Barack Obama or John McCain

[Ron Ecker]

NYC Recount Underway For Democratic Primary

Illinois Senator's Supporters Outraged Over Voting Disaster

NEW YORK (CBS) ― New York City election officials are dealing with a startling discovery: 80 election districts -- many in minority areas -- had no votes recorded for Barack Obama.

Obama supporters are protesting and a recount is under way.

"It was clear from the votes, just people volunteering, that the majority of the votes were for Obama," said poll watcher Gordon Davis.

Imagine Davis' surprise when he learned that the tally from that machine, a device he watched, was reported to election officials as Hillary Clinton 141, Barack Obama 0.

"That's an outrage," Davis said. "It's wrong. It's wrong."

Many in the district agree.

"I don't feel good about it," one man said.

What's more troubling to Obama supporters is that 80 different election districts reported zero votes for the senator from Illinois.

"All of a sudden something like this happens, bad business," Davis said. "(It's) bad for New Yorkers, bad for the country and no good for Barack Obama."

Election officials say primary night tallies are always unofficial and that they always re-check the machines before certifying the vote.

"What you can see here clearly is just an omission when they put the vote in for Barack Obama because it does include the votes from his delegates," said Marcus Cederqvist, executive director of the NYC Board of Elections.

Cederqvist showed CBS station WCBS-TV in New York City the tally sheets from a district in Brooklyn that initially had 118 votes for Sen. Clinton and none for Sen. Obama.

A recount found 116 for Obama.

"Election night is unofficial and the official results are going to come when we have a chance to canvas all the machines and the paper ballots," Cederqvist said.

Obama supporters hope that if the official count continues to go in their favor they could pick up a delegate or two.

It's too early to tell if any of those recounts could change the breakdown of New York's delegates, but in a race so tight, the change of just one delegate could end up deciding the Democratic nomination.

http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/hillary.cl...k.2.658233.html

[Craig Lamson]

All,

Here is a link to the complete text of the bill

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2433

Craig,

Please cite the portions that will mandate that the US spend 0.7 % of its GDP, give the money to the UN or make the US subservient to that body.

Len

Here you go Len. How did you miss it?

SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY.

(a) Strategy- The President, acting through the Secretary of State, and in consultation with the heads of other appropriate departments and agencies of the United States Government, international organizations, international financial institutions, the governments of developing and developed countries, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, and other appropriate entities, shall develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

.......

(4) MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS- The term `Millennium Development Goals' means the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________

What are the UN Millennium Goals?

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-globa...or-senate-vote/

The bill defines the term "Millennium Development Goals" as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

The U.N. says that "The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion-or about 0.25% of their collective GNP."

In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that 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 on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as "the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development."

http://mirror.undp.org/unmillenniumproject/press/qa4_e.htm

What is the 0.7 commitment, and where did it come from?

The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion —or about 0.25% of their collective GNP.

________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

Its a bad bill Len, I think I'll pass.

[Christopher Hall]

NYC Recount Underway For Democratic Primary

Illinois Senator's Supporters Outraged Over Voting Disaster

NEW YORK (CBS) ― New York City election officials are dealing with a startling discovery: 80 election districts -- many in minority areas -- had no votes recorded for Barack Obama.

Obama supporters are protesting and a recount is under way.

"It was clear from the votes, just people volunteering, that the majority of the votes were for Obama," said poll watcher Gordon Davis.

Imagine Davis' surprise when he learned that the tally from that machine, a device he watched, was reported to election officials as Hillary Clinton 141, Barack Obama 0.

"That's an outrage," Davis said. "It's wrong. It's wrong."

Many in the district agree.

"I don't feel good about it," one man said.

What's more troubling to Obama supporters is that 80 different election districts reported zero votes for the senator from Illinois.

"All of a sudden something like this happens, bad business," Davis said. "(It's) bad for New Yorkers, bad for the country and no good for Barack Obama."

Election officials say primary night tallies are always unofficial and that they always re-check the machines before certifying the vote.

"What you can see here clearly is just an omission when they put the vote in for Barack Obama because it does include the votes from his delegates," said Marcus Cederqvist, executive director of the NYC Board of Elections.

