ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Massachusetts Goes Republican

Like a drunk sobering up, the electorate in Massachusetts have suddenly and decisively switched direction. Apparently many think that they were dead wrong in electing Obama. What do you think?

Join Our Free Penpals and Take The Leadership Bible Quiz
 ---mima on 1/20/10
     Helpful Blog Vote (6)

Post a New Blog



Clearly irony does not work.
The questions remain unanswered.
---al8566_of_uk on 2/2/10


Oil was at the heart of the first Iraq conflict as well as the second one. Saddam first invaded Kuwait and was poised to continue on into Saudi Arabia if nobody stopped him. It's in the USA's vital interest to protect the Middle Eastern oil supplies since the liberals say we can't use our own. The country couldn't function without it.
---ralph7477 on 2/1/10

You only have it part right. New domestic oil can only supply 3% more of our need. SUV's waste 3.5% of our need. We have had this debate before. I will only concede that liberals are blocking liquid coal production which could meet 100% of our need.
---obewan on 2/2/10


Trav:

So just what does the word "peacemaker" mean to you then, and to whom would it apply? If peace is only due to "those like us" and not to those outside, and we Christians are supposed to "love our neighbour as ourself", then peacemakers would never have any cause to make peace with those on the outside, and they would never have any need to make peace with those on the inside (since we ought to already be at peace). They would be out of a job!
---StrongAxe on 2/2/10


Alan: "Jerry ... Thank you for your courtesy, honesty, and courage."

You're welcome.
---jerry6593 on 2/2/10


It seems that Pastor_Jim confuses being a hawk with being Christian.

How does this fit in with following Him Who said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven"?
---Cluny on 1/26/10

Not required to be a peacemaker with a non family member or defenders of foul works/leadership.

10 Therefore, you kings, be wise,
be warned, you rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear
and rejoice with trembling.
Psalm 92:9
For, lo, thine enemies, O LORD, for, lo, thine enemies shall perish, all the workers of iniquity shall be scattered.
Psalm 105:24
And he increased his people greatly, and made them stronger than their enemies.

Pray Psalms 109.
---Trav on 2/1/10




Jerry ... Thank you for your courtesy, honesty, and courage.
---alan8566_of_uk on 2/1/10


Larry, I don't forget much but I don't recall that. I'll take your word for it. Let's be honest. Oil was at the heart of the first Iraq conflict as well as the second one. Saddam first invaded Kuwait and was poised to continue on into Saudi Arabia if nobody stopped him. It's in the USA's vital interest to protect the Middle Eastern oil supplies since the liberals say we can't use our own. The country couldn't function without it.

Clinton was too preoccupied with having a good time to keep the heat on Saddam so Bush was faced with having to do something. I'll never understand how or why the reason's behind the invasion kept changing but it was a big mistake to re-characterize the war as related to 9/11 or to free the people of Iraq.
---ralph7477 on 2/1/10


Elder:

Look at the money. After the US army trashed a lot of Iraq (and the insurgents trashed a bunch more), who got the contracts to rebuild it? Haliburton and other similar companies. They didn't care if the American flag is on the pole, as long as the American greenback is in the wallet.

If America has enough domestic oil, why are the domestic oil companies always looking for more deposits overseas, and developing them, and then paying through the nose when OPEC raises their prices? If we were truly self-sufficient, none of that would matter. And presumably the oil companies have thier own best interests at heart to get their oil from the cheapest places.
---StrongAxe on 2/1/10


From another blog...


Nurse...I'm still waiting for your answer on..

Why Obama had his C.O.L.B. in Hawaii sealed from the American public?

And the answer is.......
---PASTOR_JIM on 2/1/10

very simple, "pastor" jim... listen very carefully...

HE DIDN'T.

Kindly prove he did.. And while you are at it, what happend to your court case on Jan 26?
---NurseRobert on 2/1/10


The original reason Bush went into Iraq was because they kicked out the weapons inspectors -- Ralph7477

Yes Ralph, you are correct. That is the first of four reasons with none of those worth the blood of my son or your daughter.

