Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

John81

Palin resigning as Alaska governor

Recommended Posts

I'm confused about the comments about Huckabee.

I don't know what is wrong with his lifestyle. I've met him, and he has a good heart and seeks to do what is right. I don't think he is presidential material, but he was a decent governor. He stood up for what was right even when politiclally unpopular. I've not seen anything that is lifestyle is "evil" or wrong. So to what do you refer?

I think it is fine to have a female leader. There were plenty of them in the Bible. Now, I don't think Palin was presidential material either, as I thought Hilary was, but that is a differnet topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused about the comments about Huckabee.

I don't know what is wrong with his lifestyle. I've met him, and he has a good heart and seeks to do what is right. I don't think he is presidential material, but he was a decent governor. He stood up for what was right even when politiclally unpopular. I've not seen anything that is lifestyle is "evil" or wrong. So to what do you refer?

I think it is fine to have a female leader. There were plenty of them in the Bible. Now, I don't think Palin was presidential material either, as I thought Hilary was, but that is a differnet topic.


Kind - I am referring to his rock band. Yes, I know that is not a reason not to vote for him. But, to me, it's just as valid as other reasons given as to why someone is a "lesser of two evils" just because they don't agree with a few things. I don't believe that Palin's gender disqualifies her (am not sure about being presidential material...but I strongly disagree with you about Hilary...as you said, a different topic :lol:).

Music is subjective, but as Christians, do we want a rocker as POTUS? I believe rock music is wrong, but wouldn't use that as a basis for voting. Nor would I use gender as a basis. I (and I mean my hubby and me, because we vote the same) look at policies and issues. I know that most here disagree with a woman as POTUS, and I would prefer not to have one for many reasons. But that doesn't mean that God won't provide one for us...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Kind - I am referring to his rock band. Yes, I know that is not a reason not to vote for him. But, to me, it's just as valid as other reasons given as to why someone is a "lesser of two evils" just because they don't agree with a few things. I don't believe that Palin's gender disqualifies her (am not sure about being presidential material...but I strongly disagree with you about Hilary...as you said, a different topic :lol:).

Music is subjective, but as Christians, do we want a rocker as POTUS? I believe rock music is wrong, but wouldn't use that as a basis for voting. Nor would I use gender as a basis. I (and I mean my hubby and me, because we vote the same) look at policies and issues. I know that most here disagree with a woman as POTUS, and I would prefer not to have one for many reasons. But that doesn't mean that God won't provide one for us...


I see. I disagree about him being in a band. Some people like to hunt for fun. Others like to read. Others like to knit. Some like to play music. I don't see this different than any other hobby. Clinton played sax in a band, and I don't see that any different than Huckabee playing a bass in a band. He does it for fun, and is not real serious about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I know he's not real serious about it. My whole point is that, the lesser of two evils is subjective.

Huckabee plays in a rock band. The majority of Christians believe rock music to be wrong. Therefore, we should not vote for him on that basis if:

Palin is a woman. Therefore we should not vote for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read it' date=' Crush. Judges 4. Nowhere does it say she was a punishment. The punishment was to Barak - not because of Deborah being judge, but because of his unwillingness to trust in God without Deborah there. Therefore, Jael got the glory for the victory. THAT was the punishment, and it was to Barak individually, not Israel as a whole. [/quote']
I have read it, ma'am. And you're right; it doesn't say it was punishment. However, it would have been considered a disgrace at the time, as I said.

I will say this, though: Deborah is just simply "there"; she cannot be used as evidence for women in political positions or evidence against it, really. I will admit I think a bit carried away.

I did, ma'am; he has his own band.

I don't think that's wrong.

Ma'am:
Rock music...not condemned by Scripture.

Women in political positions...against Scripture.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I see. :lol: You're right - scripture doesn't come out and condemn rock music. But the principles are there.

Women in political positions against scripture? No. If that were the case, God went against Himself when He made Deborah judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see. :lol: You're right - scripture doesn't come out and condemn rock music. But the principles are there.

Such as, ma'am?
Women in political positions against scripture? No. If that were the case' date=' God went against Himself when He made Deborah judge. [/quote']
The fact of the matter is, God protects His people. He gets the job done.

Deborah is just an example of the spineless men of the day. Women in political positions are against God's natural order.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really look into what Palin has done it's clear she is not a conservative and not even a Reagan conservative. Sadly, neither is Huckabee, Romney or any other likely contender for the 2012 presidential race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really look into what Palin has done it's clear she is not a conservative and not even a Reagan conservative. Sadly, neither is Huckabee, Romney or any other likely contender for the 2012 presidential race.


