Stand And Deliver!
With yesterday's inauguration of President Obama, I've probably lost out on one of my favorite past-times -- going over to Democratic Underground and seeing the worst sufferers of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome, i.e. "Bush is to blame for every bad thing that has happened in the last 8 to 28 years") hold forth. I figured that seeing former President Bush fail to declare martial law, attack Iran, issue pardons to everybody in his administration, put all progressives in Halliburton-built concentration camps, or "cause" another terror attack on U.S. soil, would make them realize that maybe, just maybe, President Bush isn't evil and bent on destroying the U.S., but rather is a man who honestly wanted what was best for the country, even if his ideas didn't work out that well. Not surprisingly, they didn't come to that conclusion -- the consensus seemed to be that he wanted to do all those things, but brave progressives, in "revealing" his nefarious plans, made it so he couldn't do them. It's perfect circular logic!
Now we'll see if their ideological counterparts on the right will come out and show similar reasoning. Here's the chance for all strongly anti-Obama people to make predictions of what horrible things they think President Obama will do. (Let's limit it to the next 2 years, since the American people will get a chance to reduce his majority in Congress in 2010 if they don't like what he's doing.) Will he take away any guns currently owned by anyone who reads this post? Will he mandate taxpayer-funded abortions on the White House lawn? Surrender to Iran? Personally, I think that we won't see anything really, really controversial happen in the next 2 years. We won't see the Freedom of Choice Act pass, or see the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. I think we'll pretty much see a fairly liberal administration led by another man who truly believes he's acting in the best interests of his country, some of whose ideas won't work out too well -- President Barack Obama. May God bless the President of the United States of America, and his country and all the residents thereof.
posted by Bubblehead at 5:42 AM
45 Comments:
Here's a good bet:
Obama will tell DOE/NRC to stop Yucca Mountain review for the High Level Waste Depository. I predict this within 60 days.
Obama will end the "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" policy.
Obama will institute a "pay freeze" for the military since the money could be better spent on "health care", or other "patriotic income redistribution" programs.
1/21/2009 7:11 AM
He will declare his Muslim Faith
1/21/2009 7:26 AM
Well, these posts ought to be good for a laugh.
Similar to the whackos on the right who told me with a straight face that they thought Pres Clinton was going to "pull something" to stay in power.
R-E-A-L-I-T-Y, pls!
Re: Yucca: Harry Reid has pretty much put the kibosh on that. NIMBY.
The pay freeze for military is a hoot!
As is the Muslim faith post.
Enjoy the next eight years!
1/21/2009 7:39 AM
I predict:
As long as both ultra-conservative and ultra-liberal media hosts and shows exist, paranoia about what the next leader will do will continue. There will always be those who believe any Republican is a right wing radical flag-waving chickenhawk who interjects God into everything he does. There will also always be those who believe that any democrat is a left wing radical country-hating hippie who wants to banish God from the country. The real challenge will be if those not at either extreme can meet at the middle and guide this country toward a better tomorrow. I certainly hope so.
1/21/2009 10:20 AM
no he won't out law guns but he will push to limit the amount of ammunition one can buy.
EM3 (SU)
1/21/2009 10:56 AM
We will see some form of the grossly mislabeled "Fairness Doctrine."
I don't see a "pay freeze" but the raises will be pretty pathetic.
We will see a significant increase in collectivist type operations. Much of it will be forced on us through higher taxes and our children will see an increase in mandatory volunteer work. Yes, I know that's an oxymoron.
As an objectivist I don't see the next four years as too much fun, not that the current direction towards bailouts was any good either.
1/21/2009 11:28 AM
For now, I just want him to concentrate on getting all my friends and fellow service personnel out of Bum-F*ck Iraq. We no longer have a viable excuse for being there. Oh wait a sec, I'd forgotten that we were sent to Iraq under false pretenses to begin with.
I don't know if a complete pull out will happen automatically in the next 16 to 18 months. However, a gradual and steady troop withdrawal seems quite likely.
So make it happen wudja' please, Mr. President. That was my primary reason for voting for you.