Its simple math that we don't have enough kids to die or become maimed by despots that aren't national security threats when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Kim Jong and Hamas are far more dangerous than Hussein, so save the blood of our kids for where it's really needed.

On Augst 30, 2005 daddy Bush said the reason for the war in Iraq was to protect Iraq's vast oil fields. Did you forget?
---larry on 2/1/10




jerry6593, thank you so much. It is people like you that made the job worth doing.

"and taking over an oil-producing country is good for sustaining America's oil-thirsty economy, as well as providing opportunities for enrichment for his Texas oil buddies."
StrongAxe
If Bush "took over" Iraq why don't we have it today?
America has enough oil in the soil to run this county for well over a centry. Ohio, W Va., Va., Texas, Alaska, Penn., Tenn. to name a few not to count off shore.
Your facts are flawed.... but what can we expect? The USA has just as many enemies within as without.
---Elder on 2/1/10


Elder:

Even if whether Iraq had WMD is debatable, North Korea had them and boasted about them. Yet Bush chose to invade Iraq and not North Korea. Why is that? I can think of a few reasons, none of which are legitimate:
1) He wanted to finish "daddy's unfinished business" from 1991
2) He wanted to "get Saddam", as Saddam had been responsible for at least one previous major terrorist attack before 9/11 (even though he was NOT responsible for 9/11).
3) There is no oil in North Korea, but there is oil in Iraq, and taking over an oil-producing country is good for sustaining America's oil-thirsty economy, as well as providing opportunities for enrichment for his Texas oil buddies.
---StrongAxe on 2/1/10


The original reason Bush went into Iraq was because they kicked out the weapons inspectors. The UN passed empty resolution after resolution telling Iraq that they better let the inspectors back in "or else". GBW was evidently the only one taking those resolutions seriously and decided that if Saddam wouldn't disarm, somebody would do it for him.

Iraq was either pretending to have weapons they didn't, and/or they got rid of what they did have. We know that they disposed of at least some of their weapons because we never even found what had been previously catalogued during inspections. There were reports of Iraqi weapons materials turning up in other countries with the UN inspection tags still on them.
---ralph7477 on 2/1/10


obewan, What would Jesus do?, you ask. Read the book of Exodus (for one place) and see what He did after the 9th plage.
Nurse, North Korea is a danger but they haven't encroached any US interest yet. Bush gave the intellengent reports that he had. There was a lot more going on than you (or I) know. Hussin had WMD, used them, was going to use then again and was loaded and ready to go. There was Mustard gas, Poison gas, Nerve gas and when he set the oil wells on fire that was an attack against the whole region and world.
How soon and easy people forget.
---Elder on 2/1/10


Elder: God bless you for your service to our country.
---jerry6593 on 2/1/10


Elder, there is no doubt that Hussain needed to go, but thats not the issue. Its whether Bush lied to us or not to get into Iran. We were told that Hussain was involved in 9/11, only to be told later, by Bush, that he wasn't.

If we are so fired up to get rid of dictators, why haven't we attack North Korea (I worry more about that nut than I ever did about Hussain)
---NurseRobert on 1/31/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


There were Iraq aircraft blown up on the runway/tarmac loaded with WMD and ready to go.
The only mistake that Bush2 made was waiting too long to go in and capture the weapons.
---Elder on 1/31/10

And, what would Jesus do? Would he start a war that has cost trillions of dollars, and which ignited a secondary civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands just to "protect" the oil supply for his SUV?

I much prefer the Constitution Party platform which says "circle the wagons", protect America, and disengage from Middle East wars. We have more than enough coal to make liquid coal fuels so we don't even need Middle East oil.
---obewan on 1/31/10


Strongaxe, there is a lot that you don't have privity to. If you think there were no WMD in Iraq tell me what Hussin used against his own people.
There were Iraq aircraft blown up on the runway/tarmac loaded with WMD and ready to go.
The only mistake that Bush2 made was waiting too long to go in and capture the weapons. Anyone with a grain knows they had plenty of time to move them.
Ask the Iraq people if they'd like to have Hussin back.
I was attached to the 82nd Airborne in those days in 91 when Hussin used the weapons.
---Elder on 1/31/10


Jerry ... I answered your questions on "Is the death penalty a sin?" blog

That blog is now closed. So perhaps you will now answer the questions here that I had put to you?

