PDA

View Full Version : Who do you want to see as the Republican Presidential Candidate?


3dlee
10-20-2011, 04:36 PM
I know from reading around here that there are quite a few conservatives on thsese boards. Who do you want to win the nomination? Personally, I like Ron Paul the most. Theres some stuff about him that I dont favor, but he seems like the best option for my tastes. Hes not getting a lot of coverage though and it appears Romney has a stranglehold at the top since Perry kinda flopped. Who do you like?




just so ya know, I will be voting for ABO... anybody but obama.

rearnakedchoke
10-20-2011, 06:22 PM
i think romney is going to take it, but that is just my opinion .. although BHO's ratings are low, i still think he pulls out a second term ...

Twinsmama
10-20-2011, 06:34 PM
what do you guys think of the fact that he is mormon? he's said in articles that he doesn't believe that religion should have a part in deciding who it going to run the country. (romney i'm talking about)

but yes i'm ABO too:laugh:

rearnakedchoke
10-20-2011, 06:44 PM
what do you guys think of the fact that he is mormon? he's said in articles that he doesn't believe that religion should have a part in deciding who it going to run the country. (romney i'm talking about)

but yes i'm ABO too:laugh:

i don't think most conservative voters care he is mormon, as long as he has the ability to beat obama ... i don't have numbers but i am sure many mormons as well as christians are republicans, so it seems they share the same views on many things ..

Dethbob
10-20-2011, 07:06 PM
I like the fact that Herman Cain isn’t afraid to be an Old School conservative, and it would be a pleasure to vote for him in the general. I do think that Mitt knows the game better and might be able to pull out the w, which I guess is OK, I don’t hate him.

As for the Mormon thing, Clinton has much better Christian credentials than Romney but there is no way I’m voting for her!

I don’t think Ron Paul has a clear picture about how the world actually works; I think it would be dangerous to put him in charge.

County Mike
10-20-2011, 07:25 PM
None of the potential candidates that I wanted are even running. I would have liked to see Arizona's Jan Brewer or Allen West (Texas I think, maybe he's from Florida).

This election scares me. I'm afraid the Republicans don't have anyone with enough charisma to win over the general population. Their candidates might be better suited for the job, but that doesn't mean the mass-ignorance of American public will vote for them.

Dethbob
10-20-2011, 07:38 PM
Their candidates might be better suited for the job, but that doesn't mean the mass-ignorance of American public will vote for them.

Hit the nail on the head. Too many people think the voting booth is a place to work out their daddy issues or to wonder what Lady Gaga would do. A boring old guy whose only qualification is that he has accomplished something in life and actually knows what he’s doing doesn’t stand a chance.

Chris F
10-20-2011, 08:38 PM
i don't think most conservative voters care he is mormon, as long as he has the ability to beat obama ... i don't have numbers but i am sure many mormons as well as christians are republicans, so it seems they share the same views on many things ..

To win the GOP nomination you must win the Christian right and they do not like Roomney at all because he is a Mormon. Most GOP can careless nut 90% of the Christian right do. However the alternative is not much prettier. Perry is trying to court them but his lifestlye does not match his rhetoric. Cain is close but most are leaning Bachman at the moment, but she is loosing steam. Ron Paul is the most constitutionally sound man for the job but he would not bow to big business and thus has a major strike there. He is also all for legalizing many drugs and that does not sit with the Christian right. So when the dust clears it will be another spinless canidiate like McCain was and Obama will trounce them in the generals and we will be stuck with Obama for another 4 years.

3dlee
10-20-2011, 09:43 PM
I gotta disagree with those that think Obama will be reelected. 2012 seems like prime time to be a Republican as long as Donald Trump stays out of things. Last year's midterm elections really showed a surge for the GOP. I think B.O.'s party is abandoning him. If they really could nominate a different candidate, I would see a strong surge in not even having him run for anothe term. And all those people that were crazy about how things would be if Obama won in 08, I doubt theyll even show to the polls this time. I hate to mention race on any forum as my point can be misconcieved some times, but in general, African Americans don't vote so much. GWB was reelected with I believe only 9% of the African American vote.

Chris F
10-21-2011, 08:04 AM
I gotta disagree with those that think Obama will be reelected. 2012 seems like prime time to be a Republican as long as Donald Trump stays out of things. Last year's midterm elections really showed a surge for the GOP. I think B.O.'s party is abandoning him. If they really could nominate a different candidate, I would see a strong surge in not even having him run for anothe term. And all those people that were crazy about how things would be if Obama won in 08, I doubt theyll even show to the polls this time. I hate to mention race on any forum as my point can be misconcieved some times, but in general, African Americans don't vote so much. GWB was reelected with I believe only 9% of the African American vote.

