Election Disappointment

[giza]

Well, it looks like the elections are just about done. I'm pleased that things went much better this year and that there weren't any major accusations or voter fraud or intimidation. I am very disappointed that Bush won, but at least his win wasn't in controversy this time.

And the Republicans now control both the Executive and Legisilative branches of our government. With one party controlling the lawmaking process, I think this is very bad for everyone concerned. Here's what I think is going to happen in the next 4 years:

• Further erosions in civil liberties. Expect the government to gain broader search and seizure powers, perhaps through a PATRIOT 2 Act when the current PATRIOT Act expires in what, 2006? Expect free speech rights to be curtailed when it comes to criticizing our leaders. Expect more people to be arrested and held without bail or trial because they are "suspected or terrorist activities".


• 4 of the Supreme Court Justices are due to retire in the next 4 years. Expect Bush to appoint 4 new ones that are significantly to the right. This will have a disturbing effect on our society for decades to come.


• Expect more money put into the "war in drugs", and more people to be jailed and/or have their property seized for victimless crimes.


• Expect a Constitutional Amendment that outright bans gay marriage.


• Speaking of gays, I predict that at least one gay rights group will be "made an example of" by the government in the next 4 years in some way, shape, or form.


• I expect that the situation in Iraq will worsen, and a draft will be started. I expect that more people my age and younger are going to DIE. :-(


• I expect that our relations with other countries will get worse in the next 4 years.


• I expect at least 1 terrorist attack on US soil in the next 4 years. Osama bin-Laden said it himself, in that our own foreign policies will determine what the terrorists will (or will not) do to us. Osama may be a mass-murdering fuckhead who should be locked up for the rest of his natural life, but he does make a point.


• I expect that our economy will do okay, but that the middle class will continue to suffer while the wealthier get tax breaks. (Fun fact: in 2003, I paid several hundred dollars less income taxes even though I took in a record gross income for that year. Did my worse off parents get a tax break? Hell no! And they bust their asses!)

I think that covers most of my worries for the next 4 years. I really hope that I'm proven wrong on most of this stuff. Only time will tell.

Comments

Don't move to Canada yet

[bikerwalla.livejournal.com]

The good news is that Arlen Specter won over that scary guy Joe Hoeffel.

Specter sits this new term as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which gives him a LOT of power to select Supreme Court justices. And he's one of the few people with the balls to be centrist and pro-choice, and still call himself a Republican.

Not enough

[pyesetz]

I've been trying to get the FBI to let me move to Canada for two years now.  It's time to start trying harder, I guess.  If I don't move in the next three years, I won't be able to drop my US citizenship fast enough to protect my kids from the draft.

[quentincoyote.livejournal.com]

One question about the supreme court, who exactly are the one's probably going out? (I'm assuming that Renquist is one.

More to the point, how many progressives would be going, versus right wingers? Just trying to hold onto the one possible silver lining, that if it were all right wingers going, then the court balance wouldn't change must anyway, at least? (fat chance, I'm sure)

[strangeden.livejournal.com]

At some point Amerians MUST get their shit together.
A draft must be met with nothing less but 100%
resistance. They can't force anyone to kill unless
they agree.

[rustitobuck.livejournal.com]

Remember that a Constitutional amendment must pass the states, and that's generally a tough thing to do.

I remember the years of trying to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed.

Generally, the States seem to be the most conservative body, in the true sense of the word. Laws are one thing, but the Constitution of the United States is another.

[unciaa.livejournal.com]

True. But as has just been seen [what, 11 times?], one doesn't really need to alter it if the states themselves just implement the ban locally and excuse the Constitutional conflict with banalities.

[shenryyr.livejournal.com]

not only that, but the individual states are altering the state constitutions, which are just as important and difficult to modify once things get in there.

[unclekage.livejournal.com]

You forgot a few predictions:

• Several million (if not tens of millions of) skilled professionals will lose their jobs, because their companies will be given financial incentives to outsource those jobs to 3rd world countries. Remember, everyone, Mr. Bush has said it himself: this is good for America, because then the workers who were fired will be encouraged to learn new skills and eventually be able to get even better jobs.
  
  
• Gasoline prices will hit $3.00 per gallon within the next 12 months. Stock share prices in the major oil companies will concurrently hit all-time record highs.
  
  

[furahi.livejournal.com]

Yay, that means more jobs for me

... Just kidding, there are other much cheaper 3rd world countries -.-

[doco.livejournal.com]

Gasoline prices will hit $3.00 per gallon within the next 12 months.

*smirks*

Somehow, I feel like the US government is following the Kyoto protocol without ever actually ratifying the treaty.