In hope and trust, I thank you in advance for that courtesy and honesty.
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/31/10


jerry6593:

Stooping to pesonal attacks and name-calling is not worthy on any discussion forum, and especially not among those who claim to be Christians and thus supposedly motivated by "love your neighbor as yourself".

The first half of the above also applies to atheist, however, if you are in fact "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you", he was merely responding to you in the same way in which you had indicated that you wish to be responded to.
---StrongAxe on 1/31/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


I would guess that you are also politically a bedwetting, bleeding heart liberal, since emotions are also their standard of reasoning.
---jerry6593 on 1/30/10


Jerry, is this the best you can come up with? You're what??? 13? Your sophomoric comments are tiresome.
---NurseRobert on 1/30/10


Jerry: "I would guess that you are also politically a bedwetting, bleeding heart liberal, since emotions are also their standard of reasoning."

I take it then you are politically unrinating in the wind, emotionally heartless conservative, since emotions have no part in you standard of reasoning.

But you are a Christian?
---atheist on 1/30/10


Jerry ... Youb refer to my "stated affinity for political socialism"

Really ... where did I state that affinity?

Please provide the quote.

But maybe you were thinking of someone else?
---alan8566_of_nuk on 1/30/10


Atheist: It is quite entertaining to be admonished on moral issues by an atheist who quotes scripture, since your morality is based solely on your own personal "feelings," and not upon the scriptures. I would guess that you are also politically a bedwetting, bleeding heart liberal, since emotions are also their standard of reasoning.
---jerry6593 on 1/30/10


Send a Free Funny Birthday Ecard


Scott Brown was not elected by Republicans (since in Massachusetts Democrats outnumber Republicans 3:1) Independents made the difference, but some Democrats also were outspokenly for Brown.

I think, since Obama, more and more people are disgusted with BOTH parties. Washington has failed to listen to...or has discounted... the opinions of so many ordinary Americans. The VOTE is the only effective voice people now have...and Massachusetts voters used it!
---Donna66 on 1/29/10


No Mima, 800-thousand who voted for Obama didn't vote at all and Coakley lost in a state where Obama has a favorability rating higher then Brown's. Oops.
Some voters sobered up but even more stayed home, neither a good sign for the democrats. You are correct in half of your analysis.

Considering 27% of the nation blames President Obama, 48% percent blame Republicans and 41% blame Democrats the issues are not as simple as Fox News would have you believe or MSNBC would choose to ignore.

Even worse, Brown says he will vote against a Senate health bill that mirrors almost exactly the Massachusetts health plan he voted in favor. Hypocrisy is everywhere Mima, go figure.
---larry on 1/29/10


Alan: First you say: "your remark does not merit any reply other than this." And then you follow it with another remark. Now, how funny is that?

Your statement: "You are being deliberately offensive" implies knowlege of my internal motives, whereas my statement was based solely on your stated affinity for political socialism. When I merely point out that Hitler was a socialist, and you almost had him to rule over you, you get all sensitive and irritable. Go figure!
---jerry6593 on 1/29/10


Jerry,

I really don't understand your attacks on Alan. From the tone, it would seem they should be held back for someone special,---like an atheist, not a fellow Christian.

"Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart, thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not revenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord."Leviticus 19.17, 18.

Your implementation of this biblical admonishment is ironically confusing considering the passage is clear and unambiguous.
---atheist on 1/29/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


Hi Jerry ... Caught you out there! Of course I was "reading your mind", and hoping you would respond as you did.

