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
Assault Rifles are fully automatic or selective fire.
LOL!
No, it's not.
I have three bumper stickers:
"Help get the son of a bush out"
"Don't blame me, I voted for Gore AND Kerry"
and "Obama 2008"
LOL
Actually that's something of a fallacy.
Edited 11/9/2008 9:00 pm ET by chillychillychilly
Edited 11/7/2008 10:17 pm ET by iamabg304
< 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?>>
>>> They weren't passed because enough Democrats and Republicans opposed them. But this could not have been achieved by Democrats alone, as your posts seem to suggest.
Actually it could. The Republicans voted unanimously FOR the bill and the Democrats voted unanimously AGAINST the bill, depriving the Republicans of the percentage of votes necessary to get the bill out of committee and bring it to the floor for a vote.
>>> And I think you misunderstand my position. I do not suggest that Democrats should not share in the blame for our current economic mess -- they should. Yes, McCain did urge action to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but it fell on deaf ears in both parties.
Actually, while there may have been a few dissenting Republicans (but the reports have said the Republicans were unanimously FOR reform), it was the Democrats who rallies along party lines, under the pressure of Dodd and Franks, to kill the proposed reform measures. Here is video evidence...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
< 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.>>
>>> Who said anything about France?
Name your country.
>>> And I certainly don't support appeasement or jumping through hoops to win approval from other countries. What I support is a diplomacy that encourages other nations to work with us to solve global problems,
Over the last 8 years, what countries have balked at working with the US to solve global problems?
>>> I don't want US taxpayers footing the bill for every war that has to be fought to keep the world in balance.
We always do.
>>> Also, appeasement and "discussion" are not interchangeable.
They are if the talks themselves are an appeasement...as Obama proposes.
>>> Appeasement means giving concessions to keep peace -- talking means nothing of the sort. If talking -- without making any concessions -- can keep more American soldiers alive then I am for talking.
That is a naive point of view.
>>> BTW, I would love to see any reference from and Democrat suggesting we should "appease" Russia. No one is dumb enough to think or say that.
Except that Obama's response to the invasion of Georgia was just that. Let's see how he responds to their latest aggression.
One never can have too much information, Mark!
Pages