It's clear that there's nothing to stip Obama and the Dems now. I still think that Congress will move to strike down the term limit amendment.

Really, the only thing that could stop Obama now is himself. If he moves to wrest power from Congress (which he has been by appointing "Czars") they would become he undoing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I believe, ma'am, that Brother Jerry was referring to this:
"As far as a woman being POTUS - I'd rather have her than Hillary!!! She actually is very much like Reagan in her beliefs, so those who like Reagan can't diss her political philosophy too much and be consistent!!"
God bless,
Crushmaster.


I believe President Reagan stood against homosexuals and all of that stem cell research of which Hillary does not. So there be a big difference in them, besides that President Reagan said many times while in office the answer to all our problems is Jesus Christ. I firmly believe that Hilary thinks all the answer to our problems is her.

But Hillary would probably make better choices than Obama. I don't believe she would try to spend our way out of the problems America is in at present times. I believe she would be a bit more compassionate with Israel.

But, in my book, Hillary does not meet the requirements of being president being as she is a woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I believe President Reagan stood against homosexuals and all of that stem cell research of which Hillary does not. So there be a big difference in them, besides that President Reagan said many times while in office the answer to all our problems is Jesus Christ. I firmly believe that Hilary thinks all the answer to our problems is her.

But Hillary would probably make better choices than Obama. I don't believe she would try to spend our way out of the problems America is in at present times. I believe she would be a bit more compassionate with Israel.

But, in my book, Hillary does not meet the requirements of being president being as she is a woman.


I was actually referencing Palin when I compared her to Reagan, Jerry. I know Hillary is not a Reaganite - although when she first got active in politics she was a Goldwater girl. She sure has changed her views, eh?

John - I don't know what you are referencing, but she is very much like Reagan. He wasn't the super conservative people like to make him out to be now that he's gone. Yes, he did a lot of good for the country, but there were some neo-con and social conservative attitudes from him - just like Palin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reagan was the first Prez to give amnesty to illegal aliens. Something like 10 million if I remember right. He also tucked tailed a ran after the bombing of the Marines barracks in Beirut. Admittedly, he always regretted this last move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reagan was the first Prez to give amnesty to illegal aliens. Something like 10 million if I remember right. He also tucked tailed a ran after the bombing of the Marines barracks in Beirut. Admittedly, he always regretted this last move.


Yes, much of the blame for the millions of illegals in this country today falls to Reagan.

From what I've read, Reagan didn't regret pulling the ground troops out of Lebanon, he regretted having sent them in. Reagan realized it was an error to put American ground forces in the midst of the conflict there and rather than tucking tail, he was shifting strategy and tactics to be more effective. What would have been truly regrettable is if Reagan hadn't been man enough to admit he made a mistake and instead ordered in more troops to launch a face-saving offensive.

Don't forget that Reagan placed a major liberal on the Supreme Court too.

Also, he never fought to rid the government of the agencies he had promised to eliminate when he ran for president. In fact, those agencies received increased funding and grew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgetting Sarah Palin
by Ann Coulter

07/08/2009


Sarah Palin has deeply disappointed her enemies. People who hate her guts feel she's really let them down by resigning.

She's like the ex-girlfriend they're SO over, never want to see again, have already forgotten about -- really, it's O-ver -- but they just can't stop talking about her.

Liberal: Ha, ha ... Sarah who? She's over, she's toast, a future Trivial Pursuit answer, nothing more.

Normal person: Whatever. How about the North Korean missiles?

Liberal: Can you believe she just resigned the governorship like that? What a quitter!

Normal person: Speaking of quitting, how's work?

Liberal: Did you hear she might get a TV show? There's no way Sarah Palin's getting a TV show! No way! I can't believe stupid Sarah Palin could get her own stupid TV show now. Well, I'm sure not gonna watch it -- that's for sure!

Normal person: Have you seen all the Michael Jackson coverage on TV?

Liberal: How does she think she can run for president in 2012 if she can't finish her term as governor of a Podunk state? She's finished.

Normal person: OK, then! You won't have to vote for her.

Liberal: I was never going to vote for her! But now I'm not going to vote for her twice. And I will never watch her TV show. I am so over her.

Reporters had already written their stories on Palin's press conference -- "rambling!" "incoherent!" -- before she even stepped to the podium.