[khakiwolf.livejournal.com]

The whole fucking constitutional ban on gay marraiges is retarded. What are they going to do? Take whiteout to the original documents and write in "except for the fags"??

For a country that has laws against discrimination, I'd say telling people they can't get married because they are GAY is the worst kind of discrimination. Far worse than," we don't hire fags".

Hypothetical question

[srgilberto.livejournal.com]

Here's a hypothetical question: What if God really does hate homosexual behavior as He has so clearly stated?
(though He loves the person that practices homosexuality).
What will be your defense when you face Him?

We're all sinners (I'm the WORST!!! - nobody deserves to go to hell more than me), but since He has forgiven us of all our sins (past, present AND future) shouldn't we at least try to live a life that is pleasing to Him (out of gratitude). I deserve to go to hell but I get to go to heaven. I'm so grateful that I'm going to at least try to turn from my sins and live to please Him (rather than embracing or celebrating my sin).

Highest regards,
SrG

Re: Hypothetical question

[giza.livejournal.com]

God? Who's that?

*flips through his address book*

I'm sorry, but I don't seem to have his contact info, nor do I recall having met him before.

Re: Hypothetical question

[tailen.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you.

What will be your defense when you face Him?

It's between every person himself and God. No human (especially ones that use the Almighty as a means to tell others how to live their lives) should decide that. Neither should ones working for a government that is founded on a law that says state and religion must be separated.
Any animosity against homosexuals grounds in religion (if it doesn't, then it's the particular person you can't stand, not his/hers homosexuality ;)

Basing your opinions on ideas that were conceived 2000 years ago and never since developed is just absurd. And basing laws on it for things that no one could have imagined back then is even worse. That's just moving backwards.
We might be basing civilization, society, math and other things on ideas formed back then too, but we're at least developing those ideas, and thank god for that or we'd all still be living in houses made of cowpoo.

Re: Hypothetical question

[srgilberto.livejournal.com]

You are speaking of the "wall of separation" which came from a Thomas Jefferson letter (not in any government document). In the early days of our nation, our founding fathers and government leaders insisted that the Bible should be taught in public schools and it should be used as a reading book.

Consider Tom Brokaw's "Greatest Generation", these people bled and died to preserve faith and freedom. For the most part they were God fearing people who were concerned more about God and honor than for themselves. Now I consider this "self-serving"/"self-satisfying" generation that is coming up and it occurs to me that this generation appears to be JUST THE OPPOSITE of our founding fathers AND the opposite of Tom Brokaw's "Greatest Generation".

Highest Regards,
SrG.

Re: Hypothetical question

[tailen.livejournal.com]

Heh. Once again I was trying to make a short point, but it all collapsed (or expanded, rather) into a rambling reply to this thread.

Found here

:)

Re: Hypothetical question

[khakiwolf.livejournal.com]

Well actually, God doesn't hate. And if anything it's his fault, since God created everything, right? Personally, there's a lot of ups and downs in the Bible. Love everyone... except these guys. Thou shall not kill.. but if you catch a woman in adultery, stone her to death.

So I don't take any of the "gays go to hell" crap seriously. I was raised a Christian, I know that being a good, honest person, as Jesus said, will get me into heaven.

I won't be left out just because I'm GAY.

Re: Hypothetical question

[srgilberto.livejournal.com]

You are absolutely correct. Participating in gay activity will NOT prevent you from going to heaven. If you have truly accepted Jesus as personal Savior (Jesus' death being an acceptable sacrifice to God for our sins - thereby God's wrath toward sin being appeased). However, when a person is GRATEFUL for being totally forgiven for their sins, you would think that person would WANT to live a life that honors his creator (since that is the purpose of all creation - including us). If Jesus is truly your personal Savior, you are forgiven for your homosexual activity, and I PRASISE GOD THAT YOU AND I WILL SOMEDAY BE TOGETHER IN HEAVEN. I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU THERE!

Personally, I would think however, that when a person is filled with gratitude for being forgiven, I believe it would lead to repentance.
(Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 2, verse 4: "...knowing that it's the kindness of God that leads you to repentance.")

Repentance is merely agreeing with God that you have "missed the mark", recognizing that you are a sinner. (I've done that. In fact I admit that nobody is WORSE than me. NOBODY deserves to go to hell MORE THAN ME! I OUGHT to go to hell, but I GET to go to heaven. Now I've learned that my purpose in life is NOT to seek my own sinful pleasure in this life, but to seek His pleaseure, believing that what is truly best for me is what's best for Him).

