Trying to understand...Obama dissenters, this is for you...

[jja100]

Originally Posted by mossomo

I'm not a socialist nor commie. I will fight for your and my freedom, even if it took me into direct confrontation with the president. The underlying notion of our right to bear arms is revolution. If the gov't strays too far, we can and will take it back, through force if necessary.

I dont like where Obama is going, but dont think assasination is in order. If I was Venezualian or Iranian, I would call for the assasination of my pres.

Key note. I don't think people understand that without the 2nd Amendment, the 1st Amendment is meaningless. Honestly, you can picket and march and yell and cause mayhem all you please but history tells us that the only time government has changed its policies were when the masses had weapons and revolted. If anybody believes that any government around the world is a democracy, they are fooling themselves. What is the point of voting when you have an electoral college that disregards the popular vote, when you have a media that sways public opinion, when you develop polls that are constructed in such a way to give a false representation of what the masses believe? Dictatorship under the guise of a democracy is the only system that works because it allows the people to vent even though when they release their frustrations they are accomplishing virtually nothing. There is only one thing that creates freedom and that is wealth.

[revelated]

Originally Posted by USNRET04

Since you use a sport metaphor in your post, if a football player gets the ball and starts heading the wrong way down field on the first play of the game, wouldn't you try to stop him?

Perhaps. But the game isn't over yet. One faulty play in the beginning of the game does not constitute a "failure". It constitutes an error in judgment. Using your analogy said player has the entire rest of the game to play correctly. But some people aren't even giving him that chance because they keep punishing him for the first bad judgment. My counter argument is that every single President in recent years has done the same thing. The reason Obama gets so much heat compared to either Bush or Clinton or Johnson is the fact that he walked into a cluster, inherited it, and realized he had to take drastic steps to try and resolve it. People want their handouts and are desperate for help, so they blame it on Obama. But again, he just started, for crying out loud.

Originally Posted by JimMe

Your complaint is misplaced--at least its target is. It's Obama and his henchmen who created the expectations of success right out of the box with the blather about the first 100 days and comparing his administration to FDR's. The FDR myth is so entrenched in the public psyche that to ask to be measured by that standard is to invite unfavorable comparison. He asked for it--he's getting it.

Here's the deal. I blame people's ignorance for the situation we're in now. 44 presidents and people still don't get it. Presidential candidates always make promises they can't keep. Yet for some reason people still keep looking for a savior instead of just accepting the harsh truth: what a candidate says, or even what a President says, DOES NOT MATTER. Why? We're not in a monarchy. We're not in a dictatorship. His word means little in the long run. Campaign promises and weekly addresses are meaningless. The only vote that matters is that of those around him: the Senate and the House. Period. Even if they happen to be the same alignment as the President his word still does not matter. The President has no power. Congress does. That's why I keep saying that blaming Obama for lying is pointless because every President does the same thing and nobody seems to get it yet: The President's promises are useless unless Congress, the Senate, and the House all have the same agenda, which they do not. Those three entities are and always have been about protecting the economy above all else. Obama's middle man favoritism be damned.