Whatever you think of Palin, her argument for resigning was the opposite of "rambling" and "incoherent."

Palin's basketball analogy couldn't have been clearer, even to prissy liberal pundits who get uncomfortable when the subject turns to sports: She decided to destroy the other team's game plan, which has been to obsessively focus on her, by resigning.

This is particularly apt here -- she's passing the ball to a fantastic right-wing lieutenant governor, who shares her principles but doesn't set off the left's neuroses.

This is better for him, better for the state, better for the conservative program and better for Palin personally, whose family is sick of all the junk. Now she can make a lot of money and promote conservatism on a national stage.

It certainly won't be held against Palin by people who don't already loathe her. (On the other hand, her approval ratings among people who think she's worse than Hitler are down to 48 percent.)

With the left frenetically filing ethics complaint after ethics complaint against Palin, costing her state millions of dollars and her personally half a million dollars, citizens of Alaska must be asking, "Can we please have our state back?"

But to read the news reports -- which actually were rambling and incoherent -- you would think Palin was speaking in tongues.

The truth is liberals are furious they won't have Sarah Palin to kick around anymore -- at least not with Palin's hands tied behind her back by her public office.

Something tells me Keith Olbermann isn't going to be pulling any big numbers this summer attacking Eric Cantor and Michele Bachmann. I don't anticipate any sudden outbreaks of "Mitch McConnell Derangement Syndrome."

Soon we'll only hear about Keith when his creepy e-mails using his mother's death to hit on chicks start making the rounds again. (Tip to Keith: When a girl refuses to give you her phone number, her assistant's phone number or her personal e-mail address, and only gives you her assistant's e-mail address, you're not halfway in the sack.)

Bonus: If Olbermann gets canceled as a result of Palin's resignation, that will put her in a really good position for 2012.

But instead of being honest and saying, "Oh well, it was a good ride while it lasted," liberal chatterers indignantly demand: "Is this not the greatest betrayal a public servant ever committed against the people?"

On one hand, liberals are enraged at the heinousness of Mark Sanford -- whom they didn't vote for -- for not resigning and, on the other, they're enraged at Palin -- whom they also didn't vote for -- for resigning.

The peculiarly venomous hatred of Palin is driven by women of the left and their whipped consorts. All that needs to happen is for a feminist to overhear two Nation readers saying, "I hate to admit it, but Palin is kind of hot" and ...

WHAT??????????? YOU CALL THAT HOT? I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW WE'VE GOT A MEGA-SUPER HOTTIE IN DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. AND NEED I REMIND YOU AGAIN OF THE RAW SEX APPEAL OF RACHEL MADDOW?

Democrats are a party of women, and nothing drives them off their gourds like a beautiful Christian conservative. (How much money has that other beautiful born-again, Carrie Prejean, been forced to spend on lawyers to respond to liberal hysteria?)

So the motives are clear, but the money is not. Who is paying the rent for the losers filing all these frivolous complaints against Palin?

At least when Richard Mellon Scaife was funding investigations of Bill Clinton, we knew who Scaife was, he was an American citizen, and his money was accessible to U.S. tax authorities and not stashed in offshore accounts like a certain Hungarian Nazi-collaborator I can name.

How about some modern-day Scaife investigate the investigators?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32635

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ann Coulter summed it up well - although I don't like how she phrases some of her sarcasm!

Tony Blankley also hit the nail on the head:

Professional politicians and political journalists don't waste energy on political corpses. They reserve their energy -- positive or negative -- for viable politicians.
Thus, an intriguing part of the Sarah Palin phenomenon is the intensity of response to her every word and move -- from both Republican Party and Democratic Party professionals and from the conventional media. The negative but sustained passion being expressed by the professional Washington political class against her tends to belie its almost unanimous assertion that she is washed-up.

I happened to be on CNN Friday just as the story was breaking of Palin's resignation as governor of Alaska, and for the next hour, I was the only on-air guest -- Republican, Democrat, journalist, politician -- who was not overtly contemptuous and dismissive of Palin and her political future. On Sunday, as a panelist on ABC's "This Week," I was similarly situated.

What is it about Palin that elicits such furious bipartisan Washington dismissiveness? After all, the polls show her to be tied with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee for the very early lead in the 2012 Republican primary. As an outspoken conservative with about an 80 percent favorable rating among Republicans and a high-40s percentage favorable plurality among independents, objectively she should be seen as quite competitive nationally compared with other Republicans, particularly given that Republicans are generically weak and that she has been targeted so viciously by the media.