Thanks, J.
1/21/2009 12:50 PM
Oh yeah, like the last 8 years were a ball of laughter. Face it, kids, blue and red state party time is over. It's like the movie "Independence Day" -- nothing unites the earth like a little invasion from Mars. We better get our collective shit TOGETHER or we'll all be out of a job.
1/21/2009 12:58 PM
The best way to win an argument is to change the entire premise so you cannot lose. For instance, instead of debating on whether or not it is the function of government to stimulate the economy, change the debate to how much of a stimulus do we need. Obama did that in his speech when he said it's not about big or little government...it's about making government work....that means bigger government.
In the next 2 years we will not lose guns. We will be funding abortions all around the world. We will suffer in some way in an effort to stop the sun from warming the earth. Maybe people will figure out that when Obama says he wants to help main street he means the millionaires who funded his run to the Presidency. The media will continue to imply that if I as a white male do not agree with Obama then I am by default a racist.
Clearly the man can give a good speech.
1/21/2009 2:46 PM
Great shot T.J.
Yeah, Obama does possess an exceptional ability to talk a good game. So, he better be able to put out. I suspect the next couple of years will be quite interesting indeed.
Thanks, J.
1/21/2009 3:04 PM
"Obama did that in his speech when he said it's not about big or little government...it's about making government work....that means bigger government."
The K.I.S.S. concept is lost on him...
1/21/2009 4:03 PM
He gave a good speech and I do wish him all the success in the world. Now, go make it happen.
Yes, he has a majority in the House and Senate but so did Clinton and they all were not able to get along and vote as a party.
I think the economy reacts to the previous 8 to 10 years of activity. When Regan took over, he had to react to what Ford and Carter did. After Clinton took over, he had the results of what Regan and Bush the first did. Bush the second had to work with what Clinton did and now Obama will have to react to that legacy. Yea, the war didn’t help but the financial crisis was started by the Clinton era regulatory actions.
Just my two cents.
1/21/2009 4:51 PM
I know, look at what all those damned regulations did to those banks that royally screwed up. Maybe if there was less oversight none of this wouldn't have happened. Oh, wait...
1/21/2009 5:59 PM
Obama will...
...declare himself a white man!
...declare himself a Muslum.
...declare himself a Kenyan.
...disband the U.S. Congress.
...become King Barak and ascend to the throne of a God!
Oh.. and raise taxes to pay for all his "welfare" projects!
1/21/2009 6:11 PM
I do believe the Freedom of Choice Act will pass the Congress and be signed into law. There are enough votes in both the House and Senate to pass and Obama has stated he would sign it into law. The only roadblock is 60 votes in the Senate to override filibuster - that all comes down to whether or not the Republican minority has any spineless members (yes it is rhetorical).
1/21/2009 6:27 PM
I laughed when I saw on CNN last night that Obama signaled the biggest shift in US foreign policy when he in effect repeated Bush's foreign policy. Obama said it eloquently. Bush said it more like "you are either with us or agaisnt us"....when you distill what Obama said about reaching out a hand to everyone on the planet unless you don't like us and we will defeat you he makes it sound like change, but it is nothing if not the status quo.
1/21/2009 6:42 PM
You might not see the Freedom of Choice Act pass, if you read the entire Wikipedia article, it appears to have not had a tremendous amount of co-sponsors.
You realistically will never see the DOMA repealed (at least not by the Congress). Too many people voted for it, there would be no reason for them to vote against it.
As silly as it is, it might get overturned at the Supreme Court level, but prob not with the current Robert Court make-up.
However, if a right wing justice gets replaced during the first or second Obama administrations...that may change the landscape.
1/21/2009 7:33 PM
It will be interesting to observe how he will reconcile Harry Reid's opposition to Yucca Mountain with global warming. I don't think it is an alarmist statement to say that the failure to open Yucca Mountain while other technical solutions to nuclear waste are developed (the concepts already exist) will cause the downfall of nuclear energy in the U.S. Strike One.
I just spent two days talking with renewable energy professors in the midwest. To a person they all said the corn based ethonal is not viable. Strike Two.
