A Vote For Obama is a Vote for Africa!!!

Why are you so surprised to find these kinds of voters for McCain? I expect nothing more of the sort among some righties, thats how its always been.

hmm now lets see here, Bush gave more money to Africa than any other US president in history, the OP seems to be more for war than aid and much of this talk from the righties are yet again "speculation". The only people your convincing these smears with are ignorant idiots.... oh wait that is the voting block the republican party ever so depends on

[edit on 3-7-2008 by southern_Guardian]

reply to post by eric52081

---

People like you are what is wrong with the world. Your ignorance is out of control!

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

---

It is aimed at the OP.

What's ironic is that George W. Bush has done more for Africa than any President in history. It's weird that his historic legacy may indeed be a better Africa. Even Bono sings W's praises about his Africa policies:




Bono and Bush

So I guess a vote for Bush was a vote for Africa.

reply to post by justamomma

---

**** YEAH! I totally agree with you here! I work very hard for my money and I shouldn't be forced to pay for lazy people who mooch off the government. If I we have to pay more taxes, then it should be going to benefit THIS country, not Africa, or any other country who is in "need." Because WE are in "need," this country has too many problems right now to be trying to help everyone. Take care of our own, before we take care of others.

That's a perfectly okay opinion to have.. if you've got no morals whatsoever. When did we become a nation of super-villains? Don't any of you read your Spider-Man? With great power comes great responsibility. We're the greatest country on Earth... for what? To be two-bit greedy hoods?

I have a feeling that any program that helps people in this country that are in "need" will also be shouted down as being "big government" acting like a "nanny state" and this bluster about helping our needy before their needy is just a smoke screen. They can all be helped if as a country we had the will. The truth is, a great many people are simply selfish b***tards and don't give a fig for anyone but themselves. Maybe we should institute some retroactive kindegarten and get some basic human decency back into this country. Jeesh.

reply to post by SKMDC1

---

well, hold up. what i said i am NOT for is someone taking from my pocket and putting into the pockets of others PERIOD. i do help ppl in africa, out of my pocket, and also in supporting my parents decision to move over there away from their family. that hardly makes me a selfish person. i trust ME w/ the money i earn and i trust YOU w/ the money YOU earn, but i don't trust the gov't w/ my $$. that is not selfish, that is called being smart.

EVEN if someone doesn't want to give their money away to others, it doesn't make them selfish.

selfish is taking from other ppl's pockets and passing it out to whom you deem worthy (worthy of what, though? having someone else's hard earned money?)....... it is also called stealing.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by justamomma]

Well that's a more noble motive than trying to cash in on oil



Most governments have a foreign aid policy, welcome to the 20th century.



Those countries can't afford benefits.



Equality is about everyone having a 'Katrina Paradox' chance. Sell the colour of your skin as well as you can, us whities have.

Finally, I've watched this with interest, but my biggest fear about Hillary losing was people like you.

First off we have been helping them for what about 50-60 years and they still haven't got their act together yet. I say we let them handle their own affairs and keep the oh 10-15 billion a year here to help us out of this current situation. That money could be used to start out new businesses and or help out the ones that are homeless and hungry here. He needs to crawl back into the hole he came out of and figure out what he really believes our country should be. He claims to be Black but he was raised by his white mother and white grandparents.

And one of the major campaigns about third world debt is that for every dollar spent, they have to pay out seven dollars in debt payments. Bit by bit this is getting remedied, but slowly. Barack woud be a massive global imputus because of his position, but the rest of the world knows how serious this is. The EU is in turmoil over the spirit of dropping trade barriers with Africa for the difference it would make, against the needs of our own farmers.



So you would offer no aid? Let them handle their affairs, sure, but make trade fair? They are not in the negotiating position to get equal trade terms, we flood their markets and do not give equal access. Let them handle their affairs?



I'm not American and this is domestic, but you seem to find it the case that he wants to help Africa so is black, but by raising he is white and this causes you problems? As for what your country should be, that is obviously for you.

So you would offer no aid? Let them handle their affairs, sure, but make trade fair? They are not in the negotiating position to get equal trade terms, we flood their markets and do not give equal access. Let them handle their affairs?

No I would offer NO AID. They have Diamond mines that would be something they could offer. Yes, what are they? Are they men or not can they not handle their own affairs?


