How does Senator Obama stand on free/fair trade?

[Cobalt Violet]

This is a very important issue for me. I haven't been able to get that information from his website. I've been trying to find out and don't seem to be getting anywhere. It seems most of the media is just obsessed with his name.

Thanks to anyone who may know.

[OKNancy]

1. You can check his voting record here:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BS030017

Date Bill Title Vote
09/19/2006 U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Y
06/29/2006 U.S. -Oman Free Trade Agreement Y
07/28/2005 CAFTA Implementation Bill N
06/30/2005 CAFTA Implementation Bill N

[Cobalt Violet]

4. Thank you.

Very helpful info.

[jefferson_dem]

2. supports "fair trade" with emphasis on tangible benefit for US - voted no on cafta.

more at link.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Free_Trade.htm

[Cobalt Violet]

5. Thanks.

That's just what I wanted.

[Lord Byron]

3. He doesn't stand anywhere

Read his book "The Audacity of Hope." He's a Clinton when it comes to economic issues. Of course, it's because he needs big corporate contributors. He explains that too.

He says he doesn't want to take a firm stand on trade because it's "partisan." I know otherwise.

He voted against CAFTA, but don't be fooled. If a Dem had been in charge, I don't think he would have rejected CAFTA. It was simply a party line vote for the most part. (Or else he'd be finished). But Wall St will forgive him.

[Cobalt Violet]

6. I won't be supporting him in the primary.

His saying that we need to reach out to evangelicals was a big warning light and his not taking a firm stand on fair trade is enough of a reason for me.

I can't support a triangulating type democrat unless he/she is running against a republican. And then it's the only option.

[Odin2005]

29. Not this shit again. EVANGELICAL DOES NOT = FUNDY!!!

A large chunk of the Evangelicals agree with us on economic issues and global warming, we need as many on our side as possible.

[Cobalt Violet]

57. What about Separtation of church and State.

How do they feel about that.

[Cobalt Violet]

61. He panders to christians and I don't like that.

I will not vote for him in the primary. I may in the general election if I have not choice.

That's my stance. That's my conclusion. Thank you for you opinion. You have a good point but my mind is pretty much made up now about him.

[Imagevision]

59. Oprah Winfrey and George Sorros support Obama 110% Cobalt Violet

[Cobalt Violet]

62. I didn't know that.

Not that it makes a difference.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. So, we should judge candidates on how they may have voted in hypothetical situations rather than

their actual voting record? :shrug:

[Cobalt Violet]

8. I won't support someone who intends to reach out to evangelicals.

I'm not giving up any rights to "reach out" to anyone. That is enough reason by itself for me.


How do we elect anyone who doesn't have a voting record?

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. Have any candidates promised not to reach out to evangelicals?

:shrug:

[Cobalt Violet]

10. I'll have to get back with you on that one. No time to research.

I'm out the door to go to work. No internet there. But I do know that he said he would.(Obama that is)

Have a good day. :hi:

[ripple]

11. Yep, we all know how well it works to have a leader

who disenfranchises a large segment of the population. :sarcasm:

[Cobalt Violet]

12. I'm glad you get it. It's rather trying being an atheist...

When so many politicians just want to pander to religious zealots. :sarcasm:

[ripple]

17. I'm agnostic

and I don't consider it pandering when politicians accept the reality that there are evangelicals, atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics, Jews, Pagans, Mormons, Wiccans, etc. that share the same flag. I call it being realistic.

I also realize there are members of practically any given group who are intolerant of others. Confronting intolerance with intolerance doesn't get us anywhere. Exclusionary tactics only perpetuate further intolerance from the other side.

Many of us come to the same conclusions about the same topics for different reasons. For example, many people of the Christian faith believe the Iraq war is wrong, due to the teachings of Jesus Christ. While my opposition to the war comes from a sense of morality that isn't based on a religious code of conduct, we've both reached the same conclusion.

People look at life and public policy from a variety of angles and I think it's a mistake to assume that people of faith will automatically take the wrong position on a given issue. If we deliberately exclude them and disregard their opinions, we are pretty much ceding them to the other side.

