11.12.2008

Was 2008 A Realigning Election? Ask Me In Eight Years.

This whole debate about whether 2008 was or was not a 'realigning' election is rather silly.

Since the turn of the last century, there have been 11 cases in which the presidency changed parties: 1912 (Wilson), 1920 (Harding), 1932 (Roosevelt), 1952 (Eisenhower), 1960 (Kennedy), 1968 (Nixon), 1976 (Carter), 1980 (Reagan), 1992 (Clinton), 2000 (Bush), and 2008 (Obama). In 9 of the 11 cases, the party winning the presidency had also made substantial gains in the Congress as compared with four years' earlier (although not necessarily as compared with two years' earlier). The two exceptions were the last two party changes before Obama: Clinton in 1992, when the Democrats were pretty much treading water in the Congress, and Bush in 2000, when the Republicans were doing likewise.

What ultimately distinguishes the elections that are considered to have been realignments is the efficacy of the governance of the rising party, rather than the force with which said party took office. Ronald Reagan and FDR, famously, had coattails -- but so did Warren G. Harding, who brought the Republicans a net gain of 123 (!) seats in the House in 1920. One might likewise have been tempted to consider the combination of the Democrats' landslide in the 1974 midterms and Jimmy Carter's ascendancy in 1976 a 'realignment'. Reagan and FDR, however, were effective Presidents, whereas Carter and Harding were not, quickly managing to relinquish most of what they had gained. Barack Obama, perhaps, may be the first President since Reagan in 1980 to have an opportunity to realign the country; whether or not he'll do so is another matter.

(As to the two exceptions I discussed earlier: I think you can argue, in essence, that Bill Clinton's election was something of an historical accident, a correction in the long bull market for conservatives that ran from 1980 through 2006. And Clinton governed from the center, arguably accomplishing more for conservatives during his presidency than he did for liberals, ranging from the Defense of Marriage Act to NAFTA to welfare reform.)

287 comments

sfergus483 said...

--If anything is a sin, it's simple acceptance of the new testament as the word of God without historical appreciation of how it was created.--

And even more the Old Testament, which was in part the story of a struggling nomadic tribe trying to survive.

Homosexuality threatened procreation at a time when few children survived; shellfish and pork often caused disease and death; slavery was the norm. It reflected its time and circumstances.

Mule Rider would be far happier as a fundementalist Muslim - his beliefs are about as enlightened as theirs.

And really, I don't care what you think is a sin. You are entitled. Just don't take your beliefs and try to deny me freedom and happiness.

Kennyb said...

Why don't I just answer myself? Paul dilutes his own words:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

Voice of the Midwest said...

"Whoa. Are you saying that two 17 year old heterosexuals having sex before they are married is a sin?"

No, Kenny...in Alaska, that is called a first date.

It is amazing how an impregnated teenager became a sacrament to Republicans once Palin got on the ticket. Before that, it was a sin with no forgiveness and the milieu of black teens only.

Hypocrites and hypocrisy for $200, Alex.

SHERWICK said...

Where did Jesus mention anything about homosexuality being a sin?

Mrs B said...

Mule Rider, at least you have stopped the gratuitous insults.

Because James 1 vv 19 and following

My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.

and v 26 If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.

wv berible. hm, someone trying to tell me something?

SHERWICK said...

where did Jesus say that jomosexual acts are not OK?

SHERWICK said...

or homosexual even!

sfergus483 said...

So you would have voted against Prop 8 Mule Rider?

If so, I would respect you for your consistency of beliefs.

Meantime, if you eat pork and shellfish, you are as much a "sinner" as an active homosexual.

You can't have it both ways.

And you refuse to answer that. You are the one who twists the Bible and selectively quotes it.

Andrey Stroilov said...

Mule Rider, you move quickly from an explanation of your own beliefs to a vilification of others'. My Christianity is sickening? Interesting.