I'm not American and this is domestic, but you seem to find it the case that he wants to help Africa so is black, but by raising he is white and this causes you problems? As for what your country should be, that is obviously for you.

He wants to be considered Black. So I was just letting you know that he was raise in a White environment by his white mother and his white Grandparents. He is the one bringing the race card into play not me.

Diamond mines owned by white guys..... geddit?



Glad you're not trying to play the race card, you made it sound suspect.

Your personal sacrifices are admirable, but not the point. The point is when I use the word "We" I mean "We the People" as in the country as a whole. The government is in a unique position to effect global change for good because it can unite the philanthropic nature of millions rather than relying on individuals working alone. Some of the best ways of doing this are to simply make it "easier" to do good in the world for the citizens. And I think it is the very definition of selfish to refuse to help others in need. On an individual level it's an unfortunate choice, on the national level it's a moral issue, in my opinion anyway.

reply to post by SKMDC1

---

i respect your opinion and am all for YOU trusting the gov't w/ where they distribute the money. i do not trust them. it is very much a personal thing bc what is moral about someone taking the money out of citizens pockets to distribute where they feel it should be distributed? that is neither a moral mark for you, nor for them.

reply to post by eric52081

---

Eric, I wouldn't worry about too much money going to Africa... Bush and company have drained your pocket heavy tax dollars for decades to come. If I were you... I'd be more concerned whether or not there will be meat in your bowl once your get to the head of the soup line.

Likewise, I respect your opinion as well, and I completely understand a lack of trust in the ability of government, especially after the last 7 years. However, let me ask you this, do you trust the Gov't "taking the money out of citizens pockets" to fight a war? Do you trust the Gov't to make the right decision on what roads to build and maintain? What airline safety regulations to enact? What nations to spy on? It strikes me as odd that the only time the "not trusting the government" argument crops up is when it's a social program or something that actually helps people like Universal Healthcare. Which is it? Is the US Gov't a finely honed machine that can whip anyone's ass on the planet, or is it a bunch of keystone cop bureaucrats who can't get anything done? What I like about Obama is I'm pretty sure he'd say it's a little of both and a lot of neither. If you read his book "Dreams from My Father" there's an innate sense that he sees the contradictions in people and yet sees them as basically trying to do good in a complicated world. He talks about a Christian woman who is torn up inside because she helped her daughter get an abortion. Or the man who grew up in a racist environment in the South, and really tried to teach his kids to be different, but then saw Affirmative Action put a black kid into the medical school and not his son, reopening old racial wounds. He tells these stories from the perspective of understanding the contradictions and recognizing that people aren't perfect, but they try hard to be decent. He seems to see the role of Gov't as one that gives people the opportunity to do as good as they possibly can, whether that's a social program, the tax code, or national security. I think that's a wonderful world view for a leader.

to answer your first questions... no, no, no, and uh, no. i am not one of the ppl who relies on her gov't. i take care of me and mine and i help where i can when i can. i am not for a socialist system here in the US of A. but, hey, that's just IMO.

someone can be decent and kind all they want, be half black and half white, and even have the white dove of heaven come down on his head, but STILL, if they are taking from MY pocket to distribute to ANYONE else, they are a thief.

i am doing my best to hear and understand your side, but a thief is a thief is it not? how do we decide WHO is the most needy of our help... who are we gonna help the most? or are we gonna help em all? who will be left out? if we don't leave out any, does that essentially mean i will be working not for me and mine, but for the world? that hardly seems fair.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by justamomma]

That's why we have a representative democracy because choices like who we're going to war with or who we're going to trade with or who we're going to ally with isn't supposed to be the choice of the individual. If the government didn't "steal" your money to build roads, would you do it yourself? How? Infrastructure and National Defense are only possible with an organizing governmental agency. That is also true of global relief. Who decides who is "worthy" of our need? The same people who decide who is worthy of our bombs... We do... by electing representatives and if they choose to send a bunch of money to Dubai for "relief" and choose to invade country's for no other reason than a personal grudge.. then we replace them. That's how the system works. Why is your government qualified to handle roads, air safety, the postal service, the military, space exploration... but using it to actually help poverty is makes them a "theif"... I really see no difference between your tax dollars helping starving children in Africa and your tax dollars paying for a Mars rover. Can you explain to me the difference?