The reason I say he will win is that Real conservatives will not vote for the joke the party machine nominates and many will vote for a third party or not show up at all. Much like what happen to Bush #1. Papa Bush showed he was not a true conservative and many flocked to third parties and Perot etc etc. It will happen again if the GOP nominate a joke like they have the last few times.

TexasRN
10-21-2011, 11:56 AM
Honestly, I had high hopes for Perry when he entered the race but now I have no clue who I will vote for. I do not like Romney at all. I won't vote for Obama (didn't the first time either). It's not looking good.



~Amy

CAVEMAN
10-24-2011, 06:42 PM
Out of all of them, Herman Cain is the TRUE conservative and I hope he gets the nomination! Romney is to much of a flip flopper. Ron Paul, although he is constitutionally minded, I think he would be a push over when it comes to dealing with foreign policy and our enemies. And there is something about Perry I just do not trust.

flo
10-24-2011, 07:29 PM
I don’t think Ron Paul has a clear picture about how the world actually works; I think it would be dangerous to put him in charge.

Amen, brother! I like a lot of the libertarian ideas and he starts off sounding good but the longer he speaks, the more he begins to sound slightly unbalanced.

I am also ABO, I would be happy with any of them except Paul. Gingrich or Romney would be the most effective leader, IMO.

Chris F
10-24-2011, 07:33 PM
Out of all of them, Herman Cain is the TRUE conservative and I hope he gets the nomination! Romney is to much of a flip flopper. Ron Paul, although he is constitutionally minded, I think he would be a push over when it comes to dealing with foreign policy and our enemies. And there is something about Perry I just do not trust.

Cain has flip flopped on the Pro life issue for many years and he was a big fan of the TARP bailouts. SO hardly a true conservative. I think his Libertarian leaning on the issues of Pro life and Drugs are the same reason I do not like Ron Paul who is also very Libertarian as well. The GOP will select the lessser of 2 evils to please the moderates so they can please the masses instead of the base. So Cain and Paul will not do to well come election time. Sadly they are much better than Perry and Romney and Newt

flo
10-24-2011, 07:37 PM
Out of all of them, Herman Cain is the TRUE conservative and I hope he gets the nomination! Romney is to much of a flip flopper. Ron Paul, although he is constitutionally minded, I think he would be a push over when it comes to dealing with foreign policy and our enemies. And there is something about Perry I just do not trust.

With all due respect, Rick Santorum is more of a true conservative than Herman Cain (I like both of them, just my observation). Cain has a very muddled view on the abortion issue, for example, while Santorum is crystal clear on the subject (and has the Congressional record to back it up).

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/beatobama.jpg

:)

Chris F
10-24-2011, 07:38 PM
Amen, brother! I like a lot of the libertarian ideas and he starts off sounding good but the longer he speaks, the more he begins to sound slightly unbalanced.

I am also ABO, I would be happy with any of them except Paul. Gingrich or Romney would be the most effective leader, IMO.

I think he has a very clear picture of how the constitution works and nowhere does it say America needs to go fight everyone's elses wars and play world police for the UN. So unless you want a Globalist war monger for president I think he understands better than all the others and then some. Ron Paul has more time in Congress then most of the others has more time in committee than most of the others, and he has understanding of the founder fathers intentions then the others. So I am curious just how do you and dethbob think he has no understanding and please cite specifics not speculation.

flo
10-24-2011, 07:39 PM
Chris, you snuck that post in while I was essentially typing the same thing. :laugh:
re: his abortion stance.

Chris F
10-24-2011, 07:41 PM
With all due respect, Rick Santorum is more of a true conservative than Herman Cain (I like both of them, just my observation). Cain has a very muddled view on the abortion issue, for example, while Santorum is crystal clear on the subject (and has the Congressional record to back it up).

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/beatobama.jpg

:)

That I agree with Flo. But Santorum is to religious for the moderates so thus he is dead in the water before it starts. He also lacks charisma needed to win a big election and sadly people use that junk to pick their candidates.

Chris F
10-24-2011, 07:43 PM
Chris, you snuck that post in while I was essentially typing the same thing. :laugh:
re: his abortion stance.

I am just glad someone else see's it. Him and Ron Paul are both very libertarian on the issue and that never sit well with me. Also if radio host Neal Bortz is saying you are the man then that is a huge red flag for me.

flo
10-24-2011, 07:53 PM
I think he has a very clear picture of how the constitution works and nowhere does it say America needs to go fight everyone's elses wars and play world police for the UN. So unless you want a Globalist war monger for president I think he understands better than all the others and then some. Ron Paul has more time in Congress then most of the others has more time in committee than most of the others, and he has understanding of the founder fathers intentions then the others. So I am curious just how do you and dethbob think he has no understanding and please cite specifics not speculation.

