I have another post that is far more encouraging and uplifting than writing about yesterday's election results. However, I figured I'd better put up something so that my political opponents here can have a thread to gloat.
The terrorists got their girl!! Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house just chills me to the bone! One person emailed Fox and Friends this morning and wrote, "we are all doomed!" He may be correct. With Pelosi and John Murtha in greater positions of power, I for one, would have to agree with that sentiment! We shall see what happens. I'm sure that it's not going to be very pleasant...
See Drudge for all the gory details. More links to come as I see worthy ones to post.
:-(
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
A famous entertainer once said, "The problem is that there are too many Republican congressmen, too many Democratic congressmen, and not enough United States congressmen." It's just as true now as when he said it, decades ago.
Why do you need to establish a thread for your enemies to gloat in? It sounds more as if it's a thread for you to cry in: "The terrorists got their girl!...'we are all doomed!'...I for one, would have to agree with that sentiment!"
If you truly believe in the message you're trying to spread, and if you truly believe others have it, you might wish to remind them of this:
"Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth"
Prov 24:17
Have a good day.
I think we are a bit more pragmatic here in New Zealand. If our current political leaders see that their opposition have good ideas they simply appropriate them and make them part of their policies. Anyways...
On to the gloating...
Ronald Reagan once said the following:
"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream - the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order - or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path."
As an outside observer I'm glad that the Democrats have won. Hopefully this will mean that the rule of law returns to the United States and it can once more become the great nation it is.
Why is this a sad day for the country. Because you didn't get your way? Because the party you support got clobbered? Please. This is how democracy works. You don't always get your way. I don't always get my way. Someone else said something like "It's not the voting that makes a democracy. It's counting the votes that makes a democracy." And sometimes when the votes get counted, your side loses.
I would hope that now that the Democrats apparently control the legislature and the Republicans the executive branch, both sides would try to act like grown ups and mvoe towards finding common goals to get us out of Iraq, bolster the economy, do something about the deficit and the disappearing middle class. But I expect that they will instead act like little children and just point fingers and yell at each other.
I will admit this. I am thoroughly enjoying listening to Rush Limbaugh try to place blame for last night's loses.
Stephen W.,
Perhaps the gay prostitute's outing of Haggard backfired?
The majority of people in this nation want to keep the definition of marriage intact. It's as simple as that!
Gay activists will just have to accept this fact. Gay unions will have to be called something else because they do not fit the thousands of years old definition of marriage.
There are some terms that they have been successful at changing...the term "gay" for instance. It used to ONLY mean:
1. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music.
2. bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments.
3. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season.
I didn't realize until I looked up the term today, that it also had an addition meaning of:
4. licentious; dissipated; wanton: The baron is a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies.
Hmmmm....licentious behavior? I didn't realize that the term had that additional meaning. Perhaps I just forgot. Now, the added meaning towards homosexuals makes more sense to me! [Please note: I'm specifically referring to rabid gay activists who hate conservative heterosexuals (e.g. Wayne Besen...author of "Anything But Straight") and the gay pride parade "activities" which often do display gross, licentious behavior!!]
As of 1950-1955, the added definition that is used to describe a homosexual person came to be:
5. homosexual.
6. of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues: a gay organization.
–noun 7. a homosexual person, esp. a male.
–adverb 8. in a gay manner.
[Origin: 1275–1325; 1950–55 for def. 5; ME gai < OF < Gmc; cf. OHG gāhi fast, sudden]
At dictionary.com, there was a box explaining why usage of the term "gay" was better than "homosexual":
Usage Note: The word gay is now standard in its use to refer to homosexuals, in large part because it is the term that most gay people prefer in referring to themselves. Gay is distinguished from homosexual primarily by the emphasis it places on the cultural and social aspects of homosexuality as opposed to sexual practice.
David Kupelian pointed this out in the first chapter of his book, "The Marketing of Evil."
I found it interesting that the additional meaning that many teens have coined for the term "gay" has not been added to the dictionary.com site definitions. It is a negative connotation, so I guess that is why it is not being accepted? I'm referring to when teens say, "Oh, that's so gay" where the term is meant to mean, "Oh that's so bad.
But then, the term "bad" is sometimes used as slang for meaning "good"! Confused yet??
Perhaps this is a lesson in the need for new words to describe new things, rather than trying to change the original definitions in the first place? Hmmm....
I posted this in another thread, but I thought that I would include it here as well. This article shares every conservative parent's nightmare and is an indication of what parents would most likely have to deal with if "gay" marriage was legalized like it currently is in Massachusetts. The gay activists would permanently take over the public schools, trump parents' rights and ruin the innocent lives of children by exposing them to age-inappropriate subjects... just like what happened at the Franklin school.
You know what they say about absolute power...it often corrupts absolutely! Can you deny that this is exactly what is happening in the "gay" marriage state of Massachusetts?
Back to the election results.
I hope you are correct that many conservative Democrats were voted in. It will be very interesting to see how the ultra-liberal Nancy Pelosi gets along with them, as well as the Republicans!!
Limpy,
It appears (at least from her latest comments) that Nancy Pelosi wants to put the partisan politics and bickering behind. Her future demeanor will inform us whether or not she really means that or is just paying lip service. Time will tell.
GM,
You quoted:
"Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth"
Prov 24:17
Does that mean that you might be willing to forgive Ted Haggard?
ebsfwan,
I'm guessing that the Reagan quote was meant to disparage the Bush Admin policies in place to protect our country?
