Wednesday, November 05, 2008
116
א אָהַבְתִּי כִּי-יִשְׁמַע יְהוָה אֶת-קוֹלִי תַּחֲנוּנָי. ב כִּי-הִטָּה אָזְנוֹ לִי וּבְיָמַי אֶקְרָא. ג אֲפָפוּנִי חֶבְלֵי-מָוֶת וּמְצָרֵי שְׁאוֹל מְצָאוּנִי צָרָה וְיָגוֹן אֶמְצָא. ד וּבְשֵׁם-יְהוָה אֶקְרָא אָנָּה יְהוָה מַלְּטָה נַפְשִׁי. ה חַנּוּן יְהוָה וְצַדִּיק וֵאלֹהֵינוּ מְרַחֵם. ו שֹׁמֵר פְּתָאיִם יְהוָה דַּלֹּתִי וְלִי יְהוֹשִׁיעַ. ז שׁוּבִי נַפְשִׁי לִמְנוּחָיְכִי כִּי-יְהוָה גָּמַל עָלָיְכִי. ח כִּי חִלַּצְתָּ נַפְשִׁי מִמָּוֶת אֶת-עֵינִי מִן-דִּמְעָה אֶת-רַגְלִי מִדֶּחִי. ט אֶתְהַלֵּךְ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה בְּאַרְצוֹת הַחַיִּים. י הֶאֱמַנְתִּי כִּי אֲדַבֵּר אֲנִי עָנִיתִי מְאֹד. יא אֲנִי אָמַרְתִּי בְחָפְזִי כָּל-הָאָדָם כֹּזֵב. יב מָה-אָשִׁיב לַיהוָה כָּל-תַּגְמוּלוֹהִי עָלָי. יג כּוֹס-יְשׁוּעוֹת אֶשָּׂא וּבְשֵׁם יְהוָה אֶקְרָא. יד נְדָרַי לַיהוָה אֲשַׁלֵּם נֶגְדָה-נָּא לְכָל-עַמּוֹ. טו יָקָר בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה הַמָּוְתָה לַחֲסִידָיו. טז אָנָּה יְהוָה כִּי-אֲנִי עַבְדֶּךָאֲנִי-עַבְדְּךָ בֶּן-אֲמָתֶךָ פִּתַּחְתָּ לְמוֹסֵרָי. יז לְךָ-אֶזְבַּח זֶבַח תּוֹדָה וּבְשֵׁם יְהוָה אֶקְרָא. יח נְדָרַי לַיהוָה אֲשַׁלֵּם נֶגְדָה-נָּא לְכָל-עַמּוֹ. יט בְּחַצְרוֹת בֵּית יְהוָה בְּתוֹכֵכִי יְרוּשָׁלִָםהַלְלוּ-יָהּ.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
amen!
ReplyDeleteEnough, BZ. This messianism is starting to grate.
ReplyDeleteWhere are you seeing messianism?
ReplyDeleteI'm only starting from pasuq 12 because of Prop 8.
ReplyDeleteSo when are you going to stop chanting the Prayer for Our Country to Eicha?
Already did, two years ago.
ReplyDeleteAnother blogger pointed out that the election results do NOT indicate a massive turn to the Left in the US. Both bills (in 2 different states)to ban homosexual "marriage" passed, making something like 40 states who have banned it. People wanted to punish the Republicans for the collapse of the financial markets. I am still sure that Obama would have lost had that not happened, even with Palin on the ticket with McCain.
ReplyDeleteIf the Liberals think they have some sort of mandate to "remake" America or push through their dreams of social engineering, they will be sadly mistaken and will pay for it in upcoming elections. I think Obama is smart enough to realize this so he will most likely be cautious. In any event, he doesn't have the money to spread around in expensive new entitlement programs.
Another think, many in his camp (and among Republicans as well) want action on energy independence (something good) and "global warming" (which I personally don't think is the threat many are making it out to be). Well, there is a simple solution to both. Stick a $12 a gallon tax on gasoline or other fuel oils. Are people going to be happy to pay this? If Obama is a great communicator, he will be able to convince the American people to go along with this, but I am not sure they want to, in addition to financing the recent bailouts (he won't get enough revenue by "taxing the rich" and "ending the war in Iraq".
