Posted on 11/12/2012 3:58:25 PM PST by Olog-hai
Add Newt Gingrich to the list of Republicans coming to terms with the loss of the presidential election. On Monday, the former speaker of the House sounded reflective on the "Today" show, saying, "We need to stop, take a deep breath and learn." He added, "The president won an extraordinary victory. And the fact is, we owe him the respect of trying to understand what they did and how they did it."
Gingrich said, "But if you had said to me three weeks ago Mitt Romney would get fewer votes than John McCain and it looks like he'll be 2 million fewer, I would have been dumbfounded." …
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Respect? I respect Obama about as much as the turd my dog dropped in the back yard a few hours ago.
Respect? I respect Obama about as much as the turd my dog dropped in the back yard a few hours ago.
The mods already found you using the “c” word and thankfully removed it. My conversation with you is finished.
Your conversation with me is finished? How ever will I sleep tonight?
I posted last week that, if Romney won with his campaign strategy, that I would man up and admit that he was right and I was wrong.
Oh well...
I posted here many, many times that Romney was Obama's dream opponent.
It turns out that I was correct.
Did he come out of hiding? Good prediction there Newtie...
“I don’t know how to deal with this conundrum, and would love to hear other opinions. Our military employs psy-ops and disinformation, etc. Is that wrong? What’s the balance? Do we have the right to defend ourselves against those who want to destroy our way of life? “
Reasonable questions, and you may want to (if you haven’t already) studied ‘just war’ theory and its neighbors.
Using the Bible as a guide, most conclude that spying by a legitimate government is not a sin. Some conclude differently, and there are limits to what a spy can do. But God directed Israel to send spies, so, the general consensus is, it isn’t necessarily a sin.
How far to you go with spying? The lie is implied. Killing would be a ‘just war’ argument. What about fornication? I don’t see a justification for that.
Psy-ops and disinformation go in to the “justifiable lie” category. Some great Christians say a believer should never lie. Some teach there is such thing as a justifiable lie, based on such things as the Hebrew midwives, David feigning madness, and the lie of Rahab. I am in that camp. But I qualify it by saying that the lies are only, as far as I can see, to defend innocent life, just as you can kill to defend innocent life.
I don’t want to steer you wrong, though, so I encourage you to read good Christians on both sides of the issue. I do think that use of the justifiable lie is rare, not an everyday thing.
As for “how to get screwed by others,” I disagree. One person plus God is a majority. While as individuals our faithfulness sometimes gets us crucified upside down, normally obeying God’s law brings temporal safety and blessing. It always brings eternal safety and blessing of course.
Really? What a way to win future elections...
That's true. My only nit to pick with your spot-on analysis is that a genuine Conservative never engages in such activities. Lying, cheating and stealing are the core values of liberalism and those who may call themselves Conservatives but are merely Republicans. Of course, we are all sinners (including actual Conservatives) but true evil is the stock and trade of liberalism, in whatever form it manifest itself: communism, socialism, islam, unionism, facism and so on.
I believe you and I don't subscribe to some of the election conspiracy theories here, but I'm still curious about something. Do you happen to know if the law in every state requires all votes to be counted even if:
1. The number of remaining ballots could not affect the outcome of the election?, OR
2. All candidates but one have conceded?
The California number is a hard and fast number.
Also, in 2008, the number of election-night votes reported was far less than the final total.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/there-are-no-missing-voters
The fact remains that people comparing 2012 current vote totals and 2008 final vote totals are complete imbeciles.
nothing coming from the government in California is to be believed ~ let’s see the votes first.
All votes are counted under all circumstances regardless of whether it affects the outcome.
Most states have a reporting deadline to their states’ Secretary of State of December 4; the SoS then certifies the results as “official.”
Actually, having long wondered about how the myth of “absentee ballots aren’t counted unless they affect the result” got started, I think I’ve finally figured it out.
They often don’t show up in the day-after-election totals, leading to the idea that they “aren’t counted” but they are included in the official certified results a month later.
Newt created this mess with motor voter in the 90s
I missed that. Sounds like the stormfronter is overdue for teh z0t.
Ukraine is having a recount due to fraud in their election. Alleged vote rigging by ruling party.
m.voanews.com/1540713.html
White women vote republican.
If only women voted, then Nixon would have won in 1960 and we would never had gotten JFK’s 1965 Immigration Act, which doomed America.
Men voted for JFK, women against him.
The election of JFK was the end of America. Vietnam, the 60s, LBJ, government unions, and the fatal pill of immigration all came from JFK.
“However, if there is one man who can take the most credit for the 1965 act, it is John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy seems to have inherited the resentment his father Joseph felt as an outsider in Boston’s WASP aristocracy. He voted against the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, and supported various refugee acts throughout the 1950s.
In 1958 he wrote a book, A Nation of Immigrants, which attacked the quota system as illogical and without purpose, and the book served as Kennedy’s blueprint for immigration reform after he became president in 1960.
In the summer of 1963, Kennedy sent Congress a proposal calling for the elimination of the national origins quota system. He wanted immigrants admitted on the basis of family reunification and needed skills, without regard to national origin.
After his assassination in November, his brother Robert took up the cause of immigration reform, calling it JFK’s legacy. In the forward to a revised edition of A Nation of Immigrants, issued in 1964 to gain support for the new law, he wrote, “I know of no cause which President Kennedy championed more warmly than the improvement of our immigration policies.”
Sold as a memorial to JFK, there was very little opposition to what became known as the Immigration Act of 1965.”
People simply cannot get that plain, simple fact into their heads. Pundits on our side were drastically wrong pre-election and now they're wrong post election.
My understanding is that men elected JFK, and Nixon actually led among women that year. Same with Carter and Ford
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.