I understand fulfillment of the law. I also understand the difference between a dogmatic reading of the Testaments to match the constructed Catholic or Protestant narrative, and the original purposes of the texts, their meaning and significance, the literal and allegorical levels - all things swept aside to support a specific view. Going back to the originals is "distorting"? Cross-evaluating for consistency is "skewing"? No. I've read Paul, I've compared Leviticus with the Gospel, I've studied the historic background, derivation and subsequent translation and reinterpretation of the Bible. It is one thing to talk about religious beliefs; you can certainly hold the belief that God hates homosexuals and homosexuality; but facts are different, and the reality of the text and the history contradicts you.

I am quite certain that none of this will convince you or even spark the slightest introspection upon your views, but that's not really the point here. The point is to show you that it's not some sort of godless Atheist conspiracy against you. This generation of Christians is slowly going back to the original meaning of the teachings, past the prejudice and the use of Gospel as a weapon brandished by the hand of xenophobia, to realize that one's choice of partners is irrelevant to the message of love and mercy. My hope is that eventually you will at least recognize that, even if you don't like it.

Mrs B said...

oh BTW I have read the Bible just about every day for nearly 25 years, when I became a Baptist. I have lapsed now, but I still think the Bible has some good stuff in it, even if I don't believe it is actually the word of God.

It also contains a lot of not so good stuff, including a lot of nonsense about women being subservient to men. And the dietary stuff, which was fine for people to observe when trekking through the desert etc as someone else above pointed out but was debunked by Peter. And lots of killing people, for all sorts of odd reasons.

Voice of the Midwest said...

The reason most churches today cling to the anti-homosexual and anti-abortion stance is numbers.

If you have less pro-creation, you have fewer lambs tossing 10% into the collection basket.

If you think religion is about the faith and not the money, then you are naive.

I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church and they have a guy in a big hat issuing edicts about poverty in Africa from a room that is adorned in actual gold leafing with Donegal tweed carpet on the floor.

Consider your faith and realize, you can exercise it without belonging to a religion.

BTW: Memorizing the Bible doesn't make you of high faith. It makes you a parrot.

Mrs B said...

to get back on topic, any news from Minnesota or Georgia, and how is the count in California going?

Andy JS said...

Most ordinary people are not interested in these obsessive religious arguments.

Californian results are still coming in slowly. I'm waiting for news from Alaska.

Mrs B said...

VOTM - I am not a member of the Roman Catholic church, but my brother in law is - he is actually a priest, based in South Africa. One of his main roles is raising money for the church and its activities fighting poverty and disease, particularly AIDS.
From things he has said, I think he struggles with the RC church's attitude to contraception. Condoms could have saved a lot of lives in Africa over the past few years.

SHERWICK said...

Where did Jesus say that homosexuality is a sin in His eyes?
I've read the Bible a lot and don't remember seeing him saying it, or even hinting it. He said a lot of other things though, which don't happen to fit very well with Republican ideology.

Mason said...

But those issues of pork/shellfish, the Sabbath, etc. were part of a covenant between God and the Jews (nation of Israel) that is no longer in effect.

Quick! Everyone run to the nearest temple and inform them!

Andrew said...

Good Freudian/Augustian slip there, Mule Rider.

What you fail to understand is the difference between what Jesus said and taught, and what Paul, Deuter-Paul, Psuedo-Paul, John, Irenaeus, and Augustine made out of it in creating the this-world political entity of the Church.

Palympset said...

Hmmm, these last posts seem to have gotten off topic. Just to get back to the question originally posed by Nate's post: is it possible to proclaim Obama's election "transformational" before we see the results of his Administration?

I think it's dangerous to read too much "this is what the public is saying" into any election. People vote for all too many reasons, not the least of which might be a shitty campaign by John McCain and his scary sidekick, Sarah Palin, not to mention a Republican party held hostage by its farthest-right wing.

