THE PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE

[Deanna Witmer]

Jeremy said:

Because he will bring the troops home from Iraq, stop illegal wiretaps, intrusions on people's privacy, not wage the upcoming war with Iran and, I imagine, bring a little economic fairness back to the poor and middle class!  Vote for McCain or Ron Paul and you just get more of the same.  Paul's policies favor the rich, whether you want to admit it or not.

Then, Volitzer said:

Prove it.

The only thing I ever hear Obama say is "We need change !!"  So does Sheryl Crow but I wouldn't elect her based on that.

What is he supposed to do, that Barack won't go around wiretapping people and starting wars like W does?  Do you really think that he's that kind of guy to carrry on Bush's policies  Cause, if you do, you're the only one.

And Ron Paul's policies DO favor the rich.  As do McCain's.  As do Bush's!  The rich are paying about 7% of their income to taxes right now.  You know how much the middle class are paying?  15%!!!  (Because of Bush)  Do you think that is fair?  Why are they not the ones paying the 15% and us not paying the 7%? 

All I'm asking is a track record supplied by someone else other than myself here.

We have 984 or more members here now surely someone of the other 983 can post something that puts some facts behind Obama.

Barack Obama sponsored a bill with Richard Lugar to secure loose nukes around the world, he has also brought about lobbyist reform in Washington, clean up the mess at Walter Reed, bring the troops home from Iraq, and ring more openness (and less secrecy) to government.

Here is a list of all the bills he sponsored as a United States Senator:

http://www.statesurge.com/members/923

[Volitzer]

I'm sorry but if he won't do anything about the illegal 16th Amendment. the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and the Anti-2nd Amendment stance  http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/  which has been used by governments for years to create all kinds of data bases that do nothing to solve crimes but create more government record keeping agencies at taxpayer expense and have citizens shell out money for "registration."

Maybe if he were to renounce his gun-control, pro-illegal 16th Amendment stance...

Quoting from http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/revolution/CLTF

Barack, you can't forge a bold new future by holding hands with the most evil and corrupt men alive. And telling them they should do better isn't enough, either. You need to bring them to JUSTICE. You need to totally rout evil out of Washington. We need a political revolution.

We need to end the privatization of the Federal Reserve and the income tax that pays the outrageous interest to the bankers who own our country. The right to print money belongs to the people, to our govt, not to bankers. And people working their ass off to survive shouldn't be paying income tax on those wages, especially when it goes straight into the pocket of war profiteers and rich bankers. The Federal Reserve and war profiteers like Haliburton need to be brought to JUSTICE. They need to be tried and convicted of theft, treason, fraud, and everything else they've committed. They need to have their assets seized and they need to go to prison for life.

Wake up, Barack. A little change is not enough. We need a revolution. We need JUSTICE. Only then will we truly be free. 

I'm just not seeing where his political stance is any different from your typical Globalist.

The Bills he does sponsor or co-sponsor no one would refuse or it would be a political career killer.  However he is a Globalist at heart.

Quoting from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04obama-t.html

The United States has had only one foreign policy and one national-security strategy since the transforming events of 9/11 — and this set of doctrines has been shaped by the very distinctive worldview of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and the men and women around them. The great project of the foreign-policy world in the last few years has been to think through a “post-post-9/11 strategy,” in the words of the Princeton Project on National Security, a study that brought together many of the foreign-policy thinkers of both parties. Such a strategy, the experts concluded, must, like “a Swiss Army knife,” offer different tools for different situations, rather than only the sharp edge of a blade; must pay close attention to “how others may perceive us differently than we perceive ourselves, no matter how good our intentions”; must recognize that other nations may legitimately care more about their neighbors or their access to resources than about terrorism; and must be “grounded in hope, not fear.” A post-post-9/11 strategy must harness the forces of globalization while honestly addressing the growing “perception of unfairness” around the world; must actively promote, not just democracy, but “a world of liberty under law”; and must renew multilateral instruments like the United Nations.

In mainstream foreign-policy circles, Barack Obama is seen as the true bearer of this vision.