Oh come on, Chris, globalist war monger? If anything, we have a globalist war monger now - the guy who has unleased more targeted drones to kill people than anyone ever could have imagined.

I know Paul understands the constitution, my point is that the longer he talks, the more unhinged he sounds.

Gingrich is a noted historian, I'd say he is at LEAST as well versed in his understanding of the founding fathers as Paul, if not much more so. Many (or all) of the others may know as much about the constitution and our founding fathers as well but unless they point it out in debates, as Paul does, how are we to judge? That's why I try not to make a sweeping generalization.

flo
10-24-2011, 08:03 PM
Chris, did you hear Paul speak at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition last weekend? If I recall correctly, 6 of the hopefuls were there and it was a chance for all of them to speak at length. I though Ron Paul started out well but after a while he just started sounding slightly looney. Maybe it's just me, I know he has a demented but extremely loyal pack of followers. :laugh:

(as Herman Cain says, that last bit was a joke!!!)

flo
10-24-2011, 08:10 PM
So I am curious just how do you and dethbob think he has no understanding and please cite specifics not speculation.

How the world works and the Constitution are two different things. I believe many of Paul's views are admirable but naive. Some of his ideas would not translate to being an effective world leader and could ultimately be dangerous (as dethbob said). The first issue that comes to mind are his thoughts on US/Israeli foreign policy.

OK, 3 posts in a row, I'm bowing out now ;-)

Dethbob
10-24-2011, 08:24 PM
So I am curious just how do you and dethbob think he has no understanding and please cite specifics not speculation.

Here's a good example:

"It was absolutely not necessary," Paul said of the May 1 CIA-led Navy SEALs raid.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/ron-paul-ordered-bin-laden-raid/

"Paul said the United States should have gone after bin Laden the same way it went after Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, by working with the Pakistan government."

Does he really think Pakistan today is the same as Pakistan ten years ago? The best case scenario if he had been in a position to actually do what he says he would have done is that Bin Laden would be still alive, mocking our ineptitude from a new location. Worst case is that the SEAL team would have ended up getting beheaded on Al Jazeera. I’m not voting for that, thanks.

Chris F
10-24-2011, 08:34 PM
Oh come on, Chris, globalist war monger? If anything, we have a globalist war monger now - the guy who has unleased more targeted drones to kill people than anyone ever could have imagined.

I know Paul understands the constitution, my point is that the longer he talks, the more unhinged he sounds.

Gingrich is a noted historian, I'd say he is at LEAST as well versed in his understanding of the founding fathers as Paul, if not much more so. Many (or all) of the others may know as much about the constitution and our founding fathers as well but unless they point it out in debates, as Paul does, how are we to judge? That's why I try not to make a sweeping generalization.

Yeah ever since Nixon we have had globalist war monegers.

Chris F
10-24-2011, 08:36 PM
Chris, did you hear Paul speak at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition last weekend? If I recall correctly, 6 of the hopefuls were there and it was a chance for all of them to speak at length. I though Ron Paul started out well but after a while he just started sounding slightly looney. Maybe it's just me, I know he has a demented but extremely loyal pack of followers. :laugh:

(as Herman Cain says, that last bit was a joke!!!)

Nope I did not that is why I was asking why you all thought he did not understand. In case you had a clip or something specific I could see. Ron Paul is a libertarian and I personally would not ever vote for him but at of the GOP choices he is the only one who would follow the US Constitution 100% and for that I owuld rather see him than any of the others. But I personally would not vote for him. :)

Chris F
10-24-2011, 08:38 PM
How the world works and the Constitution are two different things. I believe many of Paul's views are admirable but naive. Some of his ideas would not translate to being an effective world leader and could ultimately be dangerous (as dethbob said). The first issue that comes to mind are his thoughts on US/Israeli foreign policy.

OK, 3 posts in a row, I'm bowing out now ;-)

See that scares me. What you just said weather you meant ot or not was screw the Constitution being involved in everyone elses (world's) business is better than following the Constitution. Sadly many think like that and this is why America is going down the proverbial crapper.

Chris F
10-24-2011, 08:44 PM
Here's a good example:

"It was absolutely not necessary," Paul said of the May 1 CIA-led Navy SEALs raid.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/ron-paul-ordered-bin-laden-raid/

"Paul said the United States should have gone after bin Laden the same way it went after Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, by working with the Pakistan government."