I hope that President Obama is smart enough to realize that any energy solution developed by the politicians will surely cripple us. Put the Scientists and Engineers in charge. It's the only way to get a technically correct solution.
1/21/2009 10:33 PM
I predict the following:
1. That President Obama will drop it like it's hot.
2. Will put together a congressional panel to find out, for once and for all, just HOW MANY LICKS it really takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.
3. Will make a tax credit for caucasian males, over the age of 30 who have no rhythm.
1/22/2009 1:39 AM
Obama will be able to push a lot more things thru than Clinton did.
1. He has a majority.
2. Any one votes against him they are:
a. Racist - only doing it because he is black.
b. Unpatriotic - we're in crisis, we all have to stand together.
Case in point.
Geitner. Why put a tax cheat in charge of the most ethical administration ever. If his knowledge is so vital, use him as an advisor, but not with any real responsibility.
He will ram as much as possible in these two years before people catch on.
1/22/2009 5:17 AM
Recall that President Clinton started with majorities...
As for firearms, HR 45 has already been introduced as a permanent "Assault Weapons Ban." Additionally, there is legislation pending in 18 states to make "microstamping" mandatory. Recall that the previous "AWB" was passed in 1994, only 2 years after President Clinton took office. Don't forget that Senator Joe Biden was the writer of that bill.
So, while I don't believe that the approximately 300,000,000 firearms in private ownership will be confiscated any time soon, I do believe that 1) some firearms (AR15 and variants, AK47-type variants, and a whole host of others) will be outlawed for further sales; 2) high-capacity magazines (>10 rounds) will be banned; and 3) ammunition will be taxed at a 200-500% rate.
Change. Expect it.
1/22/2009 9:45 AM
Tenant 2 of Communist plank will happen: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Tenant 5 of Communist plank will happen: Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Tenant 7 of Communist plank will progress: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Tenant 3 of Communist plank will progress in the form of taxation: Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
1/22/2009 10:45 AM
Not sure if it's been mentioned but hopefully he will overturn the Bush EO that restricted access to Presidential Papers.
Some choice nuggets from the Reagan days will be revealed.
1/22/2009 1:27 PM
He's already signed the executive order to close Guantanamo. How much did we spend to keep that place open & operational over the last 5 years? Obama is looking to minimize cost and spending at this point.
I suspect he'll play a defensive game during his first four years. He doesn't want a repeating cluster f*ck 9/11 on his watch. So, if his advisors are half smart, the new administration will concentrate on a tighter defense regarding our country's security along with our overseas interests and properties.
I don't think Obama wants to play world police. Bush tried it and he got goat f*cked for it...as did his father.
Obama will do just fine so long as he concentrates on our current interests and problems right here at home. If he starts playing "Deputy Dawg," across the Pacific or the Atlantic, then he's going to find himself in the exact same hurt locker as Herbert and W.
Thanks, J.
1/22/2009 2:31 PM
BullNav,
And the prob with getting rid of assault rifles is?
Ditto high-cap magazines?
I have a nice springfield arms .45. While it came with "high capacity" mags...if I had to go to an 8 or 10 capacity mag, I am still sure I could hit what I needed to.
Assault rifles have never passed the home defense test.
1/22/2009 3:44 PM
Maybe I just missed it, but where exactly in the Constitution does it say that the only legitimate use for firearms is for "home defense"?
1/22/2009 4:01 PM
Concur w/ last Anon....second amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Seeing as how the amendments (and the Constitution for that matter) were written and ratified to control the power of the Federal government how do they get off w/ an assault weapons ban? This right of the people to bear arms had nothing to do w/ home defense in the sense that it is used today but rather a measure to ensure the people could defend themselves against an oppressive central government. This was a lesson learned from dealing w/ the British who never liked the ideas of colonists owning their own firearms. If you look at other major British colonies (India) they disarmed the populace or at least greatly limited their abilities to manufacture and procur firearms. This mindset has carried over into the independent Indian government, so much so it could be pointed out as a cause of the hostage taking and violence they had there in the last couple of months.
