1. pimlico on November 3rd, 2008 at 11:09 am
   

   The Puppet Masters are using their media lap dogs to create an impression re: the election. Ignore them!
2. dcgirl on November 3rd, 2008 at 11:27 am
   

   It’s a good analogy. I know that I voted for Hillary in the primary in order to keep the dems fighting each other.
3. wfish on November 3rd, 2008 at 11:33 am
   

   Speaking of lap dogs, anyone still undecided can’t go wrong by taking the Hearst Chronicle endosements from yesterday’s editorial page….and vote just the opposite. I’ve pretty much done that for years and don’t think I’ve gone wrong yet.
   Maybe a couple of exceptions, but by and large I use them as my “voting guide”. They say “yes” I say “no”! Works for me.’
4. Ken Kelley on November 3rd, 2008 at 11:43 am
   

   In the quotations noted in the original posting, citing that Democrats were over Republicans by 4-to-1, the question left begging is the usual percentage in Travis County. That county typically votes Liberal in the majority, but what is the average percentage? My point is that, for example, 4–1 is significant only if the usual ratio is 2.5–1; everything else is marginally irrelevant.
   – Ken
5. actingunderwater on November 3rd, 2008 at 11:59 am
   

   I got confirmation that my particular precinct had a greater percentage of “identified Republicans” voting early than “identified Democrats.” I guess they look at primary history. My primary night figures were skewed this year, but our precinct isn’t a huge Republican stronghold.
6. houstondem on November 3rd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
   

   Okay so now you need to produce solid “operation chaos” numbers. And considering there were no riots in Denver, I think it is safe the say operation chaos was a failure.
7. davewolfgang on November 3rd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
   

   There were no riots in Denver because the Dimwit Party leaders got behind closed door with the leaders that were planning on it, and told them straight up that if they DO riot and cause trouble, it would only hurt the Dim Party.

   Because everyone already KNOWS those wacko’s aren’t Republican, so why would Dimwits cause riots at the OWN Convention. It backfired last time they did it.
8. wfish on November 3rd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
   

   #6

   Not looking for chaos….just some surprises. Until the Fat Lady sings, it ain’t over.
9. whitetop on November 3rd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
   

   Keep hearing how many people are still undecided this last day before the election. So what is it that these people don’t understand? Either they are playing with the minds of the pollsters or they have no business voting.
10. wfish on November 3rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
    

    whitetop;
    Our only hope is that the majority of these people are either playing games with the pollsters or that they “wake-up” before casting their votes. Worst fear is that they don’t vote at all…which wouldn’t really surprise me….just disappoint me.
11. slash on November 3rd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
    

    I was shocked to hear an acquaintance say she would really rather vote for McCain, but she doesn’t trust Palin. It bothered me for a second, as she was just mouthing Dem talking points, none of which had any validity. I explained Palin has more experience than BHO, and fought corruption to boot, even got the “heartbeat away from the Presidency” comment from her, which I countered with “Joe Biden”. Alaskans from both sides love her, and she has run the State with skill and verve.

    “But she’s a woman.” This from an educated, modern female that is quite aware of her own power.

    That’s when it hit me: women don’t like or trust each other. For the most part, that is.

    Maybe my little talk made some sense to her. Maybe not. But there may be more of HELLary’s legacy smoldering around than expected. No one likes a b!tch, especially another woman, hehehe! I really think that instead of judging her on her own merits, they see a composite Boxer/Pelosi/Clinton.

    Hell, that thought scares me.
12. davewolfgang on November 3rd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
    

    You know Slash, I’ve had that phenomenon also. A good friend of mine, very accomplished (lawyer), good head on her shoulders and very smart.

    She doesn’t like Sarah Palin. And not just doesn’t like - Can’t Stand Gov. Palin. And the ONLY thing she can spout is the MSM/Dim’s talking points. And having “that many” kids…while working… WTF????

    So what do you women here think (although I think this might be a mostly one sided responses)?
13. wagonburner on November 3rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
    

    #10 wfish
    I heard a report on the radio where they were interviewing a Rasmussen dude. Basically, he said the exit polling was conducted more for determining why people voted the way they did rather than for internet junkies who can’t wait a few hours.

