Barack Obama wins election for second term as president
President Barack Obama handily defeated Gov. Mitt Romney and won himself a second term Tuesday after a bitter and historically expensive race that was primarily fought in just a handful of battleground states. Obama beat Romney after nabbing the crucial state of Ohio.
The Romney campaign's last-ditch attempt to put blue-leaning Midwestern swing states in play failed as Obama's Midwestern firewall sent the president back to the White House for four more years. Obama picked up the swing states of New Hampshire, Michigan, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Ohio. Florida and Virginia are still too close to call, but even if he won them, they would not give Romney enough Electoral College votes to put him over the top. The popular vote will most likely be much narrower than the president's Electoral College victory.
Magnavox wrote: Frank - there is no issue with disagreement, even passionate disagreement. Nor is there any issue with being frustrated by other posters, even Jim Lincoln. What matters is how people are addressed, and how motives and opinions are impugned, and how they are followed around from forum to forum.
Do you mean something like John Y's post below.
Anyway, thanks for your follow-up. I agree and disagree with you.
Angela Wittman wrote: 1)--- Believe it or not, some Christians do support gov't involvement in Healthcare (not me), but this doesn't mean they are for state sponsored abortions of euthanasia. 2) Do you realize that your tax dollars have been paying for abortions through Title X funding for years? I sincerely doubt if Jim L. is in favor of any kind of prenatal child-killing or funding it from what I've read here at SA. 3) And I do think Jim L. is bullied on this forum because he dares to disagree with the prevailing majority. At the very least, y'all could practice some Christian charity with those who disagree with you. Who knows but your patience and kindness might be a witness to the unsaved that Christians really do care for each other instead of squabbling like spoiled children.
1) How does one in good conscience support a system that *does* support state sponsored abortion, while claiming pro-life? Isn't this similar to politicians who say "I'm personally against abortion, but I will veto laws against it"?
2) I do, but one evil doesn't justify another. Never said Jim was pro-death. He's not.
3) Being in a minority pos. hardly makes one bullied. What is the charitable approach to opposing Jim's support of "ACA"?
Angela Wittman wrote: Magnavox is right! From what I've read of Jim's comments he supports independent candidates. Some folks think that if one doesn't follow and vote for the Republican candidates, they support the Democrats. This is nonsense! There really are better alternatives than what the current two (really one) party system has to offer.
If one does not support the Republican candidates but instead supports a Third Party candidate then they are wasting their vote as a Third Party candidate for president stands zero chance at the present time and maybe for a long time to come of winning. Only someone who is mentally deranged and is incapable of logical and analytical thinking would believe that a Third Party presidential candidate stands a chance of winning.
The problem I run into with the Jim's and Angela's type of post is not a personal issue. Both of them, for instance, come across as genuine, passionate, and helpful. They have unfortunately swallowed the liberal line of thinking, the kind you get from say Huffington Post, Media Matters, the major networks, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Unfortunately, it starts in many cases with false assumptions from which are drawn false conclusions. (i.e. taxes are a zero sum game) The format here does not give adequate space to address some of the issues. What command, for instance, do you think you see mentioned in the Bible that a vote for a republican candidate is a sin that demands repentance? Differences in political thinking does not make the others opinion a violation of the Word of God. You can see where issue stances that either do or do not line up with Scripture, and those are commented on freely here.
Frank - there is no issue with disagreement, even passionate disagreement. Nor is there any issue with being frustrated by other posters, even Jim Lincoln. What matters is how people are addressed, and how motives and opinions are impugned, and how they are followed around from forum to forum.
In answer to Mike: Believe it or not, some Christians do support gov't involvement in Healthcare (not me), but this doesn't mean they are for state sponsored abortions of euthanasia. Do you realize that your tax dollars have been paying for abortions through Title X funding for years? I sincerely doubt if Jim L. is in favor of any kind of prenatal child-killing or funding it from what I've read here at SA. And I do think Jim L. is bullied on this forum because he dares to disagree with the prevailing majority. At the very least, y'all could practice some Christian charity with those who disagree with you. Who knows but your patience and kindness might be a witness to the unsaved that Christians really do care for each other instead of squabbling like spoiled children.
Christopher000 Who says that not voting Romney meant we gave up the fight? We fight. Harder!!
Jim Academics make "moral" and "Godly" bad words to live by. To follow God's commandments, some academic somewhere has a label for you like it's a desease and has you putting on the brakes short of you following God COMPLETELY.
Failed experiments of the puritans is final proof against faith based living, just as bad church history/crusades is final proof to non-believers that all religion is bad?
I am not for government inforced Chritianization of God haters - Islamic style. I am not for paharisaic lawkeeping.
At the risk of being called names by academics, I am for keeping ALL His commandments - (OK then, you tell Him that that would impinge on grace) Jn 14:15,21,23 Jn 15:10 1Jn2:3, 5:3 2Jn 1:6
"Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee." Is Psalm 119 legalistic?
Is "ALL" a bad word if I said that the Gospel should be given to ALL men?
Were it not for HIS grace and HIS righteousness, freely and undeservedly given to us, we perish. We share this great hope and joy with everyone around us, the country, to the uttermost parts of the earth. "How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news". Is that "theonomy?"