The majority of Americans ascribe to some form of faith, and the mega-church evangelical movement has been growing steadily for a number of years now. We can either include those millions of people in our national dialogue, or we can allow the other side to manipulate the faith of the masses to suit the rethug agenda.

[Cobalt Violet]

18. Wow. Post 666! I'm honored.

I'm going to go with someone who is more liberal.

One nation NOT under god
In god we don't trust.

[cynatnite]

22. Even the more liberal politicians understand the importance of reaching out...

You'll be hard pressed to find one who won't talk to people you don't like.

[Cobalt Violet]

23. I didn't mean not talk to them at all.

I was just using the Senator's own words, which I believe are open to interpretation. And I am not going take chances with what he did or didn't mean. I would rather vote for someone I feel more comfortable with who didn't come out and make this statement. I read his whole speech on this several times today again. I'm trying to research all the candidates to see who I connect with but this takes time and I can't do them all at once. I don't really like some of thing she says in that speech that day regarding god in the public square.

I'm very anxious tonight and experiencing A LOT of nervous tension. I hope that I'm not just rambling and you can understand how an atheist might be wary of someone who says the thing he does.

[cynatnite]

24. Yes, I do understand...

I'm agnostic and I can't stand the RW fundie black and white thinking. I hate the hypocrisy and the holier-than-thou attitudes. My mother is a fundie and it drives me batshit crazy. Her and I have found ways to discuss politics without getting into it even though she's still on me about my kids and church. Ugh.

We're so bitter toward the fundies and the horrible impact they've had on this country. It'll take me a long time to forgive them...if ever.

I don't blame you for your wariness. We pick the candidates we agree with, have good records to back them up and that we like. As we should.

:hug: Breathe in and breathe out. It'll get better.

[Cobalt Violet]

25. I'm glad you understand.

I don't know what I would do if my mother was a fundie. That must be very difficult sometimes. It's surprising that you can talk to her about politics. You must be very, very patient.

I'm going to continue to learn about the other candidates. But who ever wins the primary will ultimately have my support. And that may be Senator Obama. It's way to early to tell.

[ripple]

32. Damn! I should have paid closer attention to my post count

That Condi SOTU photo would have been perfect! I likened it to 'Secretary', instead. Missed opportunity.

The only candidate you will find more liberal than Obama is Kucinich. Kucinich will not win the nomination and there is no way around that fact.

By refusing to include people of faith in the public dialogue, you will be doing exactly the same thing that has been done to us for the past six years. I, too, would prefer that God be taken out of the public discourse, but at the same time, I realize that will never happen. There is a way to include people of faith, without making legislative or executive decisions based on faith. Obama has spoken to that point very well on several occasions.

Religion is going to continue to exist in this nation, whether you or I like it or not. Similarly, whether you or I like it or not, people will make decisions at the polls based on their religious faith. Personally, I would prefer to see religious believers make it a priority to challenge the evils of war, poverty, disease, bigotry, and greed- as opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage.

I honestly understand and share your frustration- I guess I just disagree with your approach to the solution. Much like we can't isolate Iran or Syria and expect good results in the Middle East, we can't isolate those we disagree with here at home and expect good results.

In my view, intolerance begets intolerance. No matter how much we try to rationalize it, we can't legitimately voice distain about the intolerance of others, when we ourselves are intolerant.


On edit: Clarification of the term "good" in regards to the Middle East: I mean "good" as in the best of the worst possible outcomes. It's all relative.

[Cobalt Violet]

35. I most likly will vote Kucinich.

I don't care what anyone thinks of my how I decide to cast MY VOTE.

After all it is MY VOTE.

[ripple]

36. I wasn't judging your vote or anyone else's

I don't see how you got that from my post. :shrug:

[Cobalt Violet]

37. I'm sorry I made you feel that way.

It's me. I've been feeling extremely hypersensitive lately. I misunderstood you and overreacted. I think I was your third paragraph that set me off a bit. I've had some very out of line replies to some of my posts lately and I get defensive sometimes. Yesterday it seemed that just my desire to find out information set some people off. The post that got delete in this thread said "bigot" nothing more nothing less. That seems to be a creepy response and put me on the defense which sucks.


I'm really sorry.


I knew I shouldn't started posting before I had my coffee but that's no excuse.

