1. It's not the end of the world. And even if it is, heaven will be a much better place than this.
2. I am grateful that I will be a student/resident for the next 8 years of my life and won't be making any substantial income. None of my wealth will be redistributed.
3. I absolutely, 100% can't stand people that made this election out to be about race. Who cares if he's "black"? He's also half "white". And he hasn't rubbed shoulders with the black people of America since...never (see Harvard, University of Chicago, Senate). Fact: every one of my black friends on facebook has the following as their status: "MY PRESIDENT IS BLACK!!!!" That is messed up. If I said something like, "at least my governor is white", I would be shot dead. Double standards. I hate 'em.
4. It saddens me to see all these people now say that they are for the first time "proud to be an American". I don't think I need to explain why this one hurts my soul.
5. Why did the Republican party choose McCain in the first place?
6. I believe there is Someone upstairs that still is in control.
Jalapeno Lime Ranch
1 year ago
23 comments:
I'm just glad that Republicans never went through the whole, "if he wins i'm moving to Canada" phase that democrats tend to go through ever election.
God is ultimately in control.
The things of this world grow strangely dim in the light of His glory and grace.
It took a Ronald Reagan and 40 years for America to undo most of the damage FDR did -- but Americans will ultimately conclude that the government is NOT the answer and only individual effort and achievement can lead to success. It will likely be an ugly time for anyone with ambition in our country, but it will be temporary.
I agree with all your points, especially 1, 3, and 6. But 6 most of all. Good post.
I wish what Andrew said were true. I, however, have seen multiple comments of "I'm moving to Canada, Australia, Europe, etc." This only illuminates the fact that said people are completely out of touch with the rest of the western world which is much more progressive than we have ever dreamed of being.
It is okay to be excited that for the first time in the history of this nation we have a minority president. Take some time to celebrate such a huge step. Yes, it's not a good idea to vote only on race, but acknowledging the triumph for the black community is another thing. Hence, the line, "my president is black!" is just fine. Think back on how long and hard the black community has struggled to reach this point. Empathize.
And really? The comment about FDR? (the comment, not the post). Even if it did take Reagan 40 years to come back from all of the "horrible: things FDR did, it took Bush, with the help of special interests, to go from a balanced budget to the largest deficit in American history. No excuses.
Yes, God is always in control. And believe it or not, you can be a Christian and vote for a Democratic candidate. He has been in control the whole time. Always has been, always will be. I wish that so many Christians didn't feel as if you have to vote for a Republican if you love Jesus.
As for the "redistribution of wealth," I'm not even going to try and open up that subject. Seeing as we come at the issue with different attitudes, hearts, and perspectives in the first place, neither will end up budging regardless of what is said. That's probably true for this whole deal.
I'll have to take issue with the comment that you can be a Christian and vote for a Democrat. Really? I think that's what they call schizophrenic Christianity.
My Bible says that murder is a sin...and I'm pretty sure that abortion qualifies. That one issue is an indication of the person's worldview. Frankly, it makes me nervous that our president-elect voted in the Senate to let babies who survived botched abortions die. Personally, I prefer someone to lead this country who actually thinks life is important.
I too am very upset with the results of the election; however, I have been at peace today knowing that God, not man, is in control and the country cannot be destroy by one man, or one congress in 4 years.
My biggest concern is the direction that the GOP is heading. I do not claim to be knowledgeable on all things politics, but from my perspective we do not have a strong personality to lead us. Also, as this election shows, we do not have the organization that the DNC has at this point in time. Both of these things can be fixed with relative ease, and hope that we get our act together for 2010.
Diana put her thoughts on the line, so I would like to address a couple of them. I disagree with her interpretation on the “My President is Black” comments and I agree completely with Elisabeth on this one. If you want examples of how this comes across, just go to youtube and search for "vote for Obama because he's black" and you will find 703 videos. I know that these yahoos do not speak for the entire nation, but I believe it would be a pretty fair representation if someone did take a scientific poll. I don’t want to make this post o be about race, but votes should never be cast as a result of someone’s skin color, it should be because of the candidates ideology.
