My Hopes Regarding President Obama
Find a Conversation
| 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
< It's been stated ad nauseum.
>>> That's very true, and it's one of the reasons your guy lost.
Our guy lost because almost everyone with any sense and experience says that the President shouldn't talk to our enemies without pre-conditions?
>>> The word nauseum being how the majority of the people felt about McCain's policies and the criminal way this country has been run.
Um...actually, no. Obama bought the election with corrupt financing and racist support.
>>> Oh, forgot to add, you lost.
I wasn't running for anything. LOL!
>>> I was afraid that hadn't been stated enough on here.
Think one more time was the charm? ; )
>>> Your ideas, opinions, factless rhetoric - lost.
You kids live in a factless world. Heck, you didn't even know why so many experienced people said Barry shouldn't talk to our enemies! LOL! Get a few facts before you throw stones.
>>> The American people said to those who follow the Bush method - Enough.
No...actually they didn't. But I do look forward to hearing the bleats of the sheeple when they lose their jobs and can't pay their energy bills.
Um, maybe because parts of it are UNCONSTITUTIONAL? You may wish to give up your Constitutional rights, but there are plenty of us who do not wish to do so.
So can I assume that my right to bear arms, including assault rifles will be left alone?
Good grief!
No one has taken my right to bear arms away yet, but you'll pardon me if I don't put faith in Obama on this one.
On March 24, a reader wrote in an e-mail to The Post that "Obama supports the D.C. law" and demanded a correction. That was based on an Associated Press account of Obama's Milwaukee news conference asserting that "he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns." In fact, all he said was: "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang-bangers and random shootings on the street isn't borne out by our Constitution."
That leaves Obama unrevealed on the D.C. law. In response to my inquiry about his specific position, Obama's campaign e-mailed me a one-paragraph answer: Obama believes that while the "Second Amendment creates an individual right, . . . he also believes that the Constitution permits federal, state and local government to adopt reasonable and common sense gun safety measures." Though the paragraph is titled "Obama on the D.C. Court case," that specific gun ban is never mentioned. I tried again last week, without success, to learn Obama's position before writing this column.
Obama's dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from the radical young Illinois state legislator he once was. He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position he has since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association grades his voting record (and Clinton's) an "F."
Oh sure, you can have your arms, within federal/state/municipal guidelines, but do be very careful in any phone calls which you might make overseas. And for Gawd's sake, don't talk about sex since that really tweaks the ears of NSA eavesdroppers!
I am curious. What the heck do you need an assault weapon for? Why would ANY civilian need an assault weapon?
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.
People can and do change their opinions on things over time. Up until a year or two ago, I was very anti-gun. I didn't, and still don't, understand people who enjoy hunting (why is it fun to snuff the life out of an animal?) and as a mother, guns scared me.
I've changed my mind. In fact, my oldest son (age 23) and I are planning to take shooting lessons together, partly for the fun of it and partly so we can qualify for a concealed weapons permit, and I may at some point purchase a handgun for my personal protection. I think part of the change in my POV is that I no longer have little kids and having a gun in the house doesn't scare me the way it used to. Also, after two decades of being a WAHM, I had a brief stint working outside of the home in an office located in a pretty bad area of town. I realized then that I wanted the ability to protect myself.
Of course, a can of mace is probably a reasonable alternative for personal protection, but my point is that I have changed my view on handguns. Obama ran an ad here in Virginia saying he would protect our 2nd Amendment rights, and I believe him.
“If, by a ‘liberal,’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties – someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘liberal,’ then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘liberal.’”
~Ghostwriter, M.A.
I'm shaking in my shoes! No more handguns on the streets? What was he thinking?!
Being constantly at loggerheads with the NRA, anybody they give an "F" to is likely to get an "A" from me!
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.
Pages