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: 08-29-2008
Sun, 11-09-2008 - 8:36pm
I think I have made myself clear. I am sorry if you cannot understand what I write. I have asked you twice to desist, yet you persist. Why?
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sun, 11-09-2008 - 8:45pm

<>


Really, instead of using rhetoric, could you be specific on what you are against or fearful?

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Sun, 11-09-2008 - 9:11pm

Specifically I am against being disrespected like this for no reason. Here are my posts that use the word "socialism" in this thread.

http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elpoliticsto/?msg=18241.1

http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elpoliticsto/?msg=18241.280

http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elpoliticsto/?msg=18241.292

I am also having a difficult time believing that there are actually three different people who would attack me over something like this.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Mon, 11-10-2008 - 9:02am

I understand how you feel. I think that he was elected mainly because of the economy, and the fact that the main stream press was actively campaigning for him. I really don't think his ethnicity had much, if anything to do with it.

All we can do now is pray for his success and the success of our country.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-05-2008
Mon, 11-10-2008 - 10:21am

Don't believe you're being "disrespected," Chilly,

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Mon, 11-10-2008 - 10:55am

Of course it is disrespectful. This clearly isn't "simply asking for specifics". My comments were taken out of context and twisted to fit an agenda. This is a game that I simply do not wish to play.

Maybe you should click on the links I provided to see what I really said. For your convenience, here is everything that I have posted on this thread where I used the word, or form of the word "Socialism" :

http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elpoliticsto/?msg=18241.1

http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elpoliticsto/?msg=18241.280

http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elpoliticsto/?msg=18241.292

Also, I don't think the manner that the question was asked was especially polite, do you?




Edited 11/10/2008 11:22 am ET by chillychillychilly
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-07-2007
Mon, 11-10-2008 - 11:26am
Nothing I've written was intended to bully you.

~Ghostwriter, M.A.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 11-10-2008 - 11:11pm

It's pretty clear to me that the Second Amendment has been interpreted in such a way that it no longer has much in common with either the times or intent of its authors. And that's also why the current interpretations are contradictory. They didn't make sense from the get-go and each successive interpretation has further removed the Second from historical context and intent.

State militias haven't fought as truly STATE militias for a very long time. They've evolved/devolved into far more federally controlled entities than state. Your own link says as much: "...although they are regulated by the NATIONAL Guard Bureau through the Army NATIONAL Guard of the United States....."

Cracks me up to see so much pissy-footing about the shift to federal influence (probably largely as a result of the Civil War in which states' rights were soundly trounced). From your link: "From its founding until the early 1900s, the United States maintained only a minimal army and relied on state militias to supply the majority of its troops. In 1903, the predecessor to the modern-day National Guard was formed to augment the militia and Regular Army...." In fact, half the states don't have these state defense militias--" approximately twenty-five states, in addition to Puerto Rico, currently have active State Defense Forces, each with different levels of activity, state support, and strength. SDFs generally operate with emergency management and homeland security missions. Most SDFs are organized as Army units, but Air Force and Maritime units also exist." And the Wikipedia link lacks proof of other statements abut a more active State Defense role since the early 1900's. Seems to be the case that those State Defense Forces exist more on paper than they do in reality. I have yet to see proof of fully functional state militias which rely on self-armed citizen soldiers. Those state militias are anachronisms.

You provided no link for the code and I really want to know where it comes from. Once again, it seems to be more paper than practice.

My questions are reasonable. They don't fit in with the contorted "logic" of court decision and precedent--but that doesn't meant those questions are pointless. More, those questions tend to show how far adrift interpretations have gone from the original wording (to whit: ignoring or subsuming the introductory clauses) and probable intent of the 1700's Bill of Rights.

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: 08-13-2004
Tue, 11-11-2008 - 3:49pm
Have you closed your eyes to the last 8 years with George Bush.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Tue, 11-11-2008 - 6:42pm

Here's your link...


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311


It's comes from US Code, as I said before.

Pages