I don’t know Diana, but I would assume from her comments that she believes it is the government’s responsibility to take care of those that don’t or can’t take care of themselves. This is a fundamental disagreement I have with the liberal ideology. I believe people should take care of themselves and for those that are unable to do that, other people should step up and take care of them, NOT the gov’t (I believe this is one area that American’s have stepped aside and let the government do our job). In my opinion the government has really two essential responsibilities: 1) to protect our country from foreign or local enemies (many thanks to J Dub and the many like him), and 2) to maintain a civil society through police and judicial practices. The current American government has over stepped its responsibility when it started dealing with welfare. Where in the Constitution does it state that the government needs to guarantee a certain lifestyle level for all of its citizens? (As a side note, don’t get me started on public education!)
Elisabeth, I like post and this dialogue.
The largest government this country has ever seen has been under the current Republican administration. Not to mention, it has only taken him 8 years to run us into the largest deficit in American history.
Here's the deal - if you are a Christian, or decent, you believe in helping others, right? Well, we just disagree on the best way to get that done. I know the government is not always the best way to do things, but how else do you suppose helping those who need help? The church is sure not getting the job done. And if you want to decide which charity gets your dough, then give to them and write it off. When did Jesus say, 'if you can't do it on your own, tough luck?' People need help in this world, we just disagree on the best way to do that. I see the government as one of, if not the only entity, capable of helping these people day in and day out. Yes, people abuse the system. So fix the system; you don't have to stop helping.
As for anonymous attacking my faith, please do not. I simply stated that I do not believe you have to vote for a Republican if you are a Christian. Personally, I see many many many non-Christian values in the Republican party; ideals I choose not to vote for, i.e. every man for himself, corporate interests first, torture in prisons, intolerance, the death penaly, etc. I can go on, but it will not be worth my time. I would only point you to the other scriptures that tell us only God knows our hearts. So please, we love the same Jesus, let's not judge each other on our faith.
So it looks like I'll have to jump into the discussion!
Anonymous, thanks for stepping out and telling us what a Christian can and cannot be. While I will not disagree on the abortion issue specifically, I believe is it a little naive to paint this election as one candidate is for killing babies and the other is for saving babies. There is a large number of the GOP that has a problem with McCain's past when it comes to abortion. On a larger note, blanket statements that Christians can't vote democrat is a major issue within the larger evangelical realm(other than being ridiculous on it's face). Are we trying to force morality or see lives transformed by the gospel of Jesus?? Also, as far as protecting the sanctity of life, some would argue that the GOP's failure to do that over the last two terms is what led to the outcome yesterday.
That leads me to the next argument. I love you EJ, but I have to take significant issue on point number 3 as well. It is very short sighted not to see a larger significance in yesterday's election considering the current and past racial tension in our country. It was just 40 years ago that the Supreme Court struck down restrictions on interracial marriages! Is it so ridiculous that the same people that saw the beginnings of desegregation or marched/boycotted with Dr. King might feel a little sense of pride yesterday? Or that they would pass that dream onto their children?
Now it seems like most of the people posting can agree that we believe God is in control, just like he was when Bill Clinton was elected (gasp!) or George W. I promise you that there is a biblical justification for both sides of the isle, one chooses to emphasize primary importance of abortion and same-sex marriage while the other tries to implement the idea of an interrelated/organic/helpful society. You can disagree that it isn't the Govt's role, but until the church steps up to the plate and addresses many of the social issues that it has chosen to ignore, the Government remains the best medium(sure you can argue this). If that changes, I think a lot of people will change their allegiance.
There are a lot of issues that the Church splits over, but please do not let the divide that has divided our country divide The Church as well. The reality, in my opinion, is a mix between the two parties' ideals, but each one of us chooses which issues are deal breakers and which ones aren't. I have no idea the length of this post, but since this is not my blog, please forgive my hijacking.
The issue is not whether we should help people less fortunate than ourselves. The issue is what is the best way to help them. Is the best way really to establish a government beaurocracy whose major goal is to protect itself and make sure it sustains itself rather than help those in need? Is it best to set up systems that try to enroll as many "needy" individuals as possible into these programs using tax dollars to "buy" their votes in future elections? Is it better to give someone a fish to eat for a day or teach them to fish for themselves?
Finally, Joe Biden had an income of over $300,000 last year and his income tax listed $900 of charitable giving. What does that say about his motivation? It tells me that he is much more interested in the power he gains from "helping" people than he does about actually helping them.
