My Hopes Regarding President Obama

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
My Hopes Regarding President Obama
348
Wed, 11-05-2008 - 7:56am

Last night I was pretty depressed. I cried when John McCain conceded. I prayed for our newly elected President Obama, and for our country.

I started thinking about this man with the paper thin record, and thinking of his words, "I'm a pragmatist", and I started to feel a glimmer of hope. Is it possible that he won't push an ultra liberal socialist agenda? Food for thought, maybe his "present" votes were votes cast so that he wouldn't "tip his hand"? Maybe in good conscious he couldn't vote to the extreme left but knew that if he didn't he could never make it as far as he needed to in the extreme environment where he was traveling up the ladder to the white house?

We really know nothing about this man aside from his thin record. Maybe he won't be the Socialist leader that we expect. Maybe, now that he is in a position of power, he will seek good council and steer our country in the right direction rather than the wrong one.
I'm praying for that, because I don't want to see the country brought to her knees with another great depression and oppressive laws that limit our success and our freedoms.

I think we conservatives should put our money where our mouths are and start praying that this man will see the light, and lead our country well. I much prefer this scenario than the Jimmy Carter scenario on steroids which messes up the country so badly that he will not serve a second term and set the African American cause back for another generation.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-05-2008
Thu, 11-06-2008 - 4:43pm

Fortunately, the majority of the voting public does not see sitting down and talking with other world leaders as being a bad thing.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 11-06-2008 - 4:48pm
I don't have high speed internet access, only dial-up. YouTube files are usually too large for me to listen to and/or view without a terrific amount of chopiness. If you had a point, it will have to be made in either text or still pictures.

Gettingahandle


Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.


Facts stifle the will, hobble conviction.

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Thu, 11-06-2008 - 5:13pm

No Mil, the military and the financial markets should NOT be in the same business.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Thu, 11-06-2008 - 5:26pm
.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Thu, 11-06-2008 - 5:35pm

>>> Fortunately, the majority of the voting public does not see sitting down and talking with other world leaders as being a bad thing.

That's because "the majority of the voting public" is as ignorant and naive as Obama is.

>>> But if you must be afraid and suspicious, then that's what you must be. But even Bush and Ms. Rice have decided that "chatting" with these people certainly can't hurt, and perhaps bring about a closer understanding of whatever these folks are saying.

Again, ignorance. There has been constant discussion with Iran via surrogates, and even the Bush administrations recent foray was at a secretary level, not with the President...which was the point all along. It's very clear what Iran has been saying and what it is continuing to say with it's "congratulations" for Obama.

>>> Might not agree with them, but it's always "helpful" to understand just what one is not agreeing about.

Like it's a big mystery.

>>> What do you believe is wrong with talking with these people? Do you believe that that will diminish our country in some way? What is the downside in your opinion?

It's been stated ad nauseum.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-03-2008
Thu, 11-06-2008 - 6:33pm
I can understand your anger. Now you know how we felt when Bush was elected for the SECOND time in 2004. gives you a sick feeling in the pit of your stomach. that was how I felt about Bush.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Thu, 11-06-2008 - 6:46pm

Here is what I am referring to:

>>> Overuse of understaffed military forces

**Why didn't the Republicans restore the cuts to the military when they gained control of Congress in 1994?

Congress doesn’t work unilaterally, and Clinton was pushing cuts in military spending early in his Presidency in an effort to balance the budget. Things changed towards the end of his Presidency when spending increases were authorized, but growing the military takes time. And with Russia out of the way for the moment, there was an emphasis on new technologies rather than soldiers. This model worked brilliantly in defeating the Iraqi army, but “occupation” necessitated LOTS of “boots on the ground.”

>>> Non-funded mandates

**So your argument is that because Democrats make bad policy, it doesn't matter when Republicans (who were in control of both the Executive and Legislative branches) do it? Aren't Republicans better than that?

Yes we are…but government is government and it works the way it does no matter who is “in charge.”

>>> Horrific treatment of our Iraq vets

**Why wasn't it fixed during the 12 years Republicans held control of Congress and the military budget?

It was, to a degree…but only to support the current pre-war military expectations. Once the war began, need surpassed resources (in equipment as well as treatment for injured soldiers) and the military has been struggling to catch up.