Because that gives me the opportunity to point out that when you said I don't think that Alan admires Churchill as much as we yanks do. He seems to be more of a Neville Chamberlain man. You know, "peace in our time" was his response to the invading "National Socialist Party." you yourself were reading my mind

And it was rather an offensive reading (and toitally incorrect) of my mind.
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/28/10


"Jerry ... You are being deliberately offensive (as elsewhere) and your remark does not merit any reply other than this."
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/25/10

There you go reading my mind again. Man up, will you?
---jerry6593 on 1/28/10


People forget that voters aren't necessarily monolithic, and that state and federal governments have very different portfolios. Voters may be happy with how things are at home, but not happy with Washington. States often elect Democrats locally and Republicans federally, or vice versa. Or even one for congress and the other for president.
---StrongAxe on 1/26/10


It seems that Pastor_Jim confuses being a hawk with being Christian.

How does this fit in with following Him Who said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven"?
---Cluny on 1/26/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


Blair was there for us Yanks during 911. It was a very scarry time for Americans and we needed Churchill in our darkest time.

Blair comforted Americans and let us know that our friends were there and things will be okay. If you remember we did not know who was attacking us, it was the 1st time we were hit at home. We were all terrified!!! I remember it very well, WE ALL DID!

It was like the American colony needed to hear from the Fatherland once again. He was the one person who put our nation together and I will FOREVER, be thankful to Blair and our closest friends for being there for us.

GOD BLESS THE BRITS!!!
---PASTOR_JIM on 1/26/10


Looks like Obama's Senate Seat is going to the Republicans as well!
---pastor_jim on 1/25/10


Jerry ... You are being deliberately offensive (as elsewhere) and your remark does not merit any reply other than this.
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/25/10


Elder ... You misunderstood what I said about CN & politics. CN is not political. I was referring on the tendency of so many of the blogs to become dominated by American political issues.

And I don't spout off about how bad the US government is. There are good points and bad about all governments. US politics affect the whole world, so I think I have the right to comment.

Blair kept quiet about his Christian faith because it would spoil his political career. Asd it unravels, most of his political actions turn out to be based on the same cynical gutless opportunism.

I thank America for coming into WW2 ... I just wish they had not waited so long to do.
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/25/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


Elder:

Bush invaded Iraq (with Blair's blessing) on the pretense of WMD, even though he knew for a fact that they didn't have any (and lied to the American people about that). On the other hand, he didn't invade North Korea, even though everyone knew for a fact that they had WMD. What is the difference? There is oil in Iraq, but no oil in North Korea, I can't think of any other justification (or maybe it was to finish up his daddy's unfinished business from the 1991 gulf war?)
---StrongAxe on 1/25/10


Alan,

I was disappointed in Tony Blair and the rest of Europe. Our blood lust was out of control since it was you Brits we last fought on this soil. An attack on our home soil was emotionally destablizing. We needed some comfort and guidance to control our rage and its absolutely inevitable expression. I had respect for Tony Blair and hoped he would help with that. He turned into a lap dog for Bush, and we made jokes about French fries.

We have cooler heads fighting other peoples wars. Like everyone else we are not so clear headed when its us. We threw everything at the problem before we understood the problem.
---atheist on 1/25/10


Nurse, apology not necessary, but it's appreciated and accepted.

I pretty much know what to expect from somebody who gets a little too passionate and emotional. I've been married.
---ralph7477 on 1/25/10


Elder: I don't think that Alan admires Churchill as much as we yanks do. He seems to be more of a Neville Chamberlain man. You know, "peace in our time" was his response to the invading "National Socialist Party."
---jerry6593 on 1/25/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


Nursey: You seem to be confusing biblical "liberality" with political "liberalism." The former involves giving from the heart and is a blessing to the giver, while the latter involves usurpation by a tyrannical government and is injurious to the "giver." True liberality is demonstrated by the millions given from the heart in the US by ordinary folks through private entities for the relief of the Haitians. Political liberalism is demonstrated by the bungled efforts of the Obama machine to make political hay of their suffering.