I also think the "40-year-crisis" theory is a bit too easy. Every decade presents challenging crises. Could not one date 9/11/2001 as a more challenging crisis than the Financial Crisis of '08? Was not the crash of 87 or the first Iraq war or the Watt's riots and Viet Nam protests of the '60s as disturbing as the oil embargoes of the late '70's? I think this crisis cycle theory is just too convenient.

Maybe the comparisons to Reagan and FDR are what come to mind since Obama deliberately cultivated the Reagan image, and comparisons to the depression necessarily bring up comparisons to FDR. But I'm not even convinced that those two Presidents were "tranformational" really other than that FDR built safeguards on top of capitalism to prevent such a great depression recurring, Regan simply capitalized on a poorly handled foreign policy and terrible economy.

In both cases, it seems, the common thread is that voters voted their pocketbooks. The party that sent standard of living lower got booted out; the party that maintained or improved it held on. In this sense, Obama's fate will be written on how much, and how soon, the economy improves.

Mrs B said...

andy js
glad you are still paying attention to the election!

Not being a religious person myself, I still think it is important to try and understand people who are, because there are a lot of them, and apart from a few sects who don't engage with politics, most of them vote.

Ema Nymton said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Andrew said...

My own typos: Augustinian, and Deutero-Paul.

Voice of the Midwest said...

Report from Minnesota:

To alleviate the barking from the Coleman camp, the Secretary of State (D) and the Governor (R) have established a non-partisan oversight board per the recount laws of the state.

There is no level of shenanigans afoot in Minnesota. Just a nervous bunch of Republicans who are trying to give the appearance of chicanery so if they lose in recount, it was Democratic fraud.

These people like Coleman are spoiled, whiny brats who think their power was endowed by God.

Mason said...

Hmmm, these last posts seem to have gotten off topic. Just to get back to the question originally posed by Nate's post: is it possible to proclaim Obama's election "transformational" before we see the results of his Administration?

Obama: Great President? Or Greatest?

(h/t STC, DFA)

Penderyn said...

MR:

So, if I understand you correctly you are saying:

Because YOUR GOD is against homosexual activity MY PARTNER AND I should not be allowed to celebrate a CIVIL marriage.

Ever heard of the separation of church and state?

Mrs B said...

let me try and combine religion and polling:
are there any stats on how different religious denominations voted? I think we know about the more extreme evangelicals and the Mormons, but for example, did Catholics lean towards Obama because of Biden, and what about Unitarians and Episcopalians? Did Jews mainly vote Democrat (I think I saw that somewhere).
What proportion of the population are Muslims and how did they vote? And what about Hindus, Buddhists etc?

Fenak said...

Re progressive progress, Mrs B wrote: I thought we were getting somewhere on gay rights, and along comes prop 8.

And someone commenting on an article on a news site went so far as to say that Prop 8 sets progress back to the 1950's.

In the 1950's, if same-sex marriage was an issue at all, the controversy was over whether it should be a misdemeanor or a felony.

Mrs B said...

@fenak
you are right - time to get a sense of perspective into my posts!

Kennyb said...

fenak is right, and as demonstrative proof that gay "marriage" is still the political cutting edge in most of the country, take a look at Obama's (and Kerry's) opposition to it and support only of civil unions.

mac_1103 said...

Again, the point is missed.

You know what's a sin? Really? Passive voice, that's what!

But those issues of pork/shellfish, the Sabbath, etc. were part of a covenant between God and the Jews (nation of Israel) that is no longer in effect.

But the part about homosexuality is still in force? When did God put you in charge of deciding which parts of Leviticus are and are not still in effect?

You fail to understand the difference between the Jewish code and compact with God and what God's laws are and what sin is.

You fail to understand that the point here is that you are just making this sh!t up as you go along. Or parroting someone else who is making it up as they go along.

And BTW, they haven't made footballs out of pigskin for about sixty years now. Plain old leather. So nobody's going to hell for trying to teach his kid how to throw a spiral.