    He also said that in 5 out of the 6 main battleground states last time that Dems were much more willing to talk to pollsters than Reps. I think he said that about 60-70% of Dems were willing to talk to pollsters, while less than 40% of Reps and Inds would.

    IIRC, this also holds fairly true for pre-election polling.
14. american woman on November 3rd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
    

    I like Palin and would vote for her to run this country. She is an exception, I think. Women are their own worst enemies. I don’ t think they do well in groups! hehe. Example: My neighbor, who is a dear and would do anything for anyone, goes on a ” girls cruise” She and about 5 other friends. They decide to play cards. She doesn’t understand the game and they start ridiculing her. They became mean, almost like bullies. When she got home from the cruise, one of her friends had left her vehicle at my neighbors home. This friend for 30 years starts attacking my neighbor. Pointing a finger at her chest, she is unloading about how my neighbor has never had any pain in her life ( so not true) how my neighbors marriage is good, and she is jealous of my neighbor and hates her own life, blah blah. And she’s yelling at my neighbor like it’s my neighbors fault. Craziness. But, that’s how women can get with each other. UGH. Hormones? Competition? I have no idea. Men are much more simple creatures. Give a group of women a few days together and you will have problems. The guys will just drink, tell jokes, pass gas, talk man talk, and scratch. Nothing complex. I’ve probably made all the female bloggers here angry, but that’s how I see it.
15. PedalingPaddler on November 3rd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
    

    i think it is interesting, i guess people think mccain stans NO chance the payout on election bets is .11 for BO and 4.6 to 1 for mccain

    but i am not giving up, i still cast my vote for the lesser of two liberals
16. wagonburner on November 3rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
    

    #14 aw

    The guys will just drink, tell jokes, pass gas, talk man talk, and scratch. Nothing complex.

    We also belch. In harmony.
17. wfish on November 3rd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
    

    #14:
    Don’t know what you did to/for the women bloggers, but have to admit you’ve got men down pat…..I know ‘cuz, I are one. If all women undersood us like you do, life would be so much simpler. And thanks for the insight into women, even though it’s a view into a world we (men) will never understand. Viva la differance.
18. american woman on November 3rd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
    

    thanks wfish. Two examples of powerful women are Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi. Another great example is Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher handled her power with discretion. Pelosi uses hers like an ax. Hillary, well Hillary has gender confusion Sarah Palin is a man’s woman. She loves the outdoors, hunts, fishes, can hop a harley, and still put on an evening gown. I don’t think there are too many powerful women like her. Am I wrong?
19. Shannon on November 3rd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
    

    american woman
    If it takes insulting male steroeotyping
    to get you to admit that the female stereotype is actually true,
    I guess I’ll just have to put up with it.
    
20. american woman on November 3rd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
    

    Shannon, some things are just fact! hehe
21. american woman on November 3rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
    

    Shannon, IF i offended you I apologize. I think all those things I mentioned about y’all are great! No pretensions, not complex. Just enjoy each others company.
22. whitetop on November 3rd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
    

    AW, I voted Palin/McCain not McCain/Palin. I don’t know what I would have done if McCain hadn’t selected Palin as his running mate. I know I wouldn’t vote for the marxist and I didn’t want McCain. I just hope she can bring to bear some conservative values to the idiot from AZ.

    I do find it offensive comparing Pelosi and Hellary to Margaret Thatcher. You have a bitch and a witch compared to a woman of accomplishment.
23. american woman on November 3rd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
    

    Whitetop I was just listing three women of power. Thatcher is female, that’s about the only comparison! I didn’t mean to offend you. I don’t remember much about Golda Meier except I thought she was wonderful. I don’ t know if Thatcher hunted etc. I really don’t know much about her except Ronald Reagan had great respect for her.
24. whitetop on November 3rd, 2008 at 8:13 pm
    

    If Palin gets into the national spotlight I’m sure she will be compared to Thatcher by the time her career is over. AW I wasn’t really offended just couldn’t see a comparison of the witch and the bitch to Thatcher. I don’t remember that much about Golda Meier either. What I remember she would come closer to Thatcher than Pelosi or Hellary.

