Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Livonianeighbors.com. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. To ensure your privacy, never use personal information in your screen name or email address ("janedoe@hotmail.com" or "Billysmom" for example).

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Michelle Obama - As bad as her husband; Signs of how things are up in her head.
Topic Started: Feb 20 2008, 01:51 AM (2,239 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

It is too bad all these young people look past his politics and only listen to his campaign slogans.

Obama has the most liberal voting record. He has stated he will raise taxes, most likely to support his Global Tax/Poverty bill(2433-I think), and to support additional government regulation of programs like health care.

Generally speaking, socialist philosophy involves the balance of wealth(i.e., programs, services, etc) among all people. Obama definately leans toward this type of thinking.

He says he supports free enterprise--as long as those who do the best, are willing to give (and give often and generously)to those doing the worst.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vanna White
Member Avatar
Veteran
persona non grata
Feb 22 2008, 02:09 PM
He says he supports free enterprise--as long as those who do the best, are willing to give (and give often and generously)to those doing the worst.

When or where did he say this?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vanna White
Member Avatar
Veteran
Sounds to me like this bill just requires development of a strategy supporting the commitments and policy objectives that have already been made and verbalized by Bush. Trying to reduce poverty doesn't seem like socialism to me...seems more like charity and kindness toward our fellow humans beings on the planet. While a lofty goal, it probably has very little chance of success, since so much of the so-called Christian Right are usually not really interested in "Christian" acts. Judge for yourself. This is the original language:

Global Poverty Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)

S 2433 IS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 2433
To require the President to 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.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

December 7, 2007
Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. HAGEL, and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL
To require the President to 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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Global Poverty Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) More than 1,000,000,000 people worldwide live on less than $1 per day, and another 1,600,000,000 people struggle to survive on less than $2 per day, according to the World Bank.

(2) At the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000, the United States joined more than 180 other countries in committing to work toward goals to improve life for the world's poorest people by 2015.

(3) The year 2007 marks the mid-point to the Millennium Development Goals deadline of 2015.

(4) The United Nations Millennium Development Goals include the goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, that live on less than $1 per day, cutting in half the proportion of people suffering from hunger and unable to access safe drinking water and sanitation, reducing child mortality by two-thirds, ensuring basic education for all children, and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS and malaria, while sustaining the environment upon which human life depends.

(5) On March 22, 2002, President George W. Bush stated: `We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requires it and conscience demands it. We fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach.'.

(6) The 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States notes: `[A] world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 per day, is neither just nor stable. Including all of the world's poor in an expanding circle of development and opportunity is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of U.S. international policy.'.

(7) The 2006 National Security Strategy of the United States notes: `America's national interests and moral values drive us in the same direction: to assist the world's poor citizens and least developed nations and help integrate them into the global economy.'.

(8) The bipartisan Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States recommends: `A comprehensive United States strategy to counter terrorism should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and enhance prospects for their children.'.

(9) At the summit of the Group of Eight (G-8) nations in July 2005, leaders from all eight participating countries committed to increase aid to Africa from the current $25,000,000,000 annually to $50,000,000,000 by 2010, and to cancel 100 percent of the debt obligations owed to the World Bank, African Development Bank, and International Monetary Fund by 18 of the world's poorest nations.

(10) At the United Nations World Summit in September 2005, the United States joined more than 180 other governments in reiterating their commitment to achieve the United Nations Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

(11) The United States has recognized the need for increased financial and technical assistance to countries burdened by extreme poverty, as well as the need for strengthened economic and trade opportunities for those countries, through significant initiatives in recent years, including the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).

(12) In January 2006, United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice initiated a restructuring of the United States foreign assistance program, including the creation of a Director of Foreign Assistance, who maintains authority over Department of State and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) foreign assistance funding and programs.

(13) In January 2007, the Department of State's Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance added poverty reduction as an explicit, central component of the overall goal of United States foreign assistance. The official goal of United States foreign assistance is: `To help build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system.'.

(14) Economic growth and poverty reduction are more successful in countries that invest in the people, rule justly, and promote economic freedom. These principles have become the core of several development programs of the United States Government, such as the Millennium Challenge Account.