I'm curious as to how you view political liberalism and the positive harm it creates.
---jerry6593 on 1/25/10


Alan I just thought you were the same old Alan that used to post here. You must not be.
I guess you would be angry with Tony Blair cause that gives you one Brit with some guts. Do you know of any more. Don't say Churchill cause if it hadn't been for US lives you'd be in Great Germany south.
But now you have the freedom to spout off about how bad the US goverment and politics are. If you don't like the politics (where ever you got that from) of ChristiaNet I invite you to change the channel.
---Elder on 1/24/10


Elder, you're welcome. I posted on that one too.

You are right, our politics are miles apart. Im sorry to say I tend to get a little TOO passionate about my beliefs. And I do tend to come on too strong sometimes. For that, I am sorry (especially to you Ralph!)

Oh, and thanks for the support. But you know what they say... sticks and stones...

---NurseRobert on 1/24/10


Elder ... Why do you think I was bragging ... and about? I am ashamed of the stupid actions of Blair, and of his lies to anable him to go to war.

And you say "You don't even have a ChristiaNet" . That's not true. We have this one, just as much as you do. Have you not noticed it's title ... "The Worldwide Christian Marketplace"

So it's ours as much as yours. Only thing it is based in America, and is dominated by American politics.
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/24/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


Nurse, thanks, but I was trying to post another blog question. It has since been posted.
To all concerned about the term "Nursey." Don't get too upset,
1. Because Nurse Robert can take care of himself.
2. I have called this poster Nurse, NR and/or Nurse Robert. I have not done this out of disrespect but sometimes because of space and/or time.
On politics, his and my ideas do not live on the same block. Yet this does go back to saying what needs to be said in a Christian attidue. People take attacks on their politics as an attack on their mentally and intelligence. Becareful of what you post.
Alan, I've been to GB. You don't even have a ChristiaNet. You have to use ours so don't brag, lol.
---Elder on 1/24/10


Actually I doubt America stole the earnings of USA's people because,surprise,there was nothing left to steal. The money for the war came from borrowing money from China or where ever they could get it. What will happen in the future is tantamount to stealing hard earned wages,because Americans will be taxed in more ways to pay the debts caused by the wars. America is now over 12 trillion dollars in the red.
---Darlene_1 on 1/24/10


Karen, again, don't worry bout Jerry. Like "pastor" Jim, he has no concept of liberalism - either politically or religiously - or what it represents. They like to make up their own definitions.



---NurseRobert on 1/24/10


It is of course "perfectly moral to steal the meagre earnings of honest, hardworking" and spend it on an illegal and fruitless invasion of a sovereign, "justified" by knowingly false claims of weapons of mass destruction.

That's what my government (a socialist one) did, in support of the conservative Bush regime
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/24/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


\\Cluny: We are at war. Congress has approved it. Can you say "War on Terror," or "Iraq" or "Afghanistan?" Do you think we are there for the social interaction?\\

Upon which country did Congress declare war, and when? Can you say?

In international law, war can only be declared upon a sovereign nation, not upon a vague concept such as "terror"--or for that matter, on "poverty" or "drugs" (neither of which did any good, btw).

We NEVER declared war on Iraq, from which our forces are withdrawing, or on Afghanistan.
---Cluny on 1/23/10


KarenD: Are you a nurse? I have nothing against nurses. I have 2 aunts, 2 sisters and a neice who are nurses. Wonderful, selfless profession! My quaint use of the affectionate term "Nursey" (short for Nursey Boy) is merely to show a lack of sensitivity to bedwetting, bleeding heart political liberals like Nurse Robert who think it perfectly moral to steal the meagre earnings of honest, hardworking Americans by force of arms (taxation) and give it away to the lazy and undeserving while skimming a large share for themselves and their political allies.
---jerry6593 on 1/23/10


Cluny: We are at war. Congress has approved it. Can you say "War on Terror," or "Iraq" or "Afghanistan?" Do you think we are there for the social interaction?

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason.