ENG
1/22/2009 6:22 PM
I don't want to get too far off the reservation here, but an assault rifle is perfect for home defense.
Think: How to counter a bulletproof vest. Bigger and faster bullets.
1/22/2009 8:58 PM
The full text of the Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It doesn't say to defend the individual against an "oppressive central government," especially one whose STATE Representatives and Senators are not allowed to fund an army for more than two years at a time (Article I Section 8). The Militias were used to defend the colonies against the OUTSIDE threat of the British.
That being said, the Supreme Court has affirmed that home defense is a legitimate reason to bear arms, overturning the DC handgun ban.
One can never be sure, but I feel reasonably confident that the authors of the Constitution did not have AK-47s in mind, so we have to interpret that one for ourselves. But why stop at AK-47s? I'm looking for a 20mm Gatling gun, myself....
1/22/2009 9:26 PM
I think that higher spending, bigger government, and eventually higher taxes are likely under a Democratic Administration and Congress. I am more than willing to accept that, but I think that we as voters and taxpayers should insist on two things:
1. A balanced budget. Be a man, put your reelection on the line and either raise taxes or cut spending.
2. Getting our money's worth. Too much to go into here, but we need to be better.
I'm a realist - deficit spending for short term exigencies like a huge economic stimulus/bailout or a major war is understandable(e.g., in WWII we spent about 30-40% of GDP on defense; nowadays we're spending about 6%). But we have had a deficit for most of my lifetime.
I wish the Obama administration the best of luck - they, and we, are going to need it.
1/22/2009 9:42 PM
Last Anon is quite correct. Our founding fathers didn't have AKs and ARs in mind when they were drafting the 2nd amendment. Back then, they only had black powder carbines and rifles for offensive and defensive weaponry. There was none of this 30 rounds a minute BS that we see more than two hundred years later.
You don't need an assault rifle to protect your home...and you're not going to hunt with it either. What would be the point? In CQB, (Close Quarters Combat) You still wouldn't carry an AK or an AR. What would be the point? Can you say "Over Kill?" Let congress take away assault weapons. Who gives a shit anyway? You don't need an automatic with a 30 round clip to protect the house. If you want to hit everything you see, just pick up a shotgun with a cylinder bore loaded with OO-buck and you're good to go. End of story. Aside from that, you're going to spend a shitload more money on rifle shells and hi-cap mags, after you've spent roughly $1200.00 on a colt or Bushmaster AR-15. Again what's the point?
Let 'em take our semi-auto rifles away. Do we really need the f*ckin' things? Trust me, you're local Law Enforcement have plenty. Plus, as I said, you ain't gonna (legally) hunt with such a firearm either.
Thanks, J.
1/22/2009 9:55 PM
The term "slippery slope" may be cliche but it is certainly applicable when it comes to "gun control". It's none of your damn business nor the government's to determine what kind of weapons I "need" to defend my home.
1/22/2009 11:14 PM
That damned slippery slope. Lets squash all argument by saying we'll be near some slippery slope so we don't have to make an argument based on facts and logic.
1/22/2009 11:25 PM
You know that's complete horseshit.
You know how I can tell? It's because of you last thought in your statement here. You've never needed to defend your home from robbery, rape and pillage. I strongly suggest you thank the fuck Christ that you haven't ever needed to do so. But I will say again, you don't need an automatic carbine or rifle to effectively defend you humble abode.
Surely you see that simple point, do you not?
Thanks, J.
1/22/2009 11:30 PM
I repeat-it's none of your damn business what kind of weapons I choose to have. It's not your decision as to what I think I need either.
You don't need an AK? Great-don't buy one.
Surely you see that simple point, do you not?
Thanks, R.
1/23/2009 12:18 AM
Re: Gun ownership, my personal beliefs are fairly 2nd Amendment absolutist -- if it's something the Founding Fathers would recognize as a personal weapon, it shouldn't be banned. Personally, all I figure I need for home defense is a shotgun and an accurate rifle for those times the intruder is using a family member as a human shield, but I have no problems with people who want to own more powerful guns. I do have a problem with people who think the 2nd Amendment gives them the "right" to shoot down law enforcement officers coming onto their property to serve warrants. I also don't have a problem with people being sent to jail for a long time if they use firearms to commit crimes -- as long as the "crime" isn't defending themselves or their family while engaged in law-abiding activity.