[ripple]

38. That's ok

It's easy for things to be taken the wrong way on here. I didn't start things off very well with my initial sarcastic comment, so I apologize for that.

Our nation is pretty much in shambles and tempers are short. We all desperately want things to turn out all right, but we disagree about how to make that happen.

No hard feelings, let's just keep working to fix this mess! :toast:

[Cobalt Violet]

39. I'm with you on that. It's a big mess and we need to do a lot of work.

:toast:

[PVnRT]

42. Provide evidence he's "pandering"

Show us a statement where he's said that we should oppose gay marriage or abortion or other such social issues to try to win over the evangelicals. Or are you just pissed that he even spoke to them?

I am sick and tired of the segment of people here who think that even mentioning religion means you're a zealot. Are you just mad they don't pander to you, instead?

[Cobalt Violet]

54. Who is casting my vote me or you?

I think I have every right to vote according to what is important to me. I prefer we keep religion out of the public square. Separation of Church and State is way more important to me than holding hands with christians or any other religion.


As for your first paragraph I never said any of those things.

[Cobalt Violet]

56. How's this for starters. Obama-Hatch Tithing Bill

Congress Passes Obama-Hatch Tithing Bill
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Printable FormatFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Hatch Contact: Peter Carr, [phone]
Obama Contact: Tommy Vietor, [phone]
Date: December 6, 2006

Congress Passes Obama-Hatch Tithing Bill
Clarifies Treatment of Charitable Contributions in Bankruptcy Law

WASHINGTON - The House of Representatives today gave final approval to a bill sponsored by Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) to protect an individual's right to continue reasonable charitable contributions, including religious tithing, during the course of consumer bankruptcy. The measure passed the United States Senate in late September and will now be presented to the President for his signature.

"Congress has a long history of protecting our religious freedom to tithe," Hatch said. "That was our intent when we enacted bankruptcy reform last year, and this bill clarifies the law so that those who tithe can continue to live their faith while in bankruptcy."

"For millions of Americans, charitable giving and tithing is an essential part of their lives," Obama said. "And in a country where 37 million citizens live in poverty, we should be encouraging charitable giving, not limiting it."

The Hatch-Obama bill, S. 4044, responds to a recent court ruling that above-medium income debtors in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cannot deduct charitable contributions, including religious contributions, from their payment plans. The ruling was based on an interpretation of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA). Hatch and Obama authored S. 4044 to ensure that all individuals in bankruptcy, no matter their income, would be able to continue giving to charity and their church.

[Cobalt Violet]

28. Umm. . Sorry I still haven't done that research.

I have to take my time with each candidate. I can't do it all tonight. I have to give each one some thought. I spent time today re-reading Senator Obama speech and reading up on the trade question I have. If you happen to find out about any of the others let me know please.

[hedgehog]

13. Right now many evangelicals are voting against their own

economic interests and even against some of their moral interests as well. For example, many evangelicals do have a commitment to help the poor. A Democratic candidate who can reach out and make them see that gay marriage should be a non-issue would be wonderful.

[Cobalt Violet]

14. That's so true but not at the time he made the statement.

He made that statement before that meth smoking sex scandal churchy guy got caught and before the Mark Foley getting outed for being a perv to the pages too.

It would be wonderful if they could expect gay marriage as long as we don't have to give up any personal freedoms to get there. I just have my doubts that that can be done.

I have never heard of an evangelical that wants to help the poor just convert them. That's news to me. I'm not saying it's not true but just that I've never heard of it.

[Raskolnik]

53. "I have never heard of an evangelical that wants to help the poor"

Your experience is sadly limited.

[Telly Savalas]

15. Which specific rights has he opted to give up to woo Evangelicals?

Can you document the assertion?

There's a difference between trying to build consensus and pandering.

[Cobalt Violet]

16. Where the hell did I make that assertion!

Your making assertions about my assertions.

[Telly Savalas]

26. And you're making assertions about my making assertions about your assertions.

OK. You aren't, but it was impossible to resist the urge to type that.

Maybe I'm reading too much into what you were saying, but it sounded like the allegation was that in his attempt to reach out to evangelicals, Obama was selling out some of our rights. To my knowledge, he doesn't hold a single policy position which could be characterized as such, and if there is one, I certainly want to know about it before I make a final choice on who to back in the primaries.

