So please rebut them..

1. Has obama ever run anything.

2. Has Obama ever authored a Bill of any signifigance in regard to change or reform.

3. Did he or did he not vote PRESENT 130 times to avoid a yes/no vote?

No problemo! Although it is pretty sad that you insist on other people educating you instead of educating yourself. 


Q. Has Obama ever run anything?

Yes. He ran the Harvard Law Review of which he was President, and which is also one of the largest and most distinguished law schools in the world. He also ran his own Civil Rights and Constitutional Law practice (something that might come in handy after Bush & Co. systematically dismantled the Constitution over the previous 8 years). He eventually turned down numerous lucrative job offers and boatloads of money (I know, something unfathomable to Republicans) to work as a Community Organizer where he ran various non-profit groups to help Americans who were out of work and losing their homes (something that might be vaguely helpful in the current economy).

Of course, he runs his entire Senate staff in addition to running an enormous national presidential campaign - which he has done an extremely good job of doing. Even Republicans concede this point. 


2. Has Obama ever authored a Bill of any signifigance in regard to change or reform?

Yes. Many many of them. During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced...

233 regarding healthcare reform
125 on poverty and public assistance
112 crime fighting bills
97 economic bills
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills
21 ethics reform bills
15 gun control
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included....


1. Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law.
Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans to increase transparency in government spending and so taxpayers can more easily find out what the government is spending their money on. Dr. Coburn said of the law:
"Every American has the right to know how their government spends their money, and then to hold elected officials accountable for those decisions. I applaud my colleagues for unanimously supporting a bill that will aid the American people in that effort," Dr. Coburn said. "This bill is a small but significant step toward changing the culture in Washington. Only by fostering a culture of openness, transparency and accountability will Congress come together to address the mounting fiscal challenges that threaten our future prosperity."

2. Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law.
Bipartisan Effort Focuses on Antiaircraft Missiles, Stolen WMDs and Conventional Weapons used in Improvised Roadside Bombs

3. Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate

4. 2007 Government Ethics Bill, became law.
Legislation that provides greater transparency in government and higher ethical standards for politicians addressing such matters as earmarks, lobbying, congressional oversight, travel & gifts, etc. etc. etc. 

5. Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.
Prevents CEO's of failing companies from raiding pensions and 401k's of employees to provide themselves golden parachutes while employees get fired and go bankrupt. 


3. Did he or did he not vote PRESENT 130 times to avoid a yes/no vote?

You are asking 2 questions. Did Obama vote "Present" 130 times during his tenure as Senator? Yes. Was this to avoid a yes/no vote? No. Anyone who claims a "present" vote on a bill means the Senator cannot make up his or her mind on the issue does not understand the legislative process and is grossly uneducated and ignorant about congressional proceedings:

The most important use of the "present" vote is as a signal – to the other party, to the governor, to the sponsor -- to show a willingness to compromise on the issue if not the exact bill, to show disapproval for one aspect of the bill, to question the constitutionality of the bill, to strengthen the bill. [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04]

The AP reported, "Obama says his 'present' votes often come on bills that he believes are unconstitutional. 'I have tried to not succumb to the temptation of voting on bad laws just because it makes for good politics,' Obama said." [AP, 9/9/04]

Senators Would Vote Present If They Had 'Unresolved Worries.' The State Journal-Register reported, "Sen. George Shadid, the Edwards Democrat who is pushing the legislation, promised Senate Education Committee members that he wouldn't move ahead with Senate Bill 368 'unless I can get a good consensus.'…Four committee members cited unresolved worries when they voted 'present' on the measure, which passed 7-0." [State Journal-Register, 2/27/03]

Anyone Who Thinks A Present Vote Is A "Duck" Doesn't Understand How the Process Works. "There is a presumption, if one is not familiar with the mechanics of the General Assembly, that a present vote is a "duck." Pam Sutherland, the CEO and President of Illinois Planned Parenthood said of [this] Hull argument: "I think it's not well-based…I think it's somebody who doesn't understand how the legislative process works." [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04]


In other words, a "present" vote is a tool used for bipartisan compromise - you know - the very thing this country needs in order to get anything done. Hardline partisans never use "present" because they refuse to compromise or reach across the aisle. Therefore we have not seen a lot of "present" votes in the last 8 years in the Senate - on either side - and consequently we have got gotten anything done in this country.

No he'll just post threee new threads

1. Has obama ever run anything.

2. Has Obama ever authored a Bill of any signifigance in regard to change or reform.

3. Did he or did he not vote PRESENT 130 times to avoid a yes/no vote?





Your question was "Has Obama ever run anything?". I said "yes" and provided you multiple examples of things he has run.

Now, if you would like to change your question to "Does Obama have any executive experience?", the answer is no. Of course neither does John McCain. So if you are suggesting that prior executive experience should be a requirement for the White House, both Obama and McCain are disqualified.   