Finally, I'm getting really tired of blogger eating my posts. I hope this one makes it through.

Kennyb said...

Who you say He is, mule rider, is anything but a "fact".

Voice of the Midwest said...

"But that doesn't make it NOT a sin. It is, and you can not formulate any sane argument that it is okay using Biblical text."

Sin is subjective from religion to religion, holy book to holy book, sub-faith to sub-faith.

Your certitude that the Bible is without question and infallible reminds me of the extremist thinking of Muslims who have forced Shiriya Law on dozens of countries around the world. To them, the Koran is without question and infallible.

It is that line of logic that has led to the death of millions of people in the name of God in the history of mankind.

The Bible is not absolutely correct. Nor is the Koran. Nor is the Torah or whatever book you clutch, memorize, parrot, then conventiently use to hate others.

It is all part of evolution. No wonder the extremists don't believe in that, either!

Mrs B said...

Mule Rider, can I ask, what Christian denomination do you belong to?

SHERWICK said...

So, we've established that Jesus didn't explicity condemn homosexuality, or call it out as a sin, or in fact mention it at all.
To anyone.
Ever.
Thank you.

Mrs B said...

Interesting response MR.

SHERWICK said...

Jesus did mention giving all your possessions and money away quite a lot though...

Penderyn said...

MR:

i do not wish to demonize you. In fact I respect people who sincerely hold to their beliefs and therefore I respect you. BUT your religious beliefs should not determine who I am allowed to marry in civil law.

Mason said...

Interesting response MR.

Yet, as surprising as sunrise.

SHERWICK said...

penderyn, I sincerely believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
I hope you respect me!

SHERWICK said...

especially since Christmas is coming up, and as we all know, Santa Claus is a fundamental part of Christmas for all good Christians.

Penderyn said...

sherwick.

It takes all sorts .... If that's what you really believe! ;-)

SHERWICK said...

I do! I really want to believe!
:)

Mrs B said...

It is beginning to get towards my bedtime as I have to get up early tomorrow (it's 9.30 pm here). I just have one last reflection on this thread.
Anyone read "The Political Brain"? This thread reminds me a little bit of its central thesis.
Here we are all we good little lefties trying to argue with logic and fact, against someone from right of centre, who argues from emotional certainty. Doomed to failure.

SHERWICK said...

Santa Claus, Christmas Tree, Fairy Lights, Giving Presents to your Nearest and Dearest, drinking Mulled Wine and Singing Songs - all as taught by Jesus in the Bible!

SHERWICK said...

g'night mrs b

Mrs B said...

g'night sherwick.
g'night Jim Bob and all the other little Waltons.

Penderyn said...

"Here we are all we good little lefties trying to argue with logic and fact, against someone from right of centre, who argues from emotional certainty. Doomed to failure."

But we still do it, by and large with respect for the other person.

SHERWICK said...

mule, you sound like a libertarian, not a Christian. Note: it's impossible to be both, even if you really, really want to.

susan said...

MR: a non-denominational church that doesn't care for the gospels? Choosing the gospels and the parts of Paul that echo them is not cherry picking. They are four repetitive short documents, and provide the closest thing we have to the accurate teachings of Jesus.

Matthew 19:19
"You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
22:36-40:
"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."
Also: Mark 12:29-31, and Luke 10:26-28
It is also repeated in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Romans (13:9), Galatians (5:14), and James (2:8).

Can we return to the topic now?

Penderyn said...

MR:
"You have that right. I don't think your right to equal access should be infringed."

So the law should allow same sex marriages, right?

SHERWICK said...

Yes those traditions are nothing to do with the teachings of Christ, and may even go against Christ's teachings. But my family and I like them none-the-less, as does yours probably.

RWD said...

"by what he says is like trying to discern the Grapes of Wrath or some other long novel just by looking at the foreword or introduction."