    Hopefully by the end of the day tomorrow we will be looking at the future of Sarah Palin. I raised two daughters and understand the problems women have in the marketplace.
25. Adee on November 3rd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
    

    IMHO women who have a problem with Sarah Palin, aside from political views, are stuck in the high-school clique or university sorority mode of socialization. (Consider a comparison to The Borg hive mentality.) In other words, they are immature and can’t comprehend a girl/woman who has different aspirations and is a whole person rather than an appendage of a group. And in many cases they are disappointed in themselves regarding accomplishing their own goals and so take it out on a woman who knows what she wants and is confidently achieving it–an alpha woman if you will. True, many alpha women are hell on wheels and also insecure in maintaining their positions, but not all. Same can be said for lots of alpha males. Born leader vs. wanna be and never was.

    To me, Sarah is a kindred spirit of Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. You go, girl.
26. slash on November 4th, 2008 at 1:45 am
    

    AW, you are wise to the ways of the world. Most men are quite simple. But I like to say, “Simple gets sh!t done!” Not that we can’t read, ya know. But most guys actually would rather things be simple.
    I had to laugh the other day, a group of buddies went camping and attempted to hunt, we all had a great time. I tried to imagine a group of women, camping on the beach, cooking, building blinds, dragging up firewood, just hanging out with each other. We pulled it off without a hitch, and we were all armed to the teeth.
    Women might pull it off, but there had better not be any weapons handy, or someone’s ending up in a shallow grave in the sand, hehehe!

    Adee brings up another good point. No disrespect, but “Alpha chick” seems to roll off the tongue better. I know a couple. They hear “Alpha chick” and grin. They will not tolerate a weak man, nor will they put up with very much “female” static. Sounds just like Sarah. You can have a real friendship with an alpha chick, almost like another guy, hehehe! If they are insecure, they’re a beta trying to pass. Same with a guy. An Alpha knows their stuff, and they know it. They’ll waste no effort trying to convince anyone. And you can put a room full of Alpha’s together, and have no problems at all. They will recognize each other’s abilities, and have a plan sketched out in a flash.

    It’s the Betas, the wanna-be’s, that cause all the ruckus. Like Boxer, or Peloci, or even Hillary. I don’t think she’s a natural leader, not if an empty suit can knock her out of the saddle.
27. BoxieAgain on November 4th, 2008 at 9:46 am
    

    I am a woman.

    I never have, and never will vote for a woman to be in any position where she would have authority over a man.

    Genesis 3:16

    I Timothy 2:11-15

    etc.

    McCain lost my support when he chose Palin as his running mate.
28. BigJolly on November 4th, 2008 at 10:29 am
    

    Boxie,

    I understand your viewpoint and do not wish to argue. There are other viewpoints about this and I’m simply presenting this for thought, nothing more.

    2:8–15 Proper Demeanor for Public Worship
    Paul addresses women (2:9–15) in considerably more detail than men here, apparently because women are erring more severely in this congregation. Their culturally inappropriate behavior can bring reproach against the gospel (something Christians could ill afford—5:14).

    2:8. Apparently men were bringing their dissensions (1:6) into public worship; although “anger and disputing” (NIV) were bad in general, Paul addresses the men here because they were the ones engaged in these sins. Hands were normally lifted or outstretched for both praise and supplication in the Old Testament, Judaism, the ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman world. Diaspora Jews usually washed their hands before prayer, so “pure [or holy] hands” became a natural image for genuine worship (cf. also Ps 24:4).

    2:9. Whereas many men in the Christian community were quarreling (2:8), many women appear to have been violating a different matter of propriety in public prayer: seeking to turn others’ heads. Most Jewish teachers allowed wives to adorn themselves for their husbands, but both Jewish and Greco-Roman moralists ridiculed women who decked themselves out to turn other men’s eyes. Jewish writings warn especially of the sexual temptation involved in such adornments; Greco-Roman writers also condemn wealthy women who show off their costly array. Hair was sometimes braided with gold, which Paul might have in view here; men were especially attracted by women’s decorated hair. Like most other writers who condemned such gaudiness, Paul should be understood as attacking excess, not as ruling against all adornment.