Best thing is to wait and see what happens before putting the Messianic title on Obama.
Another blogger pointed out that the election results do NOT indicate a massive turn to the Left in the US. Both bills (in 2 different states)to ban homosexual "marriage" passed, making something like 40 states who have banned it. People wanted to punish the Republicans for the collapse of the financial markets. I am still sure that Obama would have lost had that not happened, even with Palin on the ticket with McCain.
ReplyDeleteOn civil rights issues, we still have a lot of work to do. On economic issues, the American people spent the last few months listening to overblown Republican rhetoric about how Obama was a socialist redistributionist, and voted for him anyway. That's a mandate.
If the Liberals think they have some sort of mandate to "remake" America or push through their dreams of social engineering, they will be sadly mistaken and will pay for it in upcoming elections.
Keep on concern trolling - it worked so well for you this time around.
Best thing is to wait and see what happens before putting the Messianic title on Obama.
Please point to one piece of evidence that I have done any such thing.
I don't know what you mean by "concern trolling". I am not "concerned" for them. As I understand, "trolling" means disrupting a thread, but I don't see how disagreeing with someone is inherently "disrupting".
ReplyDeleteI assume that Obama's political allies are not stupid and will not take suicidal policies. Many of the arguments I have seen in the run up to the election seem to be disconnected by reality, and that what I was commenting on.
Mr "adderabbi" also commented on this.
Obama's room for maneuver is going to be very limited due to the economic crisis, so many of the hopes you "progressives" have put in him will be not be fulfilled.
Interestingly enough, people have pointed out the historic nature of this election. But how much of a change does it really reflect. Kennedy's election was also a breakthrough, the first election of a Catholic. Yet, interestingly enough, no Catholic, in fact no non-Protestant has been elected in the almost 50 years since then. I don't think this is really necessarily due to lingering religious prejudice, but this could be the same.
I can see a situation where "progressives" allies of Obama will start accusing everyone who criticizes him of having hidden "racist agendas". The future is not clear and simple.
Where was your "concern" when movement conservatives for the past 28 years or so saw this country as a playground for social engineering? Double standard anyone?
ReplyDeleteLiberals (and moderates, and conservatives who never cared for the movement) simply want to undo the damage.
"Republican rhetoric about how Obama was a socialist redistributionist, and voted for him anyway."
ReplyDeleteI wanted the man the Republicans were running against, but I voted for Obama anyway.
I don't know what you mean by "concern trolling". I am not "concerned" for them. As I understand, "trolling" means disrupting a thread, but I don't see how disagreeing with someone is inherently "disrupting".
ReplyDeleteConcern trolling is, for example, when Karl Rove goes on Fox News and says "If the Democrats want to win elections, they'll have to do X, Y, and Z", when, of course, Karl Rove doesn't want the Democrats to win elections, and his advice is therefore highly suspect.
I think the reason the Republicans lost this year is that they didn't rally strongly enough around Bush and Cheney, and if they want to have any chance of winning elections in the future, they should capitalize on the Bush-Cheney brand.
Interestingly enough, people have pointed out the historic nature of this election. But how much of a change does it really reflect. Kennedy's election was also a breakthrough, the first election of a Catholic. Yet, interestingly enough, no Catholic, in fact no non-Protestant has been elected in the almost 50 years since then. I don't think this is really necessarily due to lingering religious prejudice, but this could be the same.
If, 50 years from now, the state of discrimination against African-Americans is where discrimination against Catholics is now, even if there isn't another African-American president in that time, I'd say that's significant progress.
I can see a situation where "progressives" allies of Obama will start accusing everyone who criticizes him of having hidden "racist agendas". The future is not clear and simple.
If this were going to happen, it would have already during the campaign. The only people who have been engaging in this caricatured version of identity politics have been the Republicans, dismissing criticism of Palin as "sexist".