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.

(B) Content- The strategy required by subsection (a) shall include specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables to achieve the objectives described in subsection (a).

© Components- The strategy required by subsection (a) should include the following components:

(1) Continued investment or involvement in existing United States initiatives related to international poverty reduction, such as the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).

(2) Improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate.

(3) Enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate.

(4) Leveraging United States trade policy where possible to enhance economic development prospects for developing countries.

(5) Coordinating efforts and working in cooperation with developed and developing countries, international organizations, and international financial institutions.

(6) Mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society, and public-private partnerships.

(7) Coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other development goals, such as combating the spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to potable water and basic sanitation, reducing hunger and malnutrition, and improving access to and quality of education at all levels regardless of gender.

(8) Integrating principles of sustainable development and entrepreneurship into policies and programs.

(d) Reports-

(1) INITIAL REPORT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President, acting through the Secretary of State, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the strategy required under subsection (a).

(B) CONTENT- The report required under subparagraph (A) shall include the following elements:

(i) A description of the strategy required under subsection (a).

(ii) An evaluation, to the extent possible, both proportionate and absolute, of the contributions provided by the United States and other national and international actors in achieving 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.

(iii) An assessment of the overall progress toward achieving 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.

(2) SUBSEQUENT REPORTS- Not later than December 31, 2012, and December 31, 2015, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees reports on the status of the implementation of the strategy, progress made in achieving the global poverty reduction objectives described in subsection (a), and any changes to the strategy since the date of the submission of the last report.

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term `appropriate congressional committees' means--

(A) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and

(B) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

(2) EXTREME GLOBAL POVERTY- The term `extreme global poverty' refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $1 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.

(3) GLOBAL POVERTY- The term `global poverty' refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $2 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.

(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).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vanna White
Member Avatar
Veteran
For those that are interested in making a contribution to help children in poverty, this is a fabulous organiziation:

http://www.planusa.org/who/

Childreach/Plan USA has one of the best records of charitible dollars going toward the real need rather than overhead and administration. I have been giving to them for years and am just about to graduate my second sponsored child. It has also been a great learning opportunity for my children, who can write letters to someone living in a community that is far less fortunate. They know that their sponsored brother has no mother and lives in a make-shift house without sanitary facilities or running water. They have heard about how our money has gone to bring clean water closer and toward building a school. It is great to see them ask to send their own money or donate items to help.

Getting regular reports and exchanging letters with a real person, whose yearly picture is always displayed in a frame in our living room, makes things so much more real for them. I highly recommend it as a great experience for your children. Helps keep them grounded and understanding just how lucky they really are. When your child asks for the latest video game or whatever, it's great to ask them if they think that is important or if maybe we could send extra money this month to help with a crisis such as childhood HIV/AIDs in Africa.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Vanna White
Feb 22 2008, 02:56 PM
persona non grata
Feb 22 2008, 02:09 PM
He says he supports free enterprise--as long as those who do the best, are willing to give (and give often and generously)to those doing the worst.

When or where did he say this?

I believe it was during his concession speech when Hillary took New Hampshire.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

You're spinning Vanna. I am all for supporting those less fortunate, as are most Christians. Most who attend church, give generously through donations to at least one global charity. Many are involved in missionary work as well.

I just don't think our gov't should be regulating(anymore than they already do) how much of my money goes to help the poor around the world.

Obama is a big gov't guy. If you support him, then you are supporting more controls on your money and how it is spent.

More gov't control=socialism.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
BoaterDan
Veteran
Xena
Feb 22 2008, 08:57 AM
Can anyone argue this?
We have a African American man and a white woman running for PRESIDENT!!
Who would have thought we would be here today. I am amazed and thankful to be witnessing this. Its to bad we have had to go through hell to get here, involved in a war thats based on lies. You may not like Barak Obama but it seems millions of people across this country do, and are working for CHANGE! There is actual excitement among voters, when did we last see that?  When Robert Kennedy was running?
.