So wait, the actual teachings of Jesus Christ are just the "foreward or introduction"? Really? I always thought of them as being a little more central to Christianity than just being a foreward.

PJ McIlvaine said...

"Cugel said...

"One might likewise have been tempted to consider the combination of the Democrats' landslide in the 1974 midterms and Jimmy Carter's ascendancy in 1976 a 'realignment'. Reagan and FDR, however, were effective Presidents, whereas Carter and Harding were not. . ."

You are too young to remember the 1976 election. Nixon had just won a landslide victory in 1972, and then Republicans were exposed and humiliated in the Watergate, thus 1974.

But, all those Nixon voters didn't go anywhere and they were just waiting for a Republican they could feel good about voting for. Their party was hopelessly divided between the emerging right under Reagan and the old guard under Gerry Ford.

After Ford won, un-repentant Reaganites chanted outside the Republican convention hall "4 more months! 4 more months!" I knew then that even if Carter won, Reagan would be back in 4 years. I was terrified (rightly it turns out) what a Reagan victory would do to America."

Er, you've got it wrong. Ford was never elected President. He became President when Nixon resigned due to Watergate. Ford subsequently ran against Carter and lost.

Andrey Stroilov said...

Sorry, Mule Rider, but that link tortures Scripture like it was Abu Ghraib. You keep on asserting that things are utter and indisputable fact and that everyone else doesn't understand, despite the evidence of the Scripture. You can hold on to your distorted, skewed view of the Gospel - that's your right, and I'm not going to try to take it away from you. But I see you and those who share such views full of anger and unhappiness; I see myself and my friends, gay and straight, living happily in the light of the Lord. If you need such strained readings and logical contortions to support a rationalizated xenophobia, or if you are so afraid to find out that you have been wrong about the will of God, I offer my condolences and will pray for you.

Kennyb said...

Chris Cillizza has a state of the State of Alaska update, and calls Nate "incomparable":

Here's what we know:

* With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Stevens had 106,594 votes (48.2 percent) while Begich had 103,337 votes (46.7 percent). Three other third-party candidates combined to win 11,242 votes (5.1 percent). (All numbers are from the Associated Press.)

* There are approximately 90,000 early and absentee ballots -- almost 30 percent of the total vote -- still uncounted. (Isn't the point of early voting that the ballots get counted faster? But, we digress...). Of that number, 52,324 will be counted today, according to the Begich campaign.

* The drop dead date for all ballots to be counted is Nov. 19. The election will be certified on Nov. 25. A recount, which would automatically be triggered if the margin was .5 percent or less, would happen after the 25th. (Begich currently trails Stevens by 1.5 percent.)

* Alaska is four hours behind east coast time -- meaning that we may not know anything about the counting of the ballots today until tomorrow.

While they are behind by more than 3,000 votes, Democrats remain (cautiously) optimistic due to the large number of votes still uncounted and Begich's strength among those early votes that have been tabulated. (The incomparable Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com breaks down the numbers behind this argument.)

We should know by late today -- or maybe tomorrow morning -- whether that optimism is well founded or not. If Begich can't get ahead by the end of counting today, he's not likely to pull off the come-from-behind victory some Democrats see for him.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/11/alaska_senate_count_the_votes.html?nav=rss_blog

mac_1103 said...

Cugel said...
After Ford won, un-repentant Reaganites chanted outside the Republican convention hall "4 more months! 4 more months!"

PJ McIlvaine said...
Er, you've got it wrong. Ford was never elected President.


He meant after Ford won the 1976 Republican nomination over Reagan. I think he knows that Ford was never elected President or, for that matter, VP.

Andrew said...

Sorry to continue off the subject of polls, point well taken, but...

MR, the problem is definitely in the definition of the word, as you point out. Marriage is used to refer to the economic/legal union and the religious union. So if you can't stand the use of "marriage" in the first sense by a non-discriminatory government, separate the meanings:

1) All gov't docs and language talks only about "legal union" never "marriage".