I believe that hell is REAL.
I believe that hell is WORSE THAN I CAN IMAGINE.
I believe that hell is FOREVER.
I believe that I DESERVE to go there.
But I believe that Jesus took all of my punishment so I could be completely free. Now I'm FREE!! I'm free to sin, I'm free to not sin. But out of gratitude for my FREEDOM, I intend to try to use my feedom to live for Him, not me. I WANT to honor my creator who was SO GRACIOUS AND KIND to me to offer me the GIFT of salvation and forgiveness.

My Highest regards,
SrG.

Re: Hypothetical question

[giza.livejournal.com]

>If you have truly accepted Jesus as personal Savior

And what about the other religions? Hinduism doesn't have one god, but something like 33,000. Does their lack of belief in Jesus bar them from getting into heaven?

Re: Hypothetical question

[tailen.livejournal.com]

I think they'd each go to their separate heavens. It wouldn't be heaven for the Jesus-believers if they had to share it with heathen Hindus, right?

Actually, Hinduism has been described as the religion of 330 million gods according to their religious texts, but actually that was a figure mentioned to symbolize that there are gods in everything. I think the actual number of different gods is only around 200,000.

But as I've just stated in my previous post
The metaphysical implications of gayness in religion is really an entirely different discussion than gay marriage (or at least it ought to be be).
But most people seem to be forgetting this in the heat of the battle. No offense to religious people, they're zealous if nothing else, but they're just not going to keep gay people from having the same human rights as everyone else forever. And combining the idea that God is opposed to homosexuality with the concept of gay marriage is just not a smart business plan to have.
It's only going to be the downfall of the religious groups. Gay people aren't going to be oppresed forever, religious people might prolong the pain, but at some point in the future some gay person is going to have enough power to set things right.
By then, the religious people will lose the whole battle because marriage is simply just a necessity for couples (gay or otherwise), that's what we've built a lot of companies, government and business around. You should rather by using your energy on making the government change the name of 'marriage' to something like, oh say, 'registered partnership' in all the official documents and then society can move on while you're debating God vs Gays on the side.

Re: Hypothetical question

[srgilberto.livejournal.com]

Yes, you are absolutely correct. Christians lose the battle for this world. In fact it's only a matter or time before the Christians are so persecuted for their "PERCEIVED" intolerance that christianity WILL eventually have to be banished from this world. (But even though we lose the battle, because we are forgiven and have excepted the GIFT of heaven, we ultimately win the war)

But at the time that we christians are banished it will fulfill that prophecy found in Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 11, verse 25 which mentions "... until the full number of gentiles have come in" (new international version). When the "full number of gentiles have come into" the kingdom, then there will no longer be a reason for Jesus to delay His return and He will come and we will be taken home to be with Him forever. And those who remain in the world after the rapture will then have to face whatever consequences remains for them. I hope as many as possible will realize the wonderful and GRACIOUS GIFT that has been offered and take it and enjoy it's privileges. Those of you who are hoping for the banishment of the "PERCEIVED" intolerant religion of Christianity, will someday get their wish.

My highest regards,
SrG

Re: Hypothetical question

[tailen.livejournal.com]

I doubt Christians will lose the battle. It's still very widespread in other countries and if they should ever be publicly persecuted in the US I'm sure they'll be quick to point at some sort of anti-discrimination law (you know, like the ones people are using to defend themselves against Christians at the moment).
I don't think religious intolerances are 'perceived' in any way. It's just that the most loud-mouthed ones are also the ones with the most extreme views of things. In any association.
Christians are not going to be banished, but they are going to have to get off this whole projection thing that is so deeply rooted in religion, which dictates any followers to 'spread the word' (read: impose your religion on innocents). That's just now how society works. It used to. But not anymore. Modern Western culture consists of hunting/gathering, which means that if you want something, you go get it.
Religious preaching to non-religious people has no higher value than spam in your mailbox. It's irritating, takes up too much of your time and energy to fend off, and it's all a scam.
But just like spam the percentage of people that get conned is still high enough for the method to be used, and used a lot.

Christianity doesn't have to be banned, but it has to adapt and this is a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeery slow process due to the very nature of religion. It's not meant to change.
I can see the comfort in clinging to traditions so ancient that no one can definitively prove how wrong it is. If you go back just 200 years, people believed that women who lived alone were the cause of crops going wrong and people getting ill in the town around her, that women in menstruation were in direct contact with the devil and that swinging a dead cat over your head at full moon was good for curing warts...

Now try to imagine what people believed was infallible truths 2000 years ago.

You don't need to stretch your imagination a lot to believe that they might have thought walking on water and healing the sick was a pretty normal thing for gifted people.

I'm sure your Great Book of Rules says something interesting about heaven in chapter 11, verse 25, but I can recite passages of a book on advanced astrophysics that say how no Creator of any kind needs to be present in order for a universe to come into existance, and until you can prove your book is more accurate than mine, it's just your word against mine.
See, my passage can actually be proven mathematically, the only problem is that you need to study abstract math, the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics for about 15 years before you can understand the proof.
Whereas any idiot who can read can understand what your passage says. Religion has a clear advantage on that point.