The only voters as excited as you believe are the ones that think the most important aspect of this presidential election is making some kind of statement about how advanced we are as a society. Voters (from both parties) that care about issues consider it sad that so many feel this way.

The truth is this election will be close like the last two. There is no universal excitement to elect a woman or black, in spite of what you may personally believe or hope.

The last time we saw overwhelming excitement across the aisles for a candidate was actually with Ronald Reagan.

As far as the war "based on lies", check this out:
Who's telling lies?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vanna White
Member Avatar
Veteran
persona non grata
Feb 22 2008, 04:18 PM
You're spinning Vanna.  I am all for supporting those less fortunate, as are most Christians.  Most who attend church, give generously through donations to at least one global charity.  Many are involved in missionary work as well. 

I just don't think our gov't should be regulating(anymore than they already do) how much of my money goes to help the poor around the world. 

Obama is a big gov't guy.  If you support him, then you are supporting more controls on your money and how it is spent. 

More gov't control=socialism.

Frankly, I don't particularly like any of the candidates much from either party. Ultimately it will come down to the lesser of evils for me and I don't know yet how that will play out, but I will want to base my decision on facts rather than baseless words. I don't proclaim to have all the facts...I'm just challenging people to back their statements up with evidence.

To me it always seems like a choice between two candidates that support one set of liberties at the expense of another. We usually have a Republican that of course tends to believe in a free market/less government in the business realm :) but is all excited about putting limits on personal or individual freedoms and trying to legislate morality :angry: and then we have a Democrat that wants to have more government regulation in business :angry: but will stand up for the rights and freedoms of individuals. :) If there was a candidate that would stand up for less government in both the economic/business realm and in our personal lives, I would love it. Hense our need for a third party alternative.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Nice summation!

It will be the lessor of two evils for me as well. It has been this way in my mind for some time. Honestly, I don't care if the candidate is a purple androgenite--as long as they are not looking to continually take more $$ out of my pocket to further their gov't programs.

Making social history in this way, is nothing compared to the immediate challenges we face with terrorism, for example. (Electing a woman is not going to break the glass ceiling, as electing a black man is not going to change the prejudices of a generation.)

Let's look at the issues, not the personal characteristics of the candidates.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xena
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
I usually end up voting for the Green Party just because there never seems to be much difference between the two major parties. But I admit I do like Obama and after 8 years with Bush in the White House , I am hopeful that a change for the better is in the making.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domestic Diva
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
persona non grata
Feb 22 2008, 04:18 PM
I am all for supporting those less fortunate, as are most Christians.  Most who attend church, give generously through donations to at least one global charity.  Many are involved in missionary work as well. 

Unfortunately, when Christian groups go over to other countries and claim to help those in need with "missionary" work it is always at some sort of cost. Cost of their eternal souls. I would rather pay more in taxes and see programs really working in the Socialist idea then have to deal with there always being a catch.

We will help you if you pledge your eternal soul and committment to my God? The best part of the Socialist idea is that there isn't a Left and Right and Conservative. It is for everyone, no matter what your religious belief, social status, race, or class. For the people, by the people. Taxation with Representation...what a concept.

I am watching where the religious right who have control of this country have gotten us.

Wow, government not really working for those who really need it to work for them?

The unfortunate part of all of this is that the majority of the U.S. population would rather put their faith in an imaginary being then into their fellow neighbor and that is why Socialism in the Capitalist Chrisitan Right nation would never work. People are too selfish and claim to be righteous as long as the filth and dispair doesn't directly affect them.

If you really believe in your Jesus, and that your saviour is coming back to earth.....Jesus will come back as a black lesbian who is homeless and you will all be screwed because you will have turned your back on her.

Socialism = A chance at a better life for more then just the white, christian, wealthy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I can see we will never be able to talk about politics without religion, abortion, and other issues creeping into the discussion. So, I won't be so strict about it since this forum has now moved well past mostly school matters.