The reason I'm leaning toward the guy is precisely because he is trying to reach out to people who aren't liberal, but without compromising his liberal ideals. He's not just trying to triangulate to get the votes of conservatives. He's trying to get conservatives (at least the ones who are willing to listen) to become more liberal.

With respect to evangelicals, it's true that many of them won't listen to what he has to say, but some of them will -- Jim Wallis seems to have a bit of a following, so it stands to reason there is some potential.

[Cobalt Violet]

27. I'm glad you didn't resist that.

:rofl: I needed a laugh. Thank you.

I'm trying to learn about Senator Obama, so I do have some interest in him. I'm not bashing him.

I may have some flaws in my thinking regarding evangelicals, I don't know. When I think of evangelicals I think of the hardcore Bush Bots who think Bush is a great Christian president if not god himself. That 28% that still support him. I've never heard of Jim Wallis.

It's still very early and I'm not decide.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cynatnite]

20. I prefer a candidate who reaches out to everyone...

as they should.

[Cobalt Violet]

21. Good for you .

[Radical Activist]

30. So you want a loser?

Christians still make up a majority of voters in this nation.

And no, reaching out to someone does not mean you have to compromise your principles. It is in fact possible to make progressive ideals sound more appealing to Christian voters without changing your beliefs. That's what Obama is talking about.

[Cobalt Violet]

34. Not all xtians are the wacked out, intolerant zombie kind.

That need to be pandered to.

That what I think of when someone says "evangelical".

I didn't give them that reputation, they earned themselves.

[Raskolnik]

40. Who is asking you to give up any rights? n/t

[Radical Activist]

31. Hypothetically Dennis Kucinich could have voted for the WTO

if he had smoked too much pot that day, so I won't be supporting him for President.

This is fun. :)

[Cobalt Violet]

33. You could post in another thread to get you jollies,Hypothetically .

Instead of polluting mine with your spite.

[Radical Activist]

43. I'm making a fair point.

Its ridiculous to speculate what a candidate might do about an issue on which he has spoken out and has a record. My post is no more silly than guessing how Obama might have voted differently if someone else had been President.

[Cobalt Violet]

45. Then maybe you need to ask that the person who...

Said something about how the Senator might have voted differently if someone else had been president and not me.

[Raskolnik]

41. So he doesn't stand anywhere, except when he does, and they don't count?

Did I get that about right?

[Cobalt Violet]

44. I don't understand your post.

It's not clear what your asking me.

[Radical Activist]

46. I don't think

that was in response to you directly and neither was my post that you got so defensive about. Chill out.

[Cobalt Violet]

49. Okay.

I must have followed the line up the thread wrong. Sorry.

[Raskolnik]

47. I was responding to Byron's post #3.

Does that help?

And while we're at it, have you decided to take me up on my Superbowl offer yet?

[Cobalt Violet]

48. I thought you might have been.

Ummm...I don't drink, I don't eat meat or junk food, I hate team sports and don't follow any of it at all.... why in the world would you want me at your super bowl party?

[Raskolnik]

50. Because you seem like you'd be a lot of fun at an event like that.

What with the "No like all of them" and all. (Remember your cute little "Gotcha" business?)

And you didn't answer my post that *was* directed towards you--how does Obama's contact with evangelical Christians threaten your rights?

[Cobalt Violet]

51. Um.. that gotcha wasn't about putting you on ignore.

It was about weather you knew what the original title or message of that thread was. I had put you on ignore way before that but your post kept coming because we were at level 3 or something.

It was suppose to be a gotcha that that you didn't even know what the original title and post was about.

Anyway I did find the exact title to the thread

"A.FREAKIN.BASKETBALL.PLAYER"

I don't have original message thought. I will screen cap post of his I post in from now on.

I need to leave for work 7 minutes ago so I can't answer until later tonight.

Have nice day.

[Raskolnik]

52. Um...yeah...that's the point.

You posted a too-cute-by-half question, ended with a "gotcha", then blocked any reply. That, my friend, is exceedingly lame.