Saying that George Bush ran up the deficit doesn't change anything about the damage that unfettered socialism issued in by FDR did to America. And it certainly doesn't make me feel any better about Obama's "spreading the wealth around" comment. The government cannot produce prosperity -- only survival. Is that what America really wants? The government needs to create an environment where individuals can be successful -- not punish those who are. People who "made it" used to be looked up to in this country, now they are "the problem". I get so tired of hearing about "those CEO's" like it is a dirty word to build and run a successful company that employs hundreds of people, makes products that buyers find useful,and makes profits that benefits millions of Americans in their 401Ks and mutual funds. Are there some bad ones? Sure. But in this political campaign, Obama made CEO a dirty word -- grossly unfair-- designed to further his class warfare that was essential for his election. Many minorities have been made scapegoats over history, this year it was anyone who actually is successful.
Both parties create dirty words. You would think the poor, hungry, and homeless were minions of Satan. I'm not going to argue over a bunch of one-liners, but just because a tax return doesn't have charitable donations doesn't mean they are not made! My tax return says $0, though I make substantial contributions compared to my income. I'm pretty sure the democrats didn't run away with the election on the backs of welfare voters. You might want to check the demographics, but I'm pretty sure the GOP has lost touch with many of them, not just the lazy people looking for a handout (since they're probably too lazy to vote!). This is the last of my posts. Palin 2012!
Without a doubt, there is a direct correlation between government intervention and the growth of wealth. If you identify the countries in the world with the fastest growing economies, you will find it to be those that have freed their markets (i.e. Ireland, China, Singapore, etc).
The idea of redistribuition of wealth not only discourages investment, slowing the economy, but it also encourages people to not "be all that you can be." Why save for retirement if the government will pay for it? Why work those overtime hours if the government will pay for my medical care?
Redistribution of wealth doesn't work. The rest of the western world may be more progressive, but they are just now starting to figure this out. Hence, conservative leaders like Sarcozy.
I must go now.
Bottom line: the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals think government is the answer to the problem while conservatives think government IS the problem!
P.S. One more thing - Obama would not even be able to get security clearance because of his associations with terrorists (regardless of how old he was when they committed their acts of terrorism). Does that scare anyone else???
Can we stop with the over simplification of issues? That is a little restrictive to both parties, and there are many other FUNdamental differences. As for the security clearance, chain emails are not real sources. That claim has been refuted by FBI experts all over the place. Security clearance isn't very demanding.
In response your "security clearance" post. Really, EJ? You relied on a chain email?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/800/
This was written by attorneys that specialize in national security law.
There are other intelligent articles written on the subject as well.
Excuse the typo in the last post. Also, does it not bother you that Sarah Palin's husband belonged to a political party that advocates secession from the union. Proud to be an American? Doesn't look like it. Looks like he is at the forefront of that "not proud to be an American group."
Okay, enough empty talking points.
elisabeth, you don't know about security clearances. or the infrastructure of national security, and its relative immunity to political persuasion.
now if you do know about security clearances, or the IC's formation and purposes, we have more in common than i thought.
it speaks very well to your blogging ability, and writing, and courage to put out your thoughts... that it would cause this much dialogue. if everyone on here is willing to participate in dialogue like you and myself and diana, then i think things like this are beneficial.
thanks for providing the arena to discuss things. i always enjoy it.
also, i don't know "d" or "anon", but i'll go ahead and say that i know more about the process than they do.
... then again, they may have sat down for an 11-hour full scope...
Two points to clarify:
1. The security clearance info is from a political analyst on Fox News, not some dumb chain email.
2. Please do not be confused - I do have the same name as EJ. :)
eEzJ,
I'm just going to tell you that the article posted earlier in the thread is accurate, and I can confirm all of what they said about the SF86 form, and the kind of questions and investigations they do into a background check. The analyst on Fox News like most major news network, was most likely saying something inflamatory and controversial to increase ratings, thus increasing advertisement rate margins. Meaning more $.
Now unless you believe in the pure neutrality of news, you should probably understand that major news networks don't usually focus on fact-checks, but on figure$.
What??? You mean the news isn't unbiased??? And all along I thought they were just reporting the facts...what a disappointment.
Post a Comment