BE VERY CAREFUL where you tread though, these are very sensitive issues with many people, and only civil discussions will be allowed. The trigger finger will be at the ready when it comes to deleting, and no explanations will be givin as to why.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs.M
Veteran
God Bless you Jimid! :)
I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be WRONG.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Micki
I love teaching.
Domestic Diva
Feb 24 2008, 12:37 PM
persona non grata
Feb 22 2008, 04:18 PM
I am all for supporting those less fortunate, as are most Christians.  Most who attend church, give generously through donations to at least one global charity.  Many are involved in missionary work as well. 

Unfortunately, when Christian groups go over to other countries and claim to help those in need with "missionary" work it is always at some sort of cost. Cost of their eternal souls. I would rather pay more in taxes and see programs really working in the Socialist idea then have to deal with there always being a catch.

We will help you if you pledge your eternal soul and committment to my God? The best part of the Socialist idea is that there isn't a Left and Right and Conservative. It is for everyone, no matter what your religious belief, social status, race, or class. For the people, by the people. Taxation with Representation...what a concept.

I am watching where the religious right who have control of this country have gotten us.

Wow, government not really working for those who really need it to work for them?

The unfortunate part of all of this is that the majority of the U.S. population would rather put their faith in an imaginary being then into their fellow neighbor and that is why Socialism in the Capitalist Chrisitan Right nation would never work. People are too selfish and claim to be righteous as long as the filth and dispair doesn't directly affect them.

If you really believe in your Jesus, and that your saviour is coming back to earth.....Jesus will come back as a black lesbian who is homeless and you will all be screwed because you will have turned your back on her.

Socialism = A chance at a better life for more then just the white, christian, wealthy.

Good grief.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LPS Reformer
Member Avatar
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
Domestic Diva
Feb 24 2008, 12:37 PM
persona non grata
Feb 22 2008, 04:18 PM
I am all for supporting those less fortunate, as are most Christians.  Most who attend church, give generously through donations to at least one global charity.  Many are involved in missionary work as well. 

Unfortunately, when Christian groups go over to other countries and claim to help those in need with "missionary" work it is always at some sort of cost. Cost of their eternal souls. I would rather pay more in taxes and see programs really working in the Socialist idea then have to deal with there always being a catch.

We will help you if you pledge your eternal soul and committment to my God? The best part of the Socialist idea is that there isn't a Left and Right and Conservative. It is for everyone, no matter what your religious belief, social status, race, or class. For the people, by the people. Taxation with Representation...what a concept.

I am watching where the religious right who have control of this country have gotten us.

Wow, government not really working for those who really need it to work for them?

The unfortunate part of all of this is that the majority of the U.S. population would rather put their faith in an imaginary being then into their fellow neighbor and that is why Socialism in the Capitalist Chrisitan Right nation would never work. People are too selfish and claim to be righteous as long as the filth and dispair doesn't directly affect them.

If you really believe in your Jesus, and that your saviour is coming back to earth.....Jesus will come back as a black lesbian who is homeless and you will all be screwed because you will have turned your back on her.

Socialism = A chance at a better life for more then just the white, christian, wealthy.


Posted Image
[size=12]Lenin: You rock, comrade Diva![/size]
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people....
----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
livoniarocks
Veteran
Domestic Diva
Feb 24 2008, 12:37 PM
persona non grata
Feb 22 2008, 04:18 PM
I am all for supporting those less fortunate, as are most Christians.  Most who attend church, give generously through donations to at least one global charity.  Many are involved in missionary work as well. 

Unfortunately, when Christian groups go over to other countries and claim to help those in need with "missionary" work it is always at some sort of cost. Cost of their eternal souls. I would rather pay more in taxes and see programs really working in the Socialist idea then have to deal with there always being a catch.

We will help you if you pledge your eternal soul and committment to my God? The best part of the Socialist idea is that there isn't a Left and Right and Conservative. It is for everyone, no matter what your religious belief, social status, race, or class. For the people, by the people. Taxation with Representation...what a concept.

I am watching where the religious right who have control of this country have gotten us.

Wow, government not really working for those who really need it to work for them?

