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
Misleading, as in promoting a fantasy, something that is not as it's being presented.
I hope Obama does well, first and foremost.
As the world's biggest cynic, i listened to both of them in the run up whilst in the US. Wow! No wonder the US people are in debt with salesmen as smooth as Obama. If he were a preacher he might even get me in a church. I don't believe in God or prayer, but I believe in doing good.
Misleading? Fantasy? Ummmm..... no. The fact that one interpretation of the Second Amendment does not suit your own views does not somehow render that interpretation either misled or fantastic.
IF you were correct about the primary purpose of the Second Amendment, why oh why, did the writers include the introductory phrases at all? They could simply have said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But guess what. They didn't write the second amendment that way.
If I am not misreading your quote, then all those upright citizens who keep and bear arms are the reserve militia? According the US Supreme Court? Yeah, right. Saying "it is undoubtedly true" is a howling idiocy! How on earth, did they arrive at that conclusion! The logic appears to have been cart before horse--if they carry guns, they must be militia rather than militia (WELL REGULATED) carry guns. How often do those "well regulated militia" drill? When did they last get called up en masse to protect and defend the Constitution? The reasoning is nonsensical, straining to fit into a mold which never envisioned an armed citizenry which has not acted as a militia for over a hundred years!
Good God, the whole Presser case decision sounds like it was written by the NRA instead of thoughtful, legally trained individuals. The conclusion came first, then premises were picked to suit. Ugh. What a travesty of interpreting intent. And so full of holes, a Mack truck could drive through. Must be why there's a rush to stock up on arms and ammo.
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.
I don't know why they included that.
I submit that the intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure that no federal law would be allowed which would either limit state's rights or keep those states from having "well-regulated militias"--the primary purpose for keeping and bearing arms. Clearly, Supreme Court interpretation has been otherwise BUT that doesn't necessarily mean they knew and hewed to the original intent.
With development of standing armed forces and National Guard, there are no state militias which aren't under the National Guard umbrella. Show me where state militias went to serve in WWII or WWI. I'm interested in seeing specific terminology which says ______state militia fought at _______.
What U.S. Code? Males and females called up? How would they know about the females who might be of age--we don't register for Selective Service? Certainly does NOT sound like the "well-regulated militia" of the Second! IF this exists at all, it certainly is not more paper than practice! Why have the draft, if you can simply mobilize the militia!
BTW, historically most militia members provided their own guns which may have been why the writers wanted to avoid restrictions. NO member of either the National Guard or the armed forces provides their own weapons at this time--so there's no need to worry about a lack of arms for the militias.
Moreover, the reasoning that states might limit their own militias is perverse. Why would they limit their own abilities to defend themselves? None of this is making a lick of sense.
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.
I don't share your view since the states ALREADY had the right to have their own militia's, AND the 2nd doesn't say anything about a right to have militias.
I guess that can be chalked up to fear of the unknown. ;o)
<<It’s quite obvious that none – not ONE – of the fear-mongers on this board who have been squawking about Socialism have the foggiest idea what it is.>>
Edited 11/9/2008 10:54 am ET by suemox
~Ghostwriter, M.A.
Let me ask YOU a question. Do you think it would be productive for me to try to undermine our newly elected president before he even begins?
Imo, it was fine BEFORE he was elected - so that all could see what they could potentially get.
Now that we have elected him I intend to support him (as much as I can) unless he does something from this point forward that I cannot support. I do have my internal fears, but I am now officially in "wait and see" mode. We can revisit this topic when and if he tries to push a Socialistic agenda. Until then, at least with me, I would like to respectfully request (again) that you BACK OFF.
Edited 11/10/2008 11:40 am ET by chillychillychilly
Pages