Obama has released our prisoners-of-war to attack us anew. He has given some of these prisoners civil trials on our soil - as if they were US Citizens. He has put our military personnel (Navy Seals) on trial for doing their job because a captured enemy terrorist got a bloody lip. Sounds like aid and comfort to the enemy to me.
---jerry6593 on 1/23/10


Karen, Don't worry bout Jerry, he can't help himself.

Elder, Mickey D's and Burger King have been doing this in Europe for years. No big deal.
---NurseRobert on 1/23/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


Jerry...When you are in the hospital, seriously ill, call that RN taking care of you "Nursey" and see how it feels to put down someone to their face!
---KarenD on 1/22/10


How do you feel about Burger King selling beer? It is starting in Miami Fla.
---Elder on 1/22/10


StrongAxe, I suggest you take some time to study the history of Reagan's economic policies and how they lifted the country out of misery of the Carter years. You will learn how people in all income levels prospered. You will learn that lower tax rates actually increased tax receipts for the government. And you will learn why Reagan's supply side policies produced the largest and longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history.

After you do that you will realize how silly your last post was.
---ralph7477 on 1/22/10


ralph7477:

Reagan promoted the idea of "trickle-down economics", whereby the government gives tax breaks to the corporations and rich, giving them more money to work with, and encourage them to spread the wealth downwards to everyone else.

However, what actually happened was those at the top got the money, but instead of letting it trickle down, they pocketed it and got even richer.
---StrongAxe on 1/22/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance


mi ma, I don't think that's the reason why a Republician was elected in Massachusetts.

I believe it was because of the Health Care Reform Bill. MANY were opposed to it and this was the people's way of voicing their opinion of how they hated the Health care Reform bill, by voting in a Republician.

What I don't understand is: We are in two wars, why wasn't the focus on pulling out of these wars, making peace with other countries, blessing Israel and fixing our own economy (jobs in particular). Healthcare Reform could have waited. There are other priorities in the USA that need immediate attention - jobs is on top of that list.
---Donna on 1/22/10


StrongAxe, so let me get this straight. Bush ran up higher debt than any president in history. So therefore Obama's solution is to quadruple Bush's debt and run it up higher than any president in history. Makes perfect sense.

But Obama had no choice as a Great Depression would have resulted if he didn't print, borrow and spend? Unemployment has only gone up and all that money is gone with nothing to show for it. The correct response would have been to eliminate or drastically cut income and corporate taxes. It would have cost the government the same amount of money but we'd be in recovery already. But liberals would never allow that because it gives the government less power and it lessens their control over people and business.
---ralph7477 on 1/22/10


\\Is that why you voted for the Traitor-in-Chief?\\

Treason is closely defined in the US Constitution. This was to prevent the government from using the charge to imprison people it didn't like.

Therefore, can you tell us just HOW the President has made war against the United States?

Or to WHICH enemies he has given aid or comfort?

BTW--Treason can be committed ONLY during wartime, and only Congress can declare war.
---Cluny on 1/22/10


jerry6593:

The only reason why why Obama has run up the debt is because he's paying to recover from the mess Bush created. Bush went on a spending spree, and now Obama is stuck with the check. Bush ran the debt up higher than any president in U.S. history, and what did we get for it? An economy in shambles and the virtual collapse of the auto industry and the whole financial infrastructure. Sure Obama could have not done what he did, but does anyone really prefer a replay of the Great Depression?
---StrongAxe on 1/22/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


Really? Is that why you voted for the Traitor-in-Chief?
---jerry6593 on 1/22/10

Jerry, you have been asked many times to tell us just what Obama has done to make him a traitor. You spit and sputter but never come up with anything he has done illegally.

And between McCain and Obama, yes, I did and would do it again.
---NurseRobert on 1/22/10


Nursey: "Don't run up your debt yet, Jerry."

I don't have to - BO has already run it up for me, my children and my grandchildren.

"Obviously you vote party lines. I tend to vote for the person I think will do the best job."

