The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

KID

I will never vote for him after reading his voting record-- and the below vote was the iceing on the cake !! lets open the doors for the criminals---fukin tosser


National

Key Vote

Denying Legal Status for Immigrants Convicted of Certain Crimes



Bill Number: S Amdt 1184
Issues: Business and Consumers, Crime Issues, Immigration, Labor, Legal Issues
Date: 06/06/2007
Sponsor: Sen. Cornyn, John (R-TX)



Record Vote Number 187
Amendment Rejected (Senate)
How members voted
(46 - 51)


Senator Barack Obama voted NO
Read statements Senator Obama made in this general time period.


Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:

Vote to pass an amendment that would prohibit undocumented immigrants convicted of aggravated felonies, domestic violence, stalking, violation of protection orders, crimes against children, or crimes relating to the illegal purchase or sale of firearms, from gaining legal status.

NOTE: THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO A SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT. A SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT REPLACES LANGUAGE WITH ITS OWN.


Official Title of Legislation:

S Amdt 1184 to S Amdt 1150 to S 1348: To establish a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists, and other criminals.

Highlights:

-Bars legal status to immigrants who have engaged in certain forms of identification fraud (Sec. 204A (b))

Link to Legislation: Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Senate Amendment Vote: 06/06/2007 : Amendment Rejected 46 - 51 (Record Vote Number 187)


Cosponsors:
Sen. DeMint, Jim (R-SC)
Sen. Nelson, E. Benjamin (D-NE)

Boon Mee

Ranked the most liberal senator in Congress.

Say no more...

keda

A moderate liberal Muslim in the Senate offering to control the most powerful nation on the planet for the next 4 years...whatever next? American voters would need to be as scatty as some posters profess, for this man to reach the WH.

My guess is that many will awake with a shudder before it's too late, though not his unfaltering 85-90% black and 70-80% Muslim support due to a coincidence of birth, and I wouldn't for a moment inject an inference of racism because anyone who knows anything knows only white Xtians are racist.


As a side issue, though the mere mention of it might well have the lib/left/loonies up in arms, this leads to another issue certainly of concern to some, as it demonstrates not the weakness in a single American election but the Achilles Heel of democracy, which has no defence against a race or religion or group of people devoted to its downfall or more likely control, using its own core principles to breed it into chaos and ultimately dysfunction.

Oops, is that RACIST? - gawn yer terminal nutters, have fun.

AntRobertson

Dunno about that, it is an ill-informed rant though. Firstly Obama isn't Muslim, secondly your concern at religious groups 'hijacking' the White House is laughable given that this has been going on for the previous two terms and it apparently only bothers you now that there's a chance a non-White man could possibly be President even though, as already stated, he isn't a Muslim anyways.

So yeah, more of the same dribble. Plus ca change...

__________________
'The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist. And like that... he is gone'

keda

I know a guy called Hillary, but no infidels with a name like Osama or Obama or Hussein.

Still, are you saying, and do correct me if I am wrong, or for that matter if I am right, that the last 2 terms were religious (let's say Xtian) hijackings of the WH?

AntRobertson

As far as dodges go, that's pretty weak.
I said what I said, it's right there in the post above. But lets not twist and squirm, this is about the nonsense you dribbled. Please elucidate to me further the how's and why's of a Muslim hijacking the White House.

raycarey

sabang

"I am in this race to tell the Corporate Lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over."

Barack Obama, Dec. 10 2007

Sounds good to me.

He also promises to end no bid contracts, and end the 'revolving door' between the Executive Baranch and Lobbying groups 'Obama appointee's will serve America, not their own financial interests'.

He describes government spending as out of control, and outrightly charges that the currrent administration has used their political influence to award lucrative contracts for the benefit of themselves and business associates (which we all know to be true). He is selling a more transparent, ethical Washington.

I'd like him to be more specific, but he sounds the only Presidential nominee advocating any real positive change for Washington and the White House.

The modern Republican party is hopelessly subservient to Corporate interests.

__________________
East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,

keda

He can pledge to change the way things work, but all that does is leave him blaming the corporate government for being successful against his wishes. Governments and Presidents come and go, but the civil service is a constant, he can have them pretend to dance and make the right noises if that's what makes him feel good, but he knows and they know he'll be gone long before doing any long term damage.

Also, as you say he describes spending as out of control, naturally charging the current gov with impropriety which is fair enough and part of his job in opposition...but should (or the hildebeast) capture the WH, do you or anyone else sincerely believe spending will be cut, or capped, or will it continue on its de facto roll but perhaps with a greater share directed towards the lower levels of society?

And I too would like him to be more specific, as to what he intends to do in Iraq, if withdrawal then how, before drawing him out on health, immigration, national security and other issues that have not yet been and will not be aggressively debated until we know who is leading the Dems.

For now he can gripe about the current gov for all he's worth, and it certainly looks like a major part of his campaign has him as the good guy saving the US from 8 years of Bush...unfortunately that doesn't pan out in politics, and he will need more than talk to swindle his way past the fickle, but not brain dead, American voter.

AntRobertson

Astounding. You post a load of unmitigated cobblers about the guy, get called on it, and don't even skip a beat in glossing over it and moving on to posting more - albeit more tenable - criticisms and pretending like nothing ever happened.

If the slander and lies don't work then downscale to save face eh. Start from the wholly untenable and work your way back if that's not swallowed.

raycarey

have you read the detailed positions he has already laid out on these issues? they're readily available on his website.
do you even care that they are available?

or would you just like to lie about him being a muslim who is trying to "swindle" the american public?

Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Issues

__________________
"Is Obama a Muslim, or a Christian with a crazy pastor or a Communist atheist with a hippie mom?
Is he ruthless and overly ambitious or naive and weak? Is he an outsider who is "foreign" to our values or a country club goer?
Is he too South Side, too "black" or too Hyde Park and elitist?
Does he resent white people or is he part of the elite that sneers at blue-collars? Does he not care about "little people" or is he a socialist who will redistribute hard-earned money to everyone?"

lom

Fokkin dangerous he is. He has plans.

Boon Mee

What slander & lies, eh?

The guy is ranked the most Liberal in Congress - nothing to dispute there...

AntRobertson

Then why are you trolling the point?

Boon Mee

No trolling here..move along.

Main point of the thread is whether Obama would make a 'good' president.
In my view and hopefully at lot of others as well, the answer is a resounding 'no' for the aforementioned reason alone...

AntRobertson

So why take a quote I made to someone else out of context and make an completely assinine and irrelevant 'point'. That's rethorical by the way.

keda

Liberal with a big L, or is that not to your liking? And btw midget, seeing as even you may agree he desperately needs a religion because it's suicide to run without a godly belief, and that you seem to know all about everything, how about you educate us as to his true, definitive, religion, which isn't going to change according to mood or political expedience...or is this too obscure for even the likes of you to figure out?

Also, do you really believe the past 2 Presidential terms were a religious hijacking? A simple yes or no should suffice either to scotch your own comments, or demonstrate yet again that you are comfortable arguing all three sides of the same coin.

Boon Mee

Whatever you say, Anthony...

Look up the definition of pedantic in the dictonary and there's your pic...

AntRobertson