I think it is "cute" how Angela and Magnavox think that Jim is being bullied. If someone passionately disagrees with someone who passionately disagrees with them, then the tone will of course be passionate. Jim has been just as passionate as the rest of us. What they would have me do is not speak from my heart. So, when I tell the occasional catholic that appears on this site that they aren't saved, then is that bullying? How about the occasional Mormon? How about those who adhere to theonomy? I was against any candidate that ran and that would have included a third party candidate. Jim often referred to his independence, but directed his attack against republicans so many of us concluded that he was simply one-sided against the republicans? I told him that no genuine Christian could vote democratic and I meant it then and I mean it now and I gave my reasons.
I know that John UK and I have been personally attacked by many. I usually simply ignore them if they get personal, but I certainly never thought I was being bullied. I just assume they have no discernment.
I always enjoy reading Jim's posts and I enjoy the links he provides and have told him so, but I also passionately disagree with him
Magnavox wrote: 1) It is not curious that you do not repent of your "bitter" comment. 2) The bullying of Jim Lincoln on this forum is a disgrace.
1) I didn't think so either.
2) One form of bullying is to try to get people to stop saying things disagreed with, by calling them bullies. Jim's a grown-up. It is a forum for grown-ups. I believe he enjoys the interchange. If he thinks he is being bullied, he can always clik on "report abuse." Don't you like how the set-up works?
Angela Wittman wrote: Magnavox is right! From what I've read of Jim's comments he supports independent candidates. ---
Fine. So how does his independent support of Obamacare, which forces Christians to pay for abortions, make it ok?
Magnavox is right! From what I've read of Jim's comments he supports independent candidates. Some folks think that if one doesn't follow and vote for the Republican candidates, they support the Democrats. This is nonsense! There really are better alternatives than what the current two (really one) party system has to offer.
Mike wrote: It is most curious that you equate criticism of Jim's support for a president who openly promotes policies of abomination, with putting faith in the Republican Party.
It is not curious that you do not repent of your "bitter" comment.
The bullying of Jim Lincoln on this forum is a disgrace.
Angela Wittman wrote: I was hoping to read these comments and find some repentance among the Romney/Republican supporters, but instead I read the same old argument that Jim Lincoln is a bitter liberal because he doesn't support the Republicans... Excuse me, but if you continue to put your faith and hope in the Republican Party, we'll continue to live in tyranny... Why not repent and work to build a truly Christian political party? Frankly, I am tired of wandering in the wilderness because evangelical Christians have put their faith in the likes of Karl Rove and those of his ilk.
It is most curious that you equate criticism of Jim's support for a president who openly promotes policies of abomination, with putting faith in the Republican Party.
Santa's here wrote: “In a country of children where the option is Santa Claus or work, what wins?â€
It is indeed a puzzle; however, according to the way you have worded the question, it can only be "work", unless you regard Santa as a nongenderical entity.
Dear Jim, I firmly believe in the First Amendment and your right to free speech... I also remember how disappointed I was at GW Bush as president and promptly shook the dust off my feet to the Republican Party in 2001. But, you need to know that I also firmly agree with the Puritans who really founded America and I am 100% theonomist. May the good Lord bless you.
Angela Wittman wrote: I was hoping to read these comments and find some repentance among the Romney/Republican supporters, but instead I read the same old argument that Jim Lincoln is a bitter liberal because he doesn't support the Republicans... Excuse me, but if you continue to put your faith and hope in the Republican Party, we'll continue to live in tyranny... Why not repent and work to build a truly Christian political party? Frankly, I am tired of wandering in the wilderness because evangelical Christians have put their faith in the likes of Karl Rove and those of his ilk.
Angela Wittman wrote: I was hoping to read these comments and find some repentance among
Angela Wittman Ahhhh? I would think that it would be good for both those who voted Republican and those who voted Democratic to do some serious repenting.
C.H. Spurgeon is attributed of commenting: "There is enough dust of some of your Bibles to write damnation with your finger." Could that be us? Could that be far too many of the pastors who occupy the pulpits of modern churches and their congregations have no love for the Word of God, let alone obedience to what God says?
A pastor from NYC commented that If we believed Mark 11:22-24 the prayer meeting would be the best attended meeting of our churches. Question, since what Jesus told us is right there in our Bibles, why have we essentially abandoned having regular church-wide prayer meeting in our churches? Even while in modern churches people will go out of their way to have special events to celebrate The Super Bowl ?
Dr. Joel Beeke | 11/11/2012
COMMENTS | 
If someone passionately disagrees with someone who passionately disagrees with them, then the tone will of course be passionate. Jim has been just as passionate as the rest of us. What they would have me do is not speak from my heart. So, when I tell the occasional catholic that appears on this site that they aren't saved, then is that bullying? How about the occasional Mormon? How about those who adhere to theonomy? I was against any candidate that ran and that would have included a third party candidate. Jim often referred to his independence, but directed his attack against republicans so many of us concluded that he was simply one-sided against the republicans? I told him that no genuine Christian could vote democratic and I meant it then and I mean it now and I gave my reasons. 