The unfortunate part of all of this is that the majority of the U.S. population would rather put their faith in an imaginary being then into their fellow neighbor and that is why Socialism in the Capitalist Chrisitan Right nation would never work. People are too selfish and claim to be righteous as long as the filth and dispair doesn't directly affect them.

If you really believe in your Jesus, and that your saviour is coming back to earth.....Jesus will come back as a black lesbian who is homeless and you will all be screwed because you will have turned your back on her.

Socialism = A chance at a better life for more then just the white, christian, wealthy.

Are you for real?

Just as a reminder, Socialist and Communist Countries have collapsed, they don't succeed. And if you think that the poor in the former USSR were living the good life, you are sorely mistaken. YOU are more than welcome to "pay more taxes" all you want, you can donate to the federal government in many ways, and please feel free to do so. Personally, I would rather choose what my money goes to. Our government wasn't founded on the principles of running peoples lives, it was found on the principles of allowing people to live their lives (read the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution). The Federal Government's main purpose is to protect us in a Military fashion when needed.

If you are a Socialist, then why do you live in the Land of the Free and the Brave?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Jimid
Feb 24 2008, 12:49 PM
I can see we will never be able to talk about politics without religion, abortion, and other issues creeping into the discussion. So, I won't be so strict about it since this forum has now moved well past mostly school matters.

BE VERY CAREFUL where you tread though, these are very sensitive issues with many people, and only civil discussions will be allowed. The trigger finger will be at the ready when it comes to deleting, and no explanations will be givin as to why.

And let me add this. If we are going to allow these discussions on this forum, you had all better respect everyones beliefs. Heated discussions are welcome, but if anyone gets too far out of line, this forum will go completely Stalin on your butt :o . No exceptions.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
bjorenson
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Domestic Diva
Feb 24 2008, 12:37 PM
persona non grata
Feb 22 2008, 04:18 PM
I am all for supporting those less fortunate, as are most Christians.  Most who attend church, give generously through donations to at least one global charity.  Many are involved in missionary work as well. 

Unfortunately, when Christian groups go over to other countries and claim to help those in need with "missionary" work it is always at some sort of cost. Cost of their eternal souls. I would rather pay more in taxes and see programs really working in the Socialist idea then have to deal with there always being a catch.

We will help you if you pledge your eternal soul and committment to my God? The best part of the Socialist idea is that there isn't a Left and Right and Conservative. It is for everyone, no matter what your religious belief, social status, race, or class. For the people, by the people. Taxation with Representation...what a concept.

I am watching where the religious right who have control of this country have gotten us.

Wow, government not really working for those who really need it to work for them?

The unfortunate part of all of this is that the majority of the U.S. population would rather put their faith in an imaginary being then into their fellow neighbor and that is why Socialism in the Capitalist Chrisitan Right nation would never work. People are too selfish and claim to be righteous as long as the filth and dispair doesn't directly affect them.

If you really believe in your Jesus, and that your saviour is coming back to earth.....Jesus will come back as a black lesbian who is homeless and you will all be screwed because you will have turned your back on her.

Socialism = A chance at a better life for more then just the white, christian, wealthy.

It is interesting that you speak out about the intolerant Christian right - with an equally intolerant rant. Certainly mistakes have been made in the name of religion - and all that claim to be Christians are not necessarily so - but you can't have it both ways. Trading intolerance for more intolerance does not seem like a very good solution to me.

Also, your statement about missionaries is mostly incorrect. While with anything there are good and bad - but my experience has been that most missionaries don't service communites with a price tag attached. It is unfortunate that you have such hard feelings about religion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domestic Diva
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
I am called "Intolerant" when the title of this particular forum topic is

"Michelle Obama - as bad as her husband"

Did I touch a nerve? Did I make you think about living in someone elses shoes but for a second and maybe a bit about perspective? Like how this country looks to someone that isn't the same as you?

I am not stuck in a box and I can and always have seen clearly and if you really knew me you really would be happy to have me on your side.

Democratic Socialist ideas and all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Micki
I love teaching.
No way to spin this one. Your words speak for themselves. Need a shovel?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply