Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » TAKE HIS GUN, PLEASE
  • TAKE HIS GUN, PLEASE

    Filed at 3:55 am under by dcobranchi

    I don’t want this guy defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

    Voters blinded by Obama’s promises

    A general truth of human nature is that people are horribly prone to voting themselves largesse and that which promises the most plunder to themselves. Such is the premise of the campaign of Barack Obama: by stating that “we can change things” and “I can accomplish all of these things as president” is hypnotizing twaddle that deludes people into a false sense that the president has more power than he really does.

    He vows to punish oil companies for “making too much money.” He pledges to “make the rich pay their fair share.” He pledges universal health care and to force countries to cease production of nuclear materials. All of these are quite appealing and alluring, causing people to bite his fishing line blindly.

    In actuality, all of these are naught but empty promises that Obama is making use of to secure support and allow himself to sweep into office. Really, the president is not gifted with all of the power the candidates would have you believe they have. In that sense, Obama is extremely intelligent, saying just the magical words that will win him the election.

    The purpose of the Electoral College is to protect the election of president from the blind tyranny of the masses. It worked in 2000. Here’s to hoping that it protects the office again in 2008.

    James E. Honaker
    Fort Bragg

    10 Responses to “TAKE HIS GUN, PLEASE”


    Comment by
    John
    August 18th, 2008
    at 11:05 pm

    Why, because his political opinion and yours diverge?

    His complaints about Obama’s campaign could of course apply to almost any politician in any campaign for any elected position.

    I am not very familiar with the workings of the electoral college, but isn’t their role precisely to mediate the popular vote by exercising their own discretion – this being part of the definitive difference between a constitutionaly limited republic and a true democracy?


    Comment by
    Lisa Giebitz
    August 19th, 2008
    at 10:10 am

    Or at least hand him a damn book about American History. Those last couple of line were… yuck.


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    August 19th, 2008
    at 11:35 am

    Why, because his political opinion and yours diverge?

    Did you happen to notice his address? Fort Bragg. Military. Automatic weapons.


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    August 19th, 2008
    at 11:38 am

    Something I blogged today that that in my quirky mind relates:
    “Yo-Yo’s Brainy Counterculture Vibe Good for Homeschooling and America”


    Comment by
    John
    August 20th, 2008
    at 8:54 pm

    “Did you happen to notice his address? Fort Bragg. Military. Automatic weapons”

    Yes, I got that. Why do you want to ‘take his gun away’? Is something faulty with his understanding of the mechanisms by which the presidential election is decided? If so, can you explain to me the purpose of the electoral college (if it is not, in fact, to allow electors to exercise their own discretion, thereby giving them the power, whether exercised in practice or not, to override the democratic mandate of the people).

    Even if his understanding is faulty, why does his misunderstanding make you doubt his competence to be a soldier (which is what we both appear to have inferred).


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    August 20th, 2008
    at 9:08 pm

    The purpose of the Electoral College was to give the small states a say (along the lines of the Great Compromise).

    His disdain for the will of the people makes me wonder if he wouldn’t be willing to take more drastic measures if the Electoral College doesn’t override the “blind tyranny of the masses” and elects Obama. I’d rather he not be armed with automatic weapons if that day comes.


    Comment by
    John
    August 20th, 2008
    at 10:26 pm

    “The purpose of the Electoral College was to give the small states a say”

    Pretty anti-democratic, huh? Why is it that Californian votes count less than those in Wyoming?

    Surely, as an atheist, you appreciate the necessity of limits on ‘the will of the people’?

    Lets face it, you and I are part of minorities who would no doubt be first up against the wall in a true democracy – the tyranny of the majority.


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    August 21st, 2008
    at 5:29 pm

    Make no mistake — we ARE up against the wall and have been for decades, put there at the pleasure of a firing squad comprised of the Christian Right majority’s tyranny.

    Maybe not being a woman, John doesn’t feel that quite as keenly as I do. But whatever he’s got a beef about, can’lt TOUCH what I endure from these patriarchial tyrants . . .despite being smarter than most of them . . .and if his beef is that Christian men don’t have enough say? STFU!


    Comment by
    speedwell
    August 22nd, 2008
    at 7:25 am

    I’m oversensitive to such things, but I consider anyone to be of bargain basement intelligence and a self-importance in need of a good icepack who uses the construction “…naught but…” while pontificating about public policy. When they do so and they’re in the military, they also deserve a good slap in the face.


    Comment by
    John
    August 23rd, 2008
    at 10:49 am

    JJ, I’m not sure where you are coming from at all. I have a beef about thoughtless partisanship – no matter the political orientation of its origin. I comment critically at Daryll’s blog because, on occaision I think his analysis is overblown and his interpretation unfair.

    In this case, for example, Daryll appears to have taken the position that someone whose political opinion is different from his is not fit to serve in the armed forces. The armed forces are supposed to be apoitical – but individual soldiers, sailors and airmen have as much right as anyone else to hold political views.

    As for being ‘up against the wall…at the pleasure of a firing squad comprised of the Christian Right ‘ – get over yourself. I have no doubt you have suffered from social ostracism, perhaps casual sexism, but if you live in the US (and I assume from your invocation of that stereotype that you do) you live in a country with one of the best records of protection of minority rights in the world, where, until recently one of the frontrunners for the presidential race was a woman.

    If you want to see patriarchal tyranny, may I suggest you take a look at some of the countries where your armed forces are deployed.

    Currently you just sound shrill.