Cederqvist showed CBS station WCBS-TV in New York City the tally sheets from a district in Brooklyn that initially had 118 votes for Sen. Clinton and none for Sen. Obama.

A recount found 116 for Obama.

"Election night is unofficial and the official results are going to come when we have a chance to canvas all the machines and the paper ballots," Cederqvist said.

Obama supporters hope that if the official count continues to go in their favor they could pick up a delegate or two.

It's too early to tell if any of those recounts could change the breakdown of New York's delegates, but in a race so tight, the change of just one delegate could end up deciding the Democratic nomination.

http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/hillary.cl...k.2.658233.html

This is "Lucky Lyndon" deja vu.

Check out the following Bloomberg article from today: http://www.nypost.com/seven/02192008/news/...raud__98367.htm

Obama got ZERO (0) votes in 78 out of 6,000 + polling places.

Where is RFK, Jr., our country's voter fraud impressario , when his beloved HRC is the beneficiary of such blatant fraud?

Kudos to Ted (it's certainly rare to hear me compliment him), Patrick and Caroline for displaying a consience and endorsing Obama.

If RFK, Jr. changes his endorsement, President Obama may give him a plum political appointment, like ambassador to Gabon.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Christopher Hall

[J. Raymond Carroll]

So far its a good day for Obama. The New York TImes just sank a tomahawk in McCain's back.

The article is carefully written, and MCCain has been trying to block it for months.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/polit...1mccain.html?hp

Edited February 21, 2008 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Mark Stapleton]

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Bigger bombs and bigger armies are the very backbone of foreign policy.

Only if your country is a war-mongering rogue state hellbent on global hegemony.

Really? Is that why Russia and China for example have a huge military presence and continue growing it?

You can't complain about the military spending of Russia and China when the US dwarfs all other nations in military spending. The US spends more than the the rest of the world combined. The US spends more than the rest of the world combined (repeated for emphasis). I fully expect some glib reply but it's clear you are out of juice on this one. Throw in your shocker on the Gary Mack 'kimono' thread, and it's clear that you are having a bad week on the Forum.

[John Simkin]

So far its a good day for Obama. The New York TImes just sank a tomahawk in McCain's back.

The article is carefully written, and MCCain has been trying to block it for months.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/polit...1mccain.html?hp

Interesting article. Have you read it Craig? How does this compare with UN corruption?

[Craig Lamson]

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Bigger bombs and bigger armies are the very backbone of foreign policy.

Only if your country is a war-mongering rogue state hellbent on global hegemony.

Really? Is that why Russia and China for example have a huge military presence and continue growing it?

You can't complain about the military spending of Russia and China when the US dwarfs all other nations in military spending. The US spends more than the the rest of the world combined. The US spends more than the rest of the world combined (repeated for emphasis). I fully expect some glib reply but it's clear you are out of juice on this one. Throw in your shocker on the Gary Mack 'kimono' thread, and it's clear that you are having a bad week on the Forum.

What a very poor answer from you Mark, but I'm not suprised...you painted yoursefl into a corner. Russia and China, like the US have a huge military because its the backbone of their foreign policy as well. Words are useless without the power to back them up.

What shocker is that Mark? That I decided not to derail the thread any further? And to that end I asked Evan to make a new thread with all of my exchanges with Cliff. It will be quite fun to finsh that fool off once and for all. Why not join and we can finish you as well?

Edited February 21, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

So far its a good day for Obama. The New York TImes just sank a tomahawk in McCain's back.

The article is carefully written, and MCCain has been trying to block it for months.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/polit...1mccain.html?hp

Interesting article. Have you read it Craig? How does this compare with UN corruption?

Of course I've read it John. John McCain sucks. How does McCain compare to the UN? He can't hold a candle to Oil for Food.....

Nice try though.

[Len Colby]

All,

Here is a link to the complete text of the bill

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2433

Craig,

Please cite the portions that will mandate that the US spend 0.7 % of its GDP, give the money to the UN or make the US subservient to that body.

Len

Here you go Len. How did you miss it?