It's a different kind of war than the one that Reagan faced. Whose to say that he wouldn't have agreed with Bush's Patriot Act if he was still alive?
Interesting election analysis. Can't wait for part 2...
CJW: ”Does that mean that you might be willing to forgive Ted Haggard?
Why should I have to forgive him? I’m not gay. I’m not evangelical Christian. I’m not one of his sheep. He didn’t attack me, or disparage me, nor betray me. He needs forgiveness from his family, folks like you…and your God, of course.
At least Jimmy Swaggart had the nads to apologize in person to his flock!
Just what did Ted Haggard do, exactly? He has confessed to “sexual immorality”. But what does that entail?
Well, let’s see. There’s nothing in the Bible that prohibits the use of methamphetamines, but there’s nothing sexual about that—unless, of course, it’s used for purposes of seduction, or to ”enhance pleasure”. Now, wine has worked for those purposes for thousands of years, and it can be purchased without looking around for the cops. So, that’s out.
Haggard seems to have met with Jones, on average, once a month. There’s nothing wrong with meeting a guy, even secretly; for all anyone knew, Mrs. Haggard didn’t approve of gambling, and Pastor Ted wanted to improve his skills in Texas Hold’Em.
But gambling isn’t prohibited in the Bible, and it isn’t immoral—at least, not until you start betting the rent money. So, that’s out.
Could it be lying? After all, when Jones broke the news, Haggard at first denied even knowing who Jones was. He then admitted to knowing Jones, and even to getting a massage from him, but says it went no further than that. He admitted to obtaining crystal meth from Jones, but said he threw it away. (I also find it interesting that, although Jones glitched his polygraph test, Haggard didn’t even take one! It seems that if he had, this story would have died very quickly.)
Not exactly honorable behavior, but lying isn’t one of the Big Ten—although I understand it will keep you out of the Kingdom. So, that’s out.
That leaves only adultery. That is one of the Big Ten, and I know that evangelicals get really, really fired up over that. Of course, since adultery is defined as sexual intercourse between a married person and someone not that person’s spouse, that would have to mean that Haggard and Jones…um…you know…
That a spiritual leader who’s married with several children cheats on his wife is bad enough; but furtive, steamy (drug-enhanced?) sex with another man…ick! That’s the final nail in the coffin! I suppose people can be happy that it was with another adult, rather than some teenager.
So: which one constitutes the sexual immorality? The fact that he cheated on his wife, or the hot man sex he willingly took part in? I’d guess that Hayford and Dobson know by now. I’ll wager the flock doesn’t want to know. Do we, the public, have a right to know? Probably not. But over time, the legends of just what that ‘sexual immorality’ was will only grow, and become distorted. It’s almost guaranteed to outlive him, and it may be all he’s remembered for.
Haggard should tell us what he’s told his “intercessors”. Otherwise he’s still covering up.
Christine, you said:
”You know what they say about absolute power...it often corrupts absolutely! Can you deny that this is exactly what is happening in the "gay" marriage state of Massachusetts?”
Well, yes I can, but that’s not the point of this post.
I see you’ve heard of that famous dictum! However, you don’t do either yourself or Lord Acton any credit by misquoting him. His exact words were, ”Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Do you believe that? Obviously, the answer is yes.
Okay: if absolute power corrupts absolutely, what’s that make God, then?
GM said: "Okay: if absolute power corrupts absolutely, what’s that make God, then? "
Everything that you and I aren't:
Perfect
Righteous
Holy
Psa 83:18 That [men] may know that thou, whose name alone [is] JEHOVAH, [art] the most high over all the earth.
Psa 92:8 But thou, LORD, [art most] high for evermore.
Isa 54:5 For thy Maker [is] thine husband; the LORD of hosts [is] his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.
Heh! Does that mean your God doesn't have absolute power? That Katrina and all those other disasters were caused by something else?
Nice dodge, Church Lady.
Christine: ”I'm guessing that the Reagan quote was meant to disparage the Bush Admin policies in place to protect our country?
It's a different kind of war than the one that Reagan faced. Whose to say that he wouldn't have agreed with Bush's Patriot Act if he was still alive?”
I can’t say, but here’s a clue. Bush claims to be a spiritual successor of Reagan, but this is a Reagan quote he should have taken note of:
”History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.”
I think he was referring to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Now, considering all the lies we’ve been told over the past four years (the weapons of mass destruction, how we would be treated as liberators, that Iraq could pay for its own rebuilding, that we could do the job with fewer than 200,000 troops, etc.), I would say we’ve fallen into that same trap.
The price has not been cheap. It’s tragic, but it’s even money that we’ll have 3000 dead by year’s end, and we already have ten times that many wounded. JCS Chairman General Shinseki said, before the war started, that we’d need more men; he was quietly retired. We still had a budget surplus in 2001; now we have the biggest deficits in our history—surpassing even Reagan’s! The OMB director who warned of the war’s cost—before it began—was fired. Now it’s even worse than he forecast. And we still have troops in the field without armor for their Humvees, nor for themselves.
At airports I’m examined, poked, and prodded. I can’t bring a drink of my choice on the plane, so I arrive not only tired and broke, but dirty and thirsty. I don’t feel any safer. Even when Reagan raised the Sandinista boogeyman in the mid-1980s, no one seriously believed that the 2nd Nicaraguan Armored Division was going to storm across the Rio Grande. There were more people in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area than in all of Nicaragua!
But even more importantly, how is suspending habeas corpus the act of a patriot?
Post a Comment