>>> An $8.2 trillion debt

**1. Just because it was spent on National Security doesn't mean that we don't have to find a way to pay for it.

True, but the Dems like to make it sound as if Bush frivolously spend trillions on a new sound system for Air Force One. Huge spending was needed and authorized by the Dems. It’s just a shame that they don’t have the integrity to put partisanship aside and admit that the spending was justified, but would rather lie about it and use it as a political weapon. Gutless prigs.

*** 2. How was it spent by Dems when Republicans controlled the Appropriations process? Did the Dems hoodwink those poor Republicans again?

You make it seem as if the poor Dems were sitting there twiddling their thumbs while the evil Republicans shoveled money out the door. Tell me…why weren’t the Fannie and Freddie reforms, proposed by McCain and Bush, passed? If the Republicans had all of the power, why weren’t huge numbers of Democrat supported programs and entitlements killed by the evil Republicans?

>>> A 2002 article from Citizens Against Public Waste states: "Since taking Congress in 1994, Republicans have substantially increased pork-barrel projects, both in cost and number. For fiscal 1994, under a Democrat-controlled Congress, the total of 1,318 pork projects cost taxpayers $7.7 billion. In the last three years, the mostly Republican-led appropriators have added 4,326, 6,333, and 8,341 such projects, costing $17.7 billion, $18.5 billion, and $20.1 billion respectively. To be fair, pork has always been a bipartisan affair, and is likely to remain so in the new Congress." CAGW has nothing nice to say about Democrats' spending, but they acknowledge that Republicans are every bit as guilty.

Serving only 143 days in the Senate, Obama scored almost a BILLION dollars in earmarks. In that same period, he became the 2nd highest beneficiary of funds from Fannie/Freddie, while his buddy, Franklin Raines took $9 million in six years. I’m not saying that the Republicans are guilt free, but to present the Democrats as anything but “elbow deep in the till” is simply disingenuous.

>>> Alienation of much of the rest of the world

"New Europe" ran on pro-US tickets. As for the rest, who cares?

***Who cares? What an ignorant statement. We all should care, considering the threats we face from around the globe. Look at the bluster we are hearing from Medvedev in Russia right now.

What a bunch of liberal BS. Why should I care what the great unwashed in France has to say about us? They’re not weeping over polls that show we don’t hold them in the highest regard. In fact, name the country that is jumping through hoops to gain the approval of America? It’s a hypocritical liberal “need for approval” that I definitely don’t share. PS…you’re a fool if you think that appeasing Russia would make them see us as anything but weak…but that’s a failing of liberalism in general.

>>> A nearly $1 trillion trade deficit

***Great answer. But what did the Republicans do to curb the trade deficit when they were in full power?

In light of the gross spending that has recently occurred, and the even more gross spending that has been proposed by the Democrats, I’d simply ask…what did the Republidans spend money on that was frivolous and/or wasteful?

>>> I still fail to understand how Democrats have caused all the problems in the US while the Republicans were in power in both the White House and Congress. How does that work?

I didn’t say “all”…and to answer your question, see above…”with a unanimous Republican vote, why didn’t the Republican reforms of Fannie/Freddie pass?”

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Thu, 11-06-2008 - 6:55pm

>>> My electric bill increased by 22% this summer under President Bush!

Then expect it to get even higher...as Obama promised.

>>> Where have you been these past 8 years and not been affected by anything in this current administration? Because if you have not, tell me what state you live in and maybe I will move there!

My electricity costs probably make yours look like chump change...but tell me, what did Bush do...specifically...to cause your electric bill to increase?

>>> And stop smearing lies about Obama!

No lies...just the truth according to Obama...

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

Barack Obama, January 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/02/obama-ill-make-energy-prices-skyrocket/comment-page-1/

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-24-2008
Thu, 11-06-2008 - 7:12pm
Maybe you should read the comment I was responding to because I wasn't making a comparison in the least. I don't think they are similar I was giving someone else examples that they asked for. Check the previous comments before you make assumptions. Thanks

 

Pages