Craig I saw that but I don’t see it mandating what you and the rightwing nuts you are citing seem to think it does. The Millennium Development Goals are mention 3 times in the quoted section

It is the policy of the United States to promote…the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

By saying “it is the policy of the United States to promote” one specific goal would seem to indicate it is not necessarily its “policy to promote” all of the others. Even if you would argue that the 0.7% is inherent in that (which I don’t think is the case) “policy to promote” does not mean ‘obliged to’.

EC. 4. REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY.

a) Strategy- The President, acting through the Secretary of State…shall develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting…the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

Basically ditto above it focuses on a different goal no mention is made of the 0.7% of GDP goal and even if it were “implement(ing) a comprehensive strategy to further… objective of promoting…the achievement of [something]” does not mean ‘obliged to’.

4) MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS- The term `Millennium Development Goals' means the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

Nothing here about anybody being obliged to do anything.

[Craig Lamson]

All,

Here is a link to the complete text of the bill

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2433

Craig,

Please cite the portions that will mandate that the US spend 0.7 % of its GDP, give the money to the UN or make the US subservient to that body.

Len

Here you go Len. How did you miss it?

Craig I saw that but I don’t see it mandating what you and the rightwing nuts you are citing seem to think it does. The Millennium Development Goals are mention 3 times in the quoted section

It is the policy of the United States to promote…the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

By saying “it is the policy of the United States to promote” one specific goal would seem to indicate it is not necessarily its “policy to promote” all of the others. Even if you would argue that the 0.7% is inherent in that (which I don’t think is the case) “policy to promote” does not mean ‘obliged to’.

EC. 4. REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY.

a) Strategy- The President, acting through the Secretary of State…shall develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting…the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

Basically ditto above it focuses on a different goal no mention is made of the 0.7% of GDP goal and even if it were “implement(ing) a comprehensive strategy to further… objective of promoting…the achievement of [something]” does not mean ‘obliged to’.

4) MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS- The term `Millennium Development Goals' means the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

Nothing here about anybody being obliged to do anything.

Len do you understand the concept of "weasle words" ? The statements in the bill are vague, and for a reason. Once a commitment is made to follow this UN doctrine. what in this bill forbids following the others?

DO you think if this was a contract you were to sign, that YOUR laywer would be ok with the wording? Would YOU be ok with the wording?

If you are fine. No way in hell I would sign a document as vague as this one.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

All,

Here is a link to the complete text of the bill

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2433

Craig,

Please cite the portions that will mandate that the US spend 0.7 % of its GDP, give the money to the UN or make the US subservient to that body.

Len

Here you go Len. How did you miss it?

Craig I saw that but I don’t see it mandating what you and the rightwing nuts you are citing seem to think it does. The Millennium Development Goals are mention 3 times in the quoted section

It is the policy of the United States to promote…the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

By saying “it is the policy of the United States to promote” one specific goal would seem to indicate it is not necessarily its “policy to promote” all of the others. Even if you would argue that the 0.7% is inherent in that (which I don’t think is the case) “policy to promote” does not mean ‘obliged to’.

Len, does the bill EXCLUDE any of the other planks of the MDG? Is the door left WIDE open?

EC. 4. REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY.

a) Strategy- The President, acting through the Secretary of State…shall develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting…the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

Basically ditto above it focuses on a different goal no mention is made of the 0.7% of GDP goal and even if it were “implement(ing) a comprehensive strategy to further… objective of promoting…the achievement of [something]” does not mean ‘obliged to’.

Interesting passage don't you think? This is a spending bill, yet there is no mention of where the money comes from nor any amount. And why FORCE the President to do this. Congress controls the purse strings. They can simply say where and how much. Why was the bill written this way and how does it benefit Obama? Simple answer. President Obama says I'm legally mandated to create this program and its an open door. Amazing stuff eh? A green light to going with the full slate of the GDS planks.

If Obama wants to help the poor and not himself, why write the bill in this way? Why not disclose the funding and the methods?

4) MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS- The term `Millennium Development Goals' means the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

Nothing here about anybody being obliged to do anything.

Ok......