Really? Is that why you voted for the Traitor-in-Chief? He has definitely done the "best job" of destroying our once great nation - and in only one year. Impressive!
---jerry6593 on 1/22/10


Nursey: "I wouldn't have voted for Coakley either." Wow! You would have voted for a conservative over a liberal? The end must be near!
---jerry6593 on 1/21/10

Don't run up your debt yet, Jerry.

Obviously you vote party lines. I tend to vote for the person I think will do the best job.
---NurseRobert on 1/21/10


lololo Itis kinda funny my son does political anynalist and he reminded me how fickle is the public. When our flesh is full we are happy, when our flesh gets worried we complain.I personally think GOD gave us the Obamma admistraton. why because He is GOD, for good or harm and the truth of GOD says we need pray for this man.he is the leader of this country (weather we like it or not)and this administration may be Gods judgement on the "christians" who do nothing other than complain.
Please pray for the president.

lol I never thought as a republician I would be asking america to pray for a democrat lol

AMERICA BLESS GOD
---willow on 1/21/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


Nursey: "I wouldn't have voted for Coakley either." Wow! You would have voted for a conservative over a liberal? The end must be near!
---jerry6593 on 1/21/10


obama who?brown who?I have heard of massachusetts,they has a tea party there,and a city named Boston.Politics,another name for graft,and on a national level.whats the definition of a lawyer and a mosquito?ones a blood sucker that will drain you dry,the other is an insect.
---tom2 on 1/20/10


I thought Brown looked more like a Kennedy than his opponent. Maybe that's why he got elected.
---KarenD on 1/20/10


It should be interesting to see how Brown plays the cards he was dealt. I have my reservations, though.

As for saving the Republic, November is most likely the critical point. If the people don't throw out ALL-party politicians, then... we're definitely doomed, as far as this "worldly" government goes. Ask ol' G. Washington what he had to say about party politics, in his farewell address to the nation.

I ain't all that worried, either way. This world ain't the answer. Neither are politicians--of any party.

BTW: Speaking of republics--did you know that Jesus is the Permanent Head of a Holy Monarchy?

No King But King Jesus!
---BruceB on 1/20/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating


Considering that 98% of the states had absolutely no participation in this election, it's ridiculous to call it any kind of mandate.
---StrongAxe on 1/20/10


FINALLY -- people are starting to see the light!!!!!!!!! Praise the Lord.
---Debbie on 1/20/10


The people of Massachusetts have made their decision and I applaud them. Brown ran a good campaign and he is to be congratulated.

While the right wingers see this as a "referendum" on Obama there was more than this that let to Caokley's defeat. She was a very poor choice for office, she stumbled through the campaign and her wrongful prosecution of the Amirault's all factored into her defeat. I wouldn't have voted for Coakley either.

Its going to be an interesting year.
---NurseRobert on 1/20/10


Oh, and Massachusetts is only a little bit republican.

Democrats control the governorship, both houses of the state legislature, and the state's entire congressional delegation, as well as the other state Senator.

Brown will also face re-election in 2012. Let see if the voters of Massachusetts still like him then.
---NurseRobert on 1/20/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments


It's ironic that after Ted Kennedy led a change in Massachusetts law to prevent a Republican governor from appointing someone to fill John Kerry's expected vacancy, his own unexpired term is being filled by a Republican.

I think the people of Massachusetts simply were not going to be dictated to by one party any more.

What does this have to do with Christianity?
---Cluny on 1/20/10


Here we go again: BLOG BOMB OBAMA!!!:)

Obviously, Coakley ran a lack-lustre, condescending, woefully uninformed, lethargic campaign. She didn't properly court her constituents, I guess, because she thought the senate office was a Democratic, Ted Kennedy "permanently" secured position. Very, very foolish!
---Leon on 1/20/10


The people in Mass voted for Obama for their own reasons. Now this country is going in the wrong direction. It's not about democrats or rebublicans. It's citizens vs the gov take over. It's we the people standing up. To the great people of Mass, THANK YOU!
WAYNE 5363.
---wayne on 1/20/10


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.