    2:10. Greco-Roman moralists often stressed that it was inward adornment rather than outward adornment that would please a good husband; Paul concurs. See also 1 Peter 3:3–4.

    2:11. The proper way for any novice to learn was submissively and “quietly” (a closely related Greek term appears in 2:2 for all believers). Women were less likely to be literate than men, were trained in philosophy far less often than men, were trained in rhetoric almost never, and in Judaism were far less likely to be educated in the law. Given the bias against instructing women in the law, it is Paul’s advocacy of their learning the law, not his recognition that they started as novices and so had to learn quietly, that was radical and countercultural. (In the second century, Beruriah, wife of Rabbi Meir, was instructed in the law, but she was a rare exception. Women could hear expositions at the synagogues and did sometimes attend rabbinic lectures, but the vast majority of rabbis would never accept them as disciples, and Hellenistically oriented Jews like Josephus and Philo were even more biased against them than the rabbis were. There is evidence for a few women filling higher roles in some Diaspora synagogues, in local cultures where women had higher social positions, but the same evidence shows that even there prominent women in synagogues were the rare exception rather than the rule.)

    2:12. Given women’s lack of training in the Scriptures (see comment on 2:11), the heresy spreading in the Ephesian churches through ignorant teachers (1:4–7), and the false teachers’ exploitation of these women’s lack of knowledge to spread their errors (5:13; 2 Tim 3:6), Paul’s prohibition here makes good sense. His short-range solution is that these women should not teach; his long-range solution is “let them learn” (2:11). The situation might be different after the women had been instructed (2:11; cf. Rom 16:1–4, 7; Phil 4:2–3).

    2:13. Paul argues for women’s subordination in pastoral roles on the basis of the order of creation, the same way he argued for women wearing head coverings (1 Cor 11:7–12). Some writers take his argument here as universal, for all circumstances, even though that is not the most natural reading of the Genesis text to which he alludes (Gen 2:18 in Hebrew suggests a complementary partner). Other writers take Paul’s statement here only as an ad hoc comparison (see comment on 2:14), as most writers take his same argument for head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11.

    2:14. Paul refers to the account of Eve’s fall as it is told in Genesis 3, although some later Jewish stories increased Eve’s guilt or deception considerably beyond that account. That he compares the unlearned women of the Ephesian church with Eve is clear; his earlier letters also compare the whole church of Corinth, both men and women, with Eve (2 Cor 11:3), the Corinthian church with Israel (1 Cor 10:1–22) and his opponents in Galatia with Ishmael (Gal 4:24–25). That he would actually apply this illustration to all women in all times, as some have thought, is less likely (if he did, he would be implying that all women are more easily deceived than men, and his illustration in 2 Cor 11:3 would lose its force; moreover, the local false teachers themselves were men—1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 2:17).

    2:15. Some scholars have argued that “saved” is meant theologically: Christian women will have eternal life if they live godly lives, which includes following cultural propriety for the sake of the gospel’s witness. Paul probably means “saved” or “delivered” in a different sense, however—the sense it was usually given when related to childbearing. Women normally prayed to particular gods to “save” them, which meant bringing them safely through childbirth. (The curse on Eve came to be associated with death in childbirth in some parts of Judaism, so Paul might be qualifying his comparison in 2:13–14. In this case, he would be noting that Christian women are not daughters of Eve in every sense, thus implying that his illustration in 2:13–14 should not be pressed beyond the service for which he employed it.)

    Keener, Craig S. ; InterVarsity Press: The IVP Bible Background Commentary : New Testament. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1993, S. 1 Ti 2:5-15

    One of the first things that I stress to the men in my class is that they must understand the context of any text that we study, particularly the historical context. I think the writer of the IVP commentary above gets to the core of this passage when he talks about how radical it was that Paul advocated for women to be instructed, which I’ve placed emphasis on above, and that he wasn’t applying this teaching to all women at all times in all things.

    Again, not to argue, just a different viewpoint. Take care.
29. wfish on November 4th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
    

    #27 Boxie:
    I’ve had a woman “having authority” over me all my life. First, my Mother and, for the past 46 years, my Wife. I am not weaker or less manly because of those influences, only stronger. McCain GOT my vote when he chose Sarah.

Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

You must be logged in to post a comment.