1/23/2009 3:55 AM
The Onion commented on Bush's presidency quite accurately in 2001. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784. I think it most likely that President Obama will bring us at least closer to peace and prosperity than the current incarnation of the Republican party every could.
1/23/2009 3:57 AM
In my comment above, please note that I used "recognize" in the sense that if you showed Adams an AK-47, he almost certainly would recognize it as a gun; a land mine or hand grenade, on the other hand, he probably wouldn't recognize as a weapon.
1/23/2009 3:58 AM
The founders probably meant firearms appropriate to a civilian militia - comparable to the weapons they would be facing.
Back in the day, fast moving forces carried muskets, so the public would be expected to carry muskets. Today, fast moving forces carry M-16, AK-47, Uzi, so the public would be expected to carry the same.
The intent was to be a quickly mobilized army. So think of the weapons a quickly mobilized army would have.
Oh - they also counted a lot on personal responibility. That is the thing that seems to be in short supply now-a-days.
1/23/2009 4:54 AM
Re: BDS. I think its clear that all that has happened is the shoe is on the other foot now. There will be ODS as that steady 25% of folks who liked Bush will claim Obama is the root of all evil. They will be upset if someone calls them deranged (even though they had no problem throwing the term around themselves).
Obama is going to be careful and cautious. He's going to do things that are easy at first like closing GTMO, he'll level out the Defense budget, not raise or lower it, and he will make some token withdrawals in Iraq that won't do us any good because force levels in Afghanistan will be raised.
As for guns, I just have never had the fascination with them so I can't get all riled up over it. I do think that 2nd amendment literalists should remember the first part of the amendment though regarding a well regulated militia.
1/23/2009 6:00 AM
Gents,
IMO, there are two founding documents for our great nation: The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Read the first and you will understand why there is a Second Amendment to the second.
Cheers
Supersub
1/23/2009 10:29 AM
Skippy-San,
I would hope you are right about Obama being "careful and cautious" but I don't think that is going to happen. My reasons
1) He doesn't have to. He has majorities in both the House and Senate.
2) As his COS said "you can't waste a good crisis". He will use the current economic situation to push through a 850Bil plus package that doesn't stimulate anyone but his corp and big money backers. (seriously how does broadband expansion and free controceptives stimulate your economy unless your brother in law makes them). I would bet you almost anything HIS STIM PLAN WILL PASS PRIOR TO FEB 16 NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS FLAWED OR OPPOSITION HOWLS
3) There is no reason for him to believe that any mis-step he may make will be seriously covered by a news media that had "Thrills running up my leg" when he would speak.
Hope I am wrong.
1/23/2009 12:47 PM
I agree completely with Supersub. The Constitution gets all of the press but you actually have to look behind it to understand things - the debates that were held during the ratification, the debates in the statehouses, and the Declaration of Independance. These all shed light on what was intended. The bottom line is that Congress (or the Federal Government in general) has no business as to what weapons I do or do not own. Nor, quite frankly, is it anybody else's business. A law abiding citizen should be able to own what he wants, if he breaks the law then you deal with him accordingly. There is far too much crap that the Federal Government is involved in that has to do with our lives. This really should be pushed back. My favorite t-shirt quote: "Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a Government agency." I agree with Bubblehead WRT police warrants however the issue of mistakes made and people killed during a no-knock warrant is frightening.
ENG
1/23/2009 3:40 PM
"A government who robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul."
- George Bernard Shaw
1/23/2009 8:50 PM
"I think we'll pretty much see a fairly liberal administration led by another man who truly believes he's acting in the best interests of his country, some of whose ideas won't work out too well."
-Like just about every other president, including the most recent one. How do you spell recession? B-U-S-H. No one will ever get everything right, and no one will ever get it completely wrong.
1/24/2009 5:18 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home