2) A "marriage" by a recognized church is a recognized "legal union".

3) Each church can choose how to define marriage, whether to include only heterosexual unions or homosexual unions as well.

4) If you like, "legal union" can be restricted to only humans so that people can't marry rover so that rover can get on their health insurance.

Separation of church and state, "marriage" depoliticized, problem solved.

Oh - unless you want to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else.

Fenak said...

From Are We at a Turning Point in History?, an article published June 27, 2005:


The nation had already been brought to the tipping point by a series of extremist stances by prominent Republicans: the exploitation by Tom Delay and so many others of Terri Schiavo, [...], Rev. Pat Robertson saying that Federal judges are a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists. The list goes on.

But it is now the divide over stem-cell research at a time when its promise for untold benefits has become so clear that brings into focus much more clearly than anything in the past how far from the mainstream of common sense the religious right has pulled the Republican party.

When the Democrats win in 2006 and 2008, they should send thank-you cards to [foreign researchers making apparent breakthroughs in stem-cell research].


And yet some people have bought into the idea that stem cell research is an issue that divides the country down the middle, when polls show that even among social conservatives, only a minority oppose the research.

sfergus483 said...

Here's why all this discussion is useful -
I just got off the phone with a Montana (straight/married/bank president/liberal) friend. We were talking about Prop 8 and what happens next.
Turns out this incredibly well-read and informed friend had no idea that the Defense of Marriage Act (thank you Bob Barr, Dick Morris and Bill Clinton) precludes any state from needing to recognize any other states' gay marriage, and then, far far worse, precludes the federal gov't from recognizing it.

So for those who don't know it - married gay couples in states allowing them cannot file joint tax federal returns, get the married couple estate tax exemption, or if one is not a US citizen get consideration for immigration. These are big deals.

So if there are people here who are sympathetic to us and don't know that, understand what the bigger picture is.

We wanted Prop 8 to fail so California, the largest state, would move forward, and then a few others would join us. Then, in a few years, with the support of Pres Obama (who does favor the repeal of DoMA), it could at least be modified so that the federal government would recognize us.

DoMA is an horribly vile affront to freedom loving people. (Bill Clinton's support was one reason many of us were suspicious of Hillary). And of course with the passage of Prop 8, the cause has been set back.

SHERWICK said...

"Defense of Marriage Act".
What a name!
Knights of the Realm defending the Great Nation from the unwashed masses of homosexuals hell-bent on destroying its' Good Name!!
Geez! Are we in the 21st or the 19th century?
:/

SHERWICK said...

If Churches don't want to recognise gay marriage, that's fine for them (even if I disagree).
However, the State (and States) MUST recognise gay marriage.
It's quite simple really.

Penderyn said...

MR:

MR:
"It's a bad analogy, perhaps, but it'd be like calling all major league baseball games, pro football games, and pro basketball games one unifying thing: a professional sporting event.
just think it's honest to categorize it (homosexual union) as something different than a heterosexual one."

mmmmm. Semantics?

When is a sporting event not a sporting event?

When is a marriage not a marriage?

Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. Elderly heterosexuals are allowed to marry, as are sterile heterosexuals. There is no reason why the term "marriage cannot apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

It's a matter of equal rights in civil law, and nothing more.

sfergus483 said...

Since we're wildly off topic - just now, a huge Chris Matthews error -

talking about Bush now admitting mistakes, he said that Bush said he should not have said "dead or alive" about Barack Obama.

Oops.

Chris already has apologized.

SHERWICK said...

for mule rider, hope springs eternal!

walt526 said...

New thread, please.

There's too much tortured and bastardized religious crap being spewed here for my tastes.

SHERWICK said...

MR, as long as the church marriage doesn't give anyone any extra legal rights, that's fine by me.

Penderyn said...

and what's to stop us gays from "marrying" in our own churches?

Andrew said...

Last post on this. I promise.