Palin draws by far the biggest crowds of any current politician, other than, perhaps, the president. She was the only news phenomenon capable of knocking the Michael Jackson story off the cable news lineups. Impressively, while George W. Bush was able to elicit a Bush derangement syndrome from liberal Democrats and President Barack Obama has succeeded similarly with many conservatives, only Sarah Palin has induced simultaneous derangement from both Republican and Democratic professionals.

At a time when governments around the world -- left, right and center -- are failing to gain public confidence and even the winning Democratic Party in the U.S. struggles to match independents for the leading political category (while the Republican Party struggles to get to 25 to 30 percent market share), it might behoove those same party professionals who have been failing to connect their parties to the public to pause before calling Sarah Palin an incompetent politician. Conventional wisdom may not be reliable in unconventional times -- or for unconventional politicians.

For instance, as the story was breaking Friday, fellow politically professional panelists were pointing out on-air how stupid Palin was to put forward her big story on a late Friday afternoon during a three-day holiday weekend. Everyone "knows" one buries a story that way. It became my grim duty to remind my fellow interlocutors -- in case they had not noticed -- that all the cable news shows were dropping their programming to switch to wall-to-wall coverage of the Palin announcement and that we were, at that moment, telling a national audience that the story we were talking about was being buried. The story persisted and expanded over the weekend, and my guess is that if any political topic came up at America's millions of Fourth of July backyard barbecue parties, it was probably Sarah Palin. So, who's the fool?

Well, I have had the honor of working for two politicians before they rose to their heights (as well as during their heights) -- Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. And though they were vastly different men, both of them were considered, for different reasons, beyond the political pale in their earlier political years. If only Ronald Reagan could behave more like George Herbert Walker Bush and if only Newt Gingrich could behave more like Bob Michel, maybe they could succeed better at elective politics.

So, last weekend, the professionals were sneering confidently that Palin had made a fatal mistake by giving up the governorship of Alaska, because everyone knows that an aspiring candidate for higher office clings to his or her current office while running for the next one.

For the rest of the article:
http://townhall.com/columnists/TonyBlankley/2009/07/08/sarah_agonistes?page=2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again... thanks LuAnne for your level-headed mind, heart, and godly soul. You backed up everything with scripture on this one! WTG! Also, with Deborah in the OT? I couldn't have said it better myself. People are crying out for the Rapture of the church - so why not... is what I say. My hubby and all the guys here think it might be the best thing for this nation.

The guys just want to be guys on this one. *smile* Not all of them, though. Kind - I do appreciate your support on this one. Amen! Also, we know the saying 'If it is not broken - then, don't fix it.' This, however, is VERY broken. Maybe a woman is what we need. I don't know. We know that God has that answer. And, guys... when you talk about 'a woman usurping authority over a man' which I know is Biblical. Don't you mean your wife? And, being a preacher? We know that is not scriptural. Can you show me something in our USA Consitution and/or anywhere in our country that states this? Please... I would love to see it.

Ah - I can't stand politics but somehow I get caught up in it. lol As my hubby says... it keeps dragging you in, Molly.

Again, I will vote for who my hubby votes for. And, at this point? It is Sarah Palin. We stand with the underdog!

In His Holy Name ~

Molly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about this, at this time we have no idea how this will affect the future of Sarah Palin. One thing for sure, there is not a lack of opinions on how it will affect here political ambitions if she does keep moving in that direction.

Only time will tell. To me it amazing at the public's reactions at times. For some of our politicians have done things that were extremely bad, yet their voters have stood behind them, while others have done deeds that were not really very bad, but yet the voters did not stand behind them.

Only time will tell. Either way I don't believe being president of this country is a potion for a woman, I don't believe a woman desiring such a position, that this desire comes from God.

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Gen 3:16 (KJV)

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
1 Tim 2:13-15 (KJV)

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:22-24 (KJV)

"So let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing" means in church out of church, everywhere.

And of course the same thing is told us in the Old Testament, "hy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
1 Tim 2:11-15 (KJV)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry, I agree that it would be best not to have a woman for POTUS. But I couldn't say with 100% certainty that a woman POTUS would not be of God. Again, Deborah was the de facto leader of Israel - and God used her, leading Israel to victory. Does that justify a woman in political leadership? Of course not. What I believe it shows is that at times it is necessary.