You asked if Barack Obama has ever authored a single major piece of legislation. I provided this piece of legislation authored by Obama as an example.



You asked if Barack Obama has ever authored a single major piece of legislation. I provided this piece of legislation authored by Obama as an example.
 

You asked if Barack Obama has ever authored a single major piece of legislation. I provided this piece of legislation authored by Obama as an example.


You asked if Barack Obama has ever authored a single major piece of legislation. I provided this piece of legislation authored by Obama as an example.




You asked if Barack Obama has ever authored a single major piece of legislation. I provided this piece of legislation authored by Obama as an example.





You asked if Barack Obama has ever authored a single major piece of legislation. I provided you the above examples. Your opinion of those bills does not change the fact that Obama, indeed, authored them. It also does not change the fact that Republicans, indeed, lied to the American People when they claimed, repeatedly, that Obama wrote 2 books but not a single piece of major legislation.

You see, Reaganite, you don't get to change the question because you don't like the answer. And you don't get to fabricate completely made-up lies about someone because you want to bring them down and you can't think of any other way to do it.   




When asking a question, please make up your mind. You asked if Barack Obama voted "Present" 130 times. I said "yes". You also asked if he did this to avoid having to give a straight yes or no vote on a bill as the Republicans suggested. I said "no" with lots of corresponding evidence to how a "present" vote is actually a tool used to signal to the other party you are willing to compromise on their bill.

A lot of "present" votes on bills drafted by the opposition party by a particular Senator is a specatular thing. It's a great thing. It shows we have a Senator in office willing to reach across the aisle and work with the other party to get things done. The very same promise John McCain made last night over and over again. Yet the Republicans take this awesome show of compromise and lie about it and twist it, turn it, and grossly contort it into looking like it means a Senator is unable to make up his mind.

It's sad. And I mean that in the truest sense of the word. It's just really really sad. Republicans have been reduced to having to wage a huge disinformation campaign of completely fabricated lies on the American People in order to brainwash and trick them into keeping the Republicans in power and maintian the status quoe - even as they drown awash in debt, foreclosure, medical bills, energy costs, inflation, and unemployment.

The only way they can do it is with lies. Lots of them. Big ones. Truly sad.

Reaganite suddenly doesn't feel as though gun control or crime legislation is major legislation.

Well, you see, Reaganite has now been forced to backtrack and hang his entire argument premise on the fragile adjective "major". After all, I can say that NAFTA was not a "major" piece of legislation and while obviously ridiculous, you can't truly prove me wrong since "major" is completely subjective and I am the one who gets to define what it means.

Consequently, what you get is Reaganite - all curled up in a ball balancing precariously on this fencepost - trying to define "major" and forced to make this preposterous claims in order to protect his argument that Obama has not authored any major legislation such as the biggest ethics reform bill signed into the law in congressional history is not "major".

It's like me saying Ronald Reagan never accomplished anything "significant". Since I get to define "significant" it's the perfect argument (for an idiot).

If you don't know what that the word 'major' is subjective then you don't know what subjective is. the only time it wouldn't be subjective --- as in subjective to an individuals evaluation --- -- is if we were talking about a military rank. Touting cut and paste dictorial definitions will not identify to you if a word is being used subjectively.

The point is if Obama was a part of any of the legislation you define (as in subjective to YOUR definition -- as in you know - subjective), as major, (and gun and crime laws do affect the american people ) you would just go ahead and redefine 'major'. Moving the goalposts back which is the motive behind purposely using the subjective word "major"  in the first place....so that when it comes back that in fact he's been a part of hundreds of pieces of legislation you could just discount any or all of them by simply demanding they weren't "major" enough.

Fact remains yeah, they are lying.



yeah yeah yeah. Let's cut to the chase: "It" "IS" when it's republican and "ISN'T" when it's democrat. All other reasoning you present is just a cover for that imperitive. That's what all your definitions come down to. Why do you pretend to be unbias? To be "unsubjective"? Why do you pretend you're rationally and honestly looking at the legislation?

Why do you pretend you wouldn't crucify Jesus all over again if he turned out to be a democrat?



Ahk

sure just as soon as you explain how not one of thhose pieces of legislation are 'major' as defined by yourself as 'effecting the American people'.

Just as soon as you explain your logic in not knowing any of this gun control legislation (1 of MANY examples) yet proclaiming Obama has never been a part of any major legislation. How do you say that when you plainly don't know?

Just as soon as you properly define what 'subjective' is.

I can understand you not being able or willing to address anything you can't predefine...that's your weakness. All of a sudden it's about one single piece of gun control legislation that is or isn't 'major' by your flexible and conveniently vague definition of "affecting the American people".

Ahk