And you still didn't answer the question that actually has something to do with this thread. How does the fact that Obama is willing to find common ground between Democrats and evangelical Christians threaten your rights?

[Cobalt Violet]

55. Wrong yet again.

You got the order wrong. Look I admit when I wrong. I've done that several times in this thread but when I'm not wrong I will not be bullied into saying I am.

So are you going to follow me around from thread to thread and pick apart my words?

[Raskolnik]

58. Nope, just going to respond to uniformed posts.

Of which you certainly seem to make a few.

[Cobalt Violet]

60. what's my "uniformed post"?

[Raskolnik]

63. Let's see...

In this thread, you posted that your rights were threatened by Obama's contact with Christians, but failed to provide *any* evidence or examples.

Then you posted that you never heard of an evangelical who wanted to help the poor, only convert them (which, to be honest, is probably an example of willful ignorance rather than an uninformed opinion).

In our original little encounter, you were repeatedly posting "No like all of them" in a discussion about Mr. Mutombo when you neither knew anything about the man, nor were even aware that he was the topic of the thread (which is a fairly tired subject at this point, so let's put that one to bed, shall we?).

Does that help for starters?

[Cobalt Violet]

64. I never discussed Mr. Mutombo in my life.

You tripping?

I did provide an example of Obama's pandering.

"Congress Passes Obama-Hatch Tithing Bill
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Printable FormatFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Hatch Contact: Peter Carr, [phone]
Obama Contact: Tommy Vietor, [phone]
Date: December 6, 2006

Congress Passes Obama-Hatch Tithing Bill
Clarifies Treatment of Charitable Contributions in Bankruptcy Law

WASHINGTON - The House of Representatives today gave final approval to a bill sponsored by Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) to protect an individual's right to continue reasonable charitable contributions, including religious tithing, during the course of consumer bankruptcy. The measure passed the United States Senate in late September and will now be presented to the President for his signature.

"Congress has a long history of protecting our religious freedom to tithe," Hatch said. "That was our intent when we enacted bankruptcy reform last year, and this bill clarifies the law so that those who tithe can continue to live their faith while in bankruptcy."

"For millions of Americans, charitable giving and tithing is an essential part of their lives," Obama said. "And in a country where 37 million citizens live in poverty, we should be encouraging charitable giving, not limiting it."

The Hatch-Obama bill, S. 4044, responds to a recent court ruling that above-medium income debtors in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cannot deduct charitable contributions, including religious contributions, from their payment plans. The ruling was based on an interpretation of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA). Hatch and Obama authored S. 4044 to ensure that all individuals in bankruptcy, no matter their income, would be able to continue giving to charity and their church."


You don't see it, I do. Go read his speech. I did more than once. As an antitheist and atheist, I very uncomfortable with him.

[Raskolnik]

65. Oy vey!

Let's get this straight once and for all, ok? The earlier thread, where several people were attempting to educate you about the professional athlete who built a hospital in Kinchasa and you repeatedly responded with "No like all of them" was ABOUT Mr. Mutombo. So, yes, you have in fact discussed Mr. Mutombo, although not very honestly or effectively. There. That's done. Enough of that.

Now, on to *this* thread. You didn't address either of the examples I cited. You just re-posted a story about a bill that you consider to be "pandering". For the sake of argument, let's assume that it is "pandering". How does it threaten your rights or demonstrate that no evangelicals care about helping the poor?

[Cobalt Violet]

66. IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT MY RIGHTS FEEL THREATENED...

YOU NEVER FUCKING WILL.

"NO LIKE ALL OF THEM" IS ABOUT ALL ATHLETES.

HOSTILITY TOWARD ME IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO APPROACH ME TO "EDUCATE" ME.

APPARENTLY YOU ARE TO NOT CAPABLE OF UNDERSTAND ANYTHING.

THIS CONVERSATION IS OVER.



GET LOST!

[Raskolnik]

67. I certainly can't understand if you make no attempt. Shouting isn't that helpful, either.

You made rather sweeping statements you were unable to either explain or support. If you can't respond like an adult to questions about your posts, you probably shouldn't bother in the first place.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

68. I'm going to lock this at the request

of the original poster.

best,
wakemeupwhenitsover
DU Moderator