Even now the Christians are butting in on schools and starting this 'intelligent design' creationism thing.
Religion has stayed around for a long time by influencing children when they're still a blank slate, it's the only way it can survive these days, because the last time a grown-up was converted to Christianity was when missionaries were putting guns to the heads of natives.
You think tribal people of South America and Africa threw away 10,000 years of culture because Catholicism and Christianity were just so much better ideas than what they'd come up with?

However, reverend Pat Robertson and other loud-mouthed are mere amateurs, feeble shadows of what the church once was. The church used to rule kings and countries. It used to collect taxes, burn sinners and let rich men pay their way out of purgatory so the church could spawn even bigger churches. Of gold and marble.

So at least we're moving in the right direction.

Re: Hypothetical question

[srgilberto.livejournal.com]

Christians are already persecuted in a subtle way. You can't make fun of Muslims or Jews in sitcoms, but anyone who accepts Jesus as God (Christians) are free game in sitcoms to be made fun of. They are portrayed in a very bad light. This is a very subtle form of persecution. Eventually few people will be interested in Christianity because of their "percieved" intolerance and "perceived" narrow-mindedness.

Also:
I don't mean so much that Christianity will be publicly banished by law, but Christianity will be made fun of to the point that few people will desire to be a part of it, and slowly by slowly, it will become (as you described) ineffectual. Either way, whether Christianity is publicly banished, or gradually becomes ineffectual, there will come a time, "when the full number of Gentiles have come in" to the kingdom, and the last person who is going to receive the FREE GIFT of salvation, will have received it and Jesus will no longer have any reason to delay His return.

My highest regards,
SrG.

Re: Hypothetical question

[tailen.livejournal.com]

I think it's sad that you can't make fun of people. I also realize this is a cultural thing.
In the US people are especially uptight about being 'politically correct' to the point that you can get sued and fined for airing your opinion in public. That is, if you say something negative about people who are wealthy enough to sue you.
While in the meantime just about every Hollywood movie put out has the most foul language imaginable to make it more realistic or something, I guess. Not that I'm against profanity, I believe swear words don't hurt anyone, what I do have against them is the constant usage. I believe the original idea was to emphasize the meaning of what you said to a point where you showed just how deeply you felt about what you were talking about, since you were willing to use obscene, ungodly words. Today it's just as overrated and repetative as 'I love you'. This happens with anything that is repeated so many times it becomes routine, it loses its meaning because you begin to filter it out automatically. Unless you actually sit down and count (or you're very profanity-sensitive), I doubt you'd catch even half the swear words of any given film.
I compare it to the concept of someone saying "wow!" in every single sentence somewhere. At some point it just becomes annoying and the person really could convey the same meaning without using the word at all.

The two sides of the FCC and the free speech just don't mix. The original argument (when there weren't a lot of radio stations) was that no one should be forced to listen to profanity on public radio/TV if they didn't want to. Fair enough. However, in the meantime we've gotten so insanely many different channels that you have the choice to merely flip away from something you don't want to see, yet for archaic reasons the argument still holds. Which is why we see cases like the infamous Janet Jackson nipple on live TV that outraged a nation, while no one in the free countries of Europe raised an eyebrow.

But enough about profanity.

Ridiculing Christians because of their intolerance and narrow-mindedness is just another form of stereotype. I hardly think it qualifies as persecution just yet. Even a subtle one. But of course, if you get all your information about the world from TV sitcoms, you're in trouble anyway.
I would also like to remind you that Christian followers are usually indoctrinated from early life. A lot of it depends on whether your parents are Christian. Some non-Christian adults sometimes 'see the light' and become Christian, but if you look back in their history they've usually had religion lurking in their childhood in some form or other.

And once again, if you merely look beyond US borders at religious cults in Europe (protestantism especially) you can see exactly what's you're moving towards. Christianity is.. I wouldn't say it's taken less seriously, but it's more at the point where it's a private thing. Just like smoking and sexual preferences are/should be. It's something you keep in the privacy of your home and you don't advertise it (read: annoy others with it). Of course some people are still banging on doors and yelling from tree tops, but it's not as blatant as in the US. And again, people tend to be more civilized about it in the bigger cities. For some reason the largest and most zealous cults of any religion are always way out in the country somewhere.

[film2edit.livejournal.com]

If people really want to get married let 'em. I'm not looking to anytime soon, and I'm dating someone not of my sex. Personally, I think same sex marriages would last longer, but that's just me.