid bill.

[MethuenProgressive]

3. Obama's all about WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR...

unless he's giving a campaign speech.

[Bicoastal]

6. And so is Hillary? nt

[boston bean]

8. Now you're coming around!

[Bicoastal]

18. Even if MethuenProgressive's premise WAS true--which it isn't--

How on earth would that encourage me to vote for Hillary?

BTW, aren't you the one who called up Ted Kennedy's office and asked him why he hated women? And then were offended when his people hung up on you?

Nice try.

[boston bean]

27. go back and read the thread, that is not what i said, you folks are idiots for even implying it.

Why don't you search my screen name with the word kennedy and see if I hate the man as you all have so visciously implied.

Thanks!

[ingac70]

4. ?

Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BAYH, Mr. KYL, Mr. THUNE, Ms. MIKULSKI, and Mr. MENENDEZ) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

Where is Clinton's and Obama's name on this? 'Cause I ain't seeing it! This is the list of co-sponsors.

[NightWatcher]

5. sanctions do not equal WAR. You are going to critcize Obama by comparing him to Hillary?

[rodeodance]

14. you did not explain anything

[cgrindley]

7. Name one pro-Iranian Revolutionary Guard candidate

just one.

[mtnsnake]

9. Look at all these Obama supporters raising their hands in response to your question. Eager beavers!

[no name no slogan]

10. You need to find a bigger picture

I can't quite see the oily pores on that unruly mob of drunken drug-addled teeny-boppers

[jmg257]

12. Aren't sanctions imposed IN LIEU of war? Sounds like a good idea to me.

The UN & Bill used them against Iraq for years (IN LIEU OF WAR) - now we have problems with them?

[Whisp]

20. apparently a lot of 'we' don't, but ask the Iraqis how those

sanctions affected them.
not in a good way for the civilians and didn't affect Saddam much.
It has been war with Iraq since Bush 1.

don't kid yourself. another clinton in the house will guarantee the continuation.

[jackson_dem]

46. This isn't what Obamites said when Hillary voted for a bill similar to the one in the OP

[hfojvt]

13. What is there to explain?

Do this somehow make him worse than Hillary?

Or am I supposed to say "Oh, crap, he's not perfect, I guess I might as well vote for Hillary then."

[rodeodance]

15. "Oh, crap, he's not perfect, I guess I might as well vote for Hillary then." YES YES

[Occam Bandage]

16. Yes. It was a good bill, just as the modified form of K-L was.

[Blue State Bandit]

17. Here is how...

This is a known and very difficult or impossible problem to fix. Congress does not itself publish a database of legislative information, and so GovTrack has to reconstruct the data by scanning THOMAS and other official websites on a periodic basis for the information. Currently there is no way to know which bills' cosponsorship have changed since the bill's introduction, and it is impossible to update all bills on more than a monthly basis or so, which means GovTrack has no way to keep this information current. The only real way around this is to get THOMAS and the official websites to publish their legislative database more directly for reuse by sites like ours, which we are trying to encourage them to do.

http://www.govtrack.us/faq.xpd#cosponsors


Since Line(8) section(3) is the last "Sence of Congress finding, it easily denoted that this addition to the original bill was the key component that caused him to pull his support.

So what's the problem?


SWING AND A MISS!

[lligrd]

19. Your Posts Are Getting More Bizarre By The Day

They both voted for sanctions. Who cares? What is your point?

[nonconformist]

22. But I thought that Obama was the anti-war candidate?

I mean, all they can talk about is the IWR.

[JimGinPA]

32. Sanctions > Bombing

Get it, there's a difference.

[jackson_dem]

48. Over 40 replies and no one can explain Obama's hypocrisy

This is one of the most disturbing things about Obamites. Supporters of every other candidate can admit when their candidate is wrong. Obamites can never admit St. Obama was wrong on a political issue. They seem to delete any evidence of St. Obama's record that conflicts with the saintly image they have of him in their mind.

[harun]

52. Neither candidate left is anti-war, that is why the media will

cover them. All the anti-war, anti-Imperialist candidates were blacked out from day one.

No candidate is never wrong. Obama is the best candiate remaining. What the hell do you expect people to do? They don't have any other choice.

[jackson_dem]

54. Obama was hypocritically attacking Hillary for Kyl-Lieberman

No one in the msm called him on it.

[harun]

57. I wouldn't know what the MSM called him on because I don't watch it (n/t)

[Freida5]

49. I am confused so he sponsored the bill but voted against it. Is that like voting present.

[stillcool]

51. not the same bill...

I believe you are referring to the Kyl-Liebermann Amendment.

[stillcool]

50. this might help you....

The Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 that Obama voted for had language that specifically stated:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force or the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iran.

This act was about economic sanctions rather than military action, something that Obama has long advocated. It specifically checks any potential use to go to war. It also does not connect Iran with Iraq as does the Kyl-Lieberman bill.
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/did-obama-skip-the-iran-vote/

Iran Sanctions: Congress For, White House Against?

Posted Jun 28th 2007 3:48PM by Patrick Casey
Filed under: House Committees, Iran, Bush Administration
Yesterday, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the Iran Counter Proliferation Act convincingly, by a vote of 37-1. It's remarkable that a bill received that kind of bipartisan support in today's political climate, and shows how seriously members of Congress (and the House in particular) view the threat of Iran. I view the chances of any sanctions program working to stop Iran less than zero, but steps like this must be undertaken before we move towards tougher steps. According to Brian Faughnan over at The Weekly Standard, the bill:

...repeals the administration's authority to waive penalties under the Iran Sanctions Act, blocks the import of all Iranian products, provides for the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group, and increases funds for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.

Sounds like sensible and long overdue steps to take. But the White House opposes it! I usually support the fact that foreign policy is the sole territory of the Executive Branch under any president, but this has the fingerprints of the broken down State Department all over it. Here's their reasoning:

...it's opposed by the Bush administration, which argues that it would undercut multilateral efforts--particularly the sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

Hmmm. When, exactly, was the last time that the United Nations Security Council, and the UN in general, was successful in anything it undertook, especially a sanctions program? The State Department and the Bush Administration should stop worrying about the United Nations and start worrying about Iran. I hate supporting the House in this, but go Tom Lantos!
http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/06/28/iran-sanctions-congress-for-white-house-against/