Edited February 21, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Mark Stapleton]

And the whiskey and hash smoke just keeps pourin' through around here like crap through a goose. Chemtrails, Satanic hand signals, the evil that Len Colby represents.........and "Obama-the-black-Muslim-trained-in-a-madrassa-but-owned-by-Big-Money-Interests" (Jewish interests, I wonder?). So in the interests of whoever has a longer attention span than the average sparrow, I once again post a link for informational purposes regarding false information being bandied about on Senator Obama:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

Btw, my best guesstimate is that we'll have 4 years to look forward to of President McCain, the candidate with the removable spine

Interesting link, Daniel. I agree there will be a mother of a smear campaign by the GOP if Obama wins the nomination. However, I don't agree with your conclusion. The internet has wised everyone up, and it's only taken a few years. I doubt Americans will fall for a phony smear this time. The internet (and recent history) has totally undermined the credibility of the neocon worldview. Foxnews looks like a B grade fifties sci-fi movie---but much less endearing.

FoxNews has always looked that way, which may be the appeal -- many people seem to want things simple & authoritative because they don't like to think on their own, or don't know how. I think mostly it's the recent history that's undermined the credibility of the neocon worldview, but I hadn't noticed that neocons had lost power lately so it's not their credibility that worries me.

I think you're overly optimistic about the internet. It's full of an amazing amount of information, a good deal of which is various kinds of crap. I haven't seen much evidence that it's "wised everyone up." Likewise, I think it's overly optimistic to think Americans won't "fall for" a smear campaign against Obama. Aside from the Republican Party itself, there's the media that's served as a Bush Administration mouthpiece; the Christian Right who've been under the impression -- long before "The War On Terror" -- that "Bible-prophecies-are-being-fulfilled-in-our-lifetime" (think of a young black man named Barack Hussein Obama in that context, "taking over our Christian nation"); and the often-underestimated bigots of the Far Right (or just bigots in general). We should be so lucky to see only "a mother of a smear campaign by the GOP."

I'm not sure what conclusion I came to that you disagreed with, unless it was that McCain will win the presidency...... I'm unconvinced that the results of the 2006 congressional elections should be read as some kind of watershed breakthrough where a majority of Americans are now chomping at the bit to go out and vote for Hillary Clinton or a charismatic young black man for president. They've been conditioned for the past 30 years to seek sanctuary with tired old white guys who think the most important thing in existence is the word "conservative" (which sort of covers everything that's supposed to be "good").

Surely you jest. There's a mood for change in the US, unless I'm mistaken. If Obama is nominated, it's a clear cut case of the old versus the new. As a representative of the status quo, McCain would have no chance. Forget the crap others have mentioned about inexperience. Obama will win. Even the bible won't save the Republicans.

PS: Interesting conversation you're having with Mr. Lamson. "Bigger bombs and bigger armies are the very backbone of foreign policy." I may get in on this foolishness if I get the time.......apparently someone's unaware that we've been following a "minimalist" approach where the armies are concerned.................

Edited February 21, 2008 by Mark Stapleton

[John Simkin]

The latest polls show that in an election between McCain and Clinton would result in a Republican victory. However, the polls show that Obama clearly beats McCain in an election. It seems to me that the Democrats cannot afford Clinton winning.

[Christopher Hall]

The latest polls show that in an election between McCain and Clinton would result in a Republican victory. However, the polls show that Obama clearly beats McCain in an election. It seems to me that the Democrats cannot afford Clinton winning.

John-

I wouldn't get too exdited about reading tea leaves and polls 9 months in advance of the election.

4 months ago, Rudy Giuliani and HRC were the presumptive nominees.

There will be much more scandals, media buzz, meltdowns and gnashing of teeth before the election in November.

The Democrats have a bona fide exciting candidate, for the first time in many years, and the Republicans will have someone who will probably follow the same script as Bob Dole in 1996 and President Ford in 1976.

[Duane Daman]

QUOTE(John Simkin @ Feb 20 2008, 06:01 PM)

Ron, what do you think the Christian Right will do?

I wish they would get Raptured. Failing that, I hope more of them get caught tapping their feet in airport toilet stalls. Beyond that, I don't know what they will do

Let's just hope they all aren't driving when the Rapture comes .

Edited February 21, 2008 by Duane Daman