Yes it's semantics. Semantics are important and real. "Marriage" has complex semantics, and the complexity is being used (cynically, by some) to promote an anti-homosexual agenda.

Semantics:

Let's say there is a word, X, that refers to the legal/economic union and associated rights which all couples, heterosexual or homosexual, are entitled to under law.

Let's say there is a word, Y, which indicates a religious union, and each religion can define for itself, for example, whether that includes homosexual unions.

Our problem is that "marriage" is used for both X and Y. Then people use their own personal/religious definition of Y to restrict the legal/economic meaning of X.

If you can't grasp that "marriage" is being used with 2 different legitimate meanings, in two different contexts, with two different purposes, then use separate words(!) Then X can serve it's function as a non-discriminatory legal/economic term, and Y can be what each religion defines it as. Then the Episcopal Church can debate within itself, or Reform Jews can debate with Orthodox, and so on. And non-denominational Mule Rider can keep his own sense of what the word means.

SHERWICK said...

I wonder what a version of Christianity that only taught the words of Jesus (and no one else's words) would be like...

Penderyn said...

MR:

I do not belong to any religious body, be it Christian or otherwise. I guess that's why I can respect your beliefs without feeling that mine are threatened by doing so.

SHERWICK said...

It's my right to believe that your belief that homosexuality is a sin, is a sin.

SHERWICK said...

And it is my right to teach my kids that people that have beliefs like yours are sinners in the eyes of Jesus. You teach hate in the name of the Lord. That is the ultimate sin.

Andrew said...

MR:

I don't doubt you can find examples of extra agendas on both sides. I'm not arguing for anything but equal legal and economic status for "married" couples. End of story. If people try to abuse free speech, that's no argument against the first amendment. You accept the basic right and then try to manage abuse.

@sherwick
Some people who have done work on what Jesus actually said and history of the early church and scriptures:

John Dominic Crossan
Elaine Pagels

SHERWICK said...

andrew, probably not very popular as not enough hate in there.

mac_1103 said...

They want nothing less that to control the thought patterns on the rest of society and indoctrinate the thinking of others in this country...

And you're the one who just called someone else paranoid? Wow. Just freakin' wow.

SHERWICK said...

Jesus didn't waste his time teaching his disciples about the sin of homosexuals. Why do you spend your time doing so with your kids? Why not only teach them what Jesus said?

Penderyn said...

I think a part of the problem is that many of those who genuinely believe homosexuality is a sin but at the same time feel no hate toward gays have never personaly experienced the abuse, pure hate, and physical attacks perpetrated on gays by other so-called Christians who hold the same beliefs.
The sinner becomes the sin, to be cleansed from society. The person is devalued.
gay marriage is not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of human dignity - on both sides.

Matt said...

David Mayhew (Electoral Realignments, Yale Press 2002) argues persuasively that realignment theory is a very misleading way to look at elections. He argues that "big" and/or consecutive wins by parties can be best explained by contingency, short-term partisan strategy, and perceptions of government management. In any event, I agree with Nate -- it's WAY too early to know if this election will bring about an enduring Democratic majority.

jdizzle said...

Hopeful in NJ said...
On realignment -- Rosenberg's series on Open Left considers Nixon to be the realigning election. Certainly that's when we see the patterns of how the states and various ethnic groups vote shift. Reagan -- however important as President -- did not realign in this view.
Well said Hopeful! To add to that, without Watergate, I think Reagan would have been the obvious winner in 1976 (there thus being no “incumbent” Ford to lose to in the primaries for one thing, and less animosity towards Republicans in the first place) and thus an uninterrupted Republican rule. The 1980 election was by all accounts a continuation of the trend set in place by the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act is the reason the Southern Strategy was effective. It was the reason why only Southern Democrats could win not only elections overall, but any states at all from the south. Even though Johnson won “re”-election in 1964, two interesting things happened that seem unfathomable today: A Democrat carried Vermont for the first time EVER and a Republican carried Georgia for the first time EVER. Remember, the south was solidly Democratic before then, being the ONLY part of the nation Adlai Stevenson could carry in either election against Eisenhower, and Stevenson was from Illinois, not the south! The Civil Rights Act is the reason for the so-called Reagan realignment. Without Watergate begetting Jimmy Carter, the realignment would be credited to Nixon, even though it wasn’t caused by him. The racism of the south made the southern strategy possible, making Nixon possible. Reagan just picked up the pieces in the aftermath of Watergate and made the realignment his own.