The verses you quoted are absolutely true - a woman is to be subject to her own husband (too many people add to this to mean every woman is to be subject to every man...but the Bible doesn't teach that!). So, if a woman runs for political office with her husband's blessing, and some even with her husband's telling her she needs to do so (I've known situations like that), then that woman is being subject to her own husband. Maybe not in the way some would think, but there it is...

The interesting thing is, the POTUS is not really in charge of us, so a woman POTUS would not, if going according to the Constitution, be in authority over the men of this country. The POTUS, just like all elected public servants (most of whom like to call themselves officials because it makes them sound more important) is subject to the people of the US. It is a position of service, or at least is supposed to be. Yes, I know there are decisions that need to be made that require authority...but those decisions actually have a framework called the Constitution which is supposed to limit the POTUS. It is not limiting our current POTUS, but I really believe that if Palin got in, she would adhere to it more than the current one or several previous. Just MHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its always been wrong in the Bible, it once was wrong in this United States, at that time it was based on the Bible. The only thing that has changed since those days of old times in America is that Amerce in modern time has no morals at all and have turned completely away from God's paths, and at present time we are on a fast down hill run, evil is spreading like wild fire. Seems women liberations has been one thing that has really sped us even faster down this course we have taken.

As for Deborah, we could say a lot about her, but she is an exception to what is normal in the Old Testament. If we build a doctrine on an exception to what is normal on this topic, them we can build many more doctrines on other subjects in the Bible that be an exception to what is normal and make many things that are not right in the sight of God, right in our sight, seems that is exactly what America is doing.

No matter what the subject is, the problems we face, the troubles that come into our life, if we try to fix it by doing wrong, that just makes it much worse. I feel that be the reason things in America are derogating at such a fast pace. In fact we have that very example with Israel, when they would turn to God, everything would improve for them, but when they turned away from God and His ways, they abounded in even more problems.

We've got a woman church member who does her life exactly like this. For years she has been on a seesaw, back and forth, she would mess up and things would get bad, turn back to God and everything would improve, the turn from God once again. She has had a on going problem with alcohol and prescription drugs. I told my wife its just a matter of time before she completely surrenders to the world. It seems that has now happened about 1 year or so after her mothers death.

I surely hate to see God's blessings leave America, but on the course we are headed that is exactly what is happening, there is only one possible way to change it. Turn back completely to God as a nation, not partially. But will the unbelievers and atheist in America let that happen? Will they give up the progress they've made? Are they enough of us that really knows what we would have to do to competently turn back to God's ways? Would our leaders even listen to us? Are we to far gone into the last days for something like that to come about even if we as a nation would do that? I don't know, but that is the only possible answer to Americas troubles.

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

God made it so plain, Eve was the one deceived, Adam was not, but he did not have the back bone to stand up to her, so it be in modern America.

By the way, I'm not against women, I'm just for everyone following God, for I know that he knows better than I or anyone else. Whether man of woman, the role God has for each us is very important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's always been wrong in the Bible, Deborah would not be an exception - she would have been condemned, and there is no condemnation of her!! God set up the judges for Israel's deliverance, and Deborah was no different.

No one ever said anything about building a doctrine!!! The plain fact of the matter is that God used Deborah. Much of the OT is given to us as example - and this is what that situation was. The people of Israel were acting just like that woman you described (so many Christians seem to be seesawing these days!) - back and forth between serving God and serving idols. That is the reason God sent the judges: to deliver Israel from oppression. God chose to use Deborah to do just that. And that is what happened.

Who are we to say that it would be wrong here in America, if it wasn't wrong in Israel? I know that when this country was first started, it would never have happened. Well, neither would a lot of things that have!!!

Are we too far gone here in America? I don't believe so. God gave a promise to Israel in 2 Chron. 7:14: "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sins, and will heal their land." If we as Christians were to follow the instructions in this verse (we are, after all, God's!), He will do as He promised ~ even though we are not Israel...Christians are still His people.

And it might take a woman in the White House to bring it about ~ especially if that woman is a conservative, who is a Christian, who will work to reverse the damage BO's policies have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't matter' date=' because you wouldn't accept it, anyway. Study music out in scripture, Crush. You'll find that rock music does not fit.[/quote']
Ma'am,
I am not being boastful when I say I am decently well-versed in Scripture. It's a blessing from the Lord.

And I know of nothing that condemns rock music.

Yes. And it proves nothing for me or for you. It doesn't give strength for my argument or yours.

It is simply there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...