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: 10-08-2008
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 5:43pm

It appears that this has been an ongoing debate on this board, but I am fairly new and missed it.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-07-2007
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 5:53pm
What is it Obama plans to do that qualifies as socialism?

~Ghostwriter, M.A.


iVillage Member
Registered: 11-07-2008
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 6:00pm
i think president-elect obama will do a fine job. it is just sad that people like you are still holding grudges because your candidate was not elected. oh let me guess, you voted for bush both times. you do see what he has gotten us into to, don't you? open your eyes, lady. it's a new day. if you want to live on setbacks, be my guest. i am looking forward to a better tomorrow.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2008
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 6:19pm

Awwwww..........you still don't know the definition of what 'Socialism' is or how to use it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 6:22pm
NP.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 6:36pm

Oh jeez, me and GAH (along with

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-08-2008
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 6:43pm

Thanks again, Mark.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 6:44pm

Look. This is the sentence that I used in my original post: "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?"

I don't know if you will be able to recognize it, but I was trying to think positively. Then this person WENT OFF ON ME about ME supposedly calling Obama a Socialist - Based on the sentence above. I thought the entire rant was offensive and unnecessary.

I think the left needs to BACK OFF and realize that they won the election. No need to be so angry any more! Relax and enjoy the victory. I am trying to come to grips with it, but the nastiness from some here is making it very difficult.

I do understand what Socialism is, and I do not like it. I also have no desire to debate it now, because the debate serves no purpose. The election is over. I am not going to waste the energy now when it does no good.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 6:55pm

You're quite welcome.


Well, NICS is used by any and all FFL (Federal Firearms License) holders whether it's at a fixed location like a sporting-goods or gun shop as well as wirelessly (usually) at gun shows and stuff.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 10:07pm
Am curious. What was misleading to the newbies? Actually using the words of the Bill of Rights?

I reiterate the same point of earlier threads: The wording of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution does not incorporate any other instances of "describing one reason". Those introductory clauses are key to the intent of the amendment.

The well-regulated militia was drawn from the people--they were the militia members and had to supply their own weapons. It's not a matter of not caring for the question. The answer is right there in the amendment itself. This link gives a bit of background to the debate for those newcomers who don't know of our ongoing dialogue: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html#debate

From the link:
"Interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or unrestrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so."

The Supreme Court decision earlier this year basically ignored the introductory clauses because they decided in a 5 to 4 decision:
* that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;
* that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;
* that historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions" at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century; and
* that none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

It's worth noting that the makeup of the court is tilted to the conservative point of view. Had it been otherwise, I very much doubt that Heller would have passed--the reasoning of the majority was not exactly cast-iron! Like you, they entirely subsumed the introductory clauses.

I doubt the authors of the Bill of Rights would have seen the mass shootings like those at Virgina Tech by Seung-Hui Cho as a crime control problem. Cho had no criminal record.

Last note: Although I used double spacing between paragraphs, they're not showing up in the preview pane and may not be in the final version either. May be something wrong with iVillage software again.

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