This brings me to our current “realignment.” I feel that it could very well be a true realignment given that we saw some things we certainly couldn’t have fathomed before: A northern Democrat, and a black one at that, winning in Virginia and North Carolina, and having a better showing than either Gore or Kerry in some other southern states. Plus the changing face of the electorate as a whole, as more minorities are added to the rosters every election, and the aging of the population that still clings to the racist views in the south. There will still be conservatives of course; however they won’t be as conservative as they are today. As conservatives embraced some of the ideas of the New Deal a generation later, the conservatives of today will realize that to be a viable party they will have to embrace the Civil Rights Act and make a real effort to reach out to minorities.

Then again, when we talk about realignments, we’re only talking presidential. Take a look at the composition of Congress since FDR. The Republicans only controlled the Senate 20 years since 1933, and the House only 16. I think that is a stronger indication of the political views of the country as a whole than the presidential election as the president is only one candidate to vote for, while the people get to choose 535 Reps and Senators (yes I know that not everyone gets to choose every candidate, but that isn’t the point). Then we’re talking about the New Deal realignment, interrupted only by a (thankfully) short Republican Revolution. But we’ll see what happens in the near future!

jdizzle said...
This post has been removed by the author.
jdizzle said...
This post has been removed by the author.
anon said...

But Harding's election WAS a realigning election. The Republicans remained dominant right up through 1929, despite the Harding administration's incompetence and criminality. Three Presidents in a row (Harding, Coolidge, Hoover) and IIRC continuous control of Congress. It was smashed by 1929, but we shouldn't discredit it due to that -- at the time, Harding's election was realigning.

信次 said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,

平平 said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社,

徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,

徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信,

平平 said...

^^ very nice

徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,

徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,

徵信 said...

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇


外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇

外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇

外遇 外遇

外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿喜帖囍帖卡片外遇外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇剖析 外遇調查 外遇案例 外遇諮詢 偷情 第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 感情挽回 徵信社 外遇心態 外遇 通姦 通姦罪 外遇徵信社徵信社外遇 外遇 抓姦徵信協會徵信公司 包二奶 徵信社 徵信 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信 徵信 婚姻 婚前徵信 前科 個人資料 外遇 第三者 徵信社 偵探社 抓姦 偵探社 偵探社婚 偵探社 偵探社偵探家事服務家事服務家電維修家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務持久持久持久持久持久持久持久離婚網頁設計徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社外遇離婚協議書劈腿持久持久持久持久持久劈腿剖析徵信徵信社外遇外遇外遇外遇徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社

徵信 said...

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇


外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇

外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇

外遇 外遇

外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿喜帖囍帖卡片外遇外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇剖析 外遇調查 外遇案例 外遇諮詢 偷情 第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 感情挽回 徵信社 外遇心態 外遇 通姦 通姦罪 外遇徵信社徵信社外遇 外遇 抓姦徵信協會徵信公司 包二奶 徵信社 徵信 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信 徵信 婚姻 婚前徵信 前科 個人資料 外遇 第三者 徵信社 偵探社 抓姦 偵探社 偵探社婚 偵探社 偵探社偵探家事服務家事服務家電維修家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務持久持久持久持久持久持久持久離婚網頁設計徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社外遇離婚協議書劈腿持久持久持久持久持久劈腿剖析徵信徵信社外遇外遇外遇外遇徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,