Does he really think Pakistan today is the same as Pakistan ten years ago? The best case scenario if he had been in a position to actually do what he says he would have done is that Bin Laden would be still alive, mocking our ineptitude from a new location. Worst case is that the SEAL team would have ended up getting beheaded on Al Jazeera. I’m not voting for that, thanks.

Because that is what the Constitution of the USA dictates. By your logic a president should be free to ignore the Constitution as long as the end justifies the means. Worst case scenerio with Paul as the guy the seal teams stays in America guards the coast and keeps any terrorist from bugging us. This is why the public schools have dumbed down so much over the years they need an undereducated electorate to continue the globalist mirage and make people think if we are not attacking someone we will somehow be less safe. Sad but true this what we have came to.

Dethbob
10-24-2011, 08:58 PM
This is why the public schools have dumbed down so much over the years they need an undereducated electorate to continue the globalist mirage and make people think if we are not attacking someone we will somehow be less safe. Sad but true this what we have came to.

Sad but true this is what we have come to. Did your private school not tell you about spellcheck?

The Constitution allows the President to defend the Nation, even if the enemy doesn’t play by the rules. If you think staying in your square and not bothering anyone is a good way to stay safe, google ‘Maginot Line.’

Play The Man
10-24-2011, 09:07 PM
Out of the current crop, I would consider myself a Perry supporter. He seems to have imploded with poor debate performances (reportedly; I haven't watched any debates myself). He has been in free-fall since he suggested that those opposing in-state tuition for illegals lack a "heart". I hope he makes a comeback. It looks like it is going to be Romney. I'm not that excited about Romney, but I will vote for him, and support him, against Obama.

Chris F
10-24-2011, 10:11 PM
Sad but true this is what we have come to. Did your private school not tell you about spellcheck?

The Constitution allows the President to defend the Nation, even if the enemy doesn’t play by the rules. If you think staying in your square and not bothering anyone is a good way to stay safe, google ‘Maginot Line.’

give me a frickin break. That is the best you got. Whining like a little baby liberal about editing on a fan fourm. Please spare me you asinine comments. If you do not want to engage in a civil discourse then refrain from commenting. But if you want to be silly and trivial and can go down that road and you can ask others on this forum it will not be pretty.

BTW- I went to public school and am a published writer so didn't your schooling teaching basic reading comprehension?

I do not know about you but I do not have the time to edit and proof read every little thing I do. This is a fan page not the freaking National Review.

So if oyu would care to return to civility and actually discuss the topic at hand and not my typing then by all means make a post with defensible logic.

Chris F
10-24-2011, 10:13 PM
Sad but true this is what we have come to. Did your private school not tell you about spellcheck?

The Constitution allows the President to defend the Nation, even if the enemy doesn’t play by the rules. If you think staying in your square and not bothering anyone is a good way to stay safe, google ‘Maginot Line.’

OMT since you mentioned the US Constitution does not allow a president to send troop anywhere without a Congressional declaration of war. At least read the Constitution before you bastardize it.

NateR
10-24-2011, 10:19 PM
I would definitely support Perry, even though he is too soft on illegal immigration. However, I don't think that I will ever find a Presidential candidate that I agree with 100%.

flo
10-24-2011, 10:32 PM
I would definitely support Perry, even though he is too soft on illegal immigration. However, I don't think that I will ever find a Presidential candidate that I agree with 100%.

Yes, it's too bad we can't have an amalgamation of all the best attributes of each candidate.

At this stage, I honestly don't care too much who it is as long as they can beat Obama because I don't think the country could take another 4 years of his policies. At least, it wouldn't be a country I'd want to live in. :sad:

Chris F
10-24-2011, 10:52 PM
I would definitely support Perry, even though he is too soft on illegal immigration. However, I don't think that I will ever find a Presidential candidate that I agree with 100%.

Exactly- To win a popularity contest one must alienate someone to make the masses happy. Each have their strengths and weaknesses so they should work together to oust Obama and ensure our country stop the bleeding that the last 4 president have caused.

Chris F
10-24-2011, 10:53 PM
Yes, it's too bad we can't have an amalgamation of all the best attributes of each candidate.

At this stage, I honestly don't care too much who it is as long as they can beat Obama because I don't think the country could take another 4 years of his policies. At least, it wouldn't be a country I'd want to live in. :sad:

Exactly Flo. Do we want four more years of failed socialism and the possibility of more economic chaos.

NateR
10-25-2011, 12:30 AM
See that scares me. What you just said weather you meant ot or not was screw the Constitution being involved in everyone elses (world's) business is better than following the Constitution. Sadly many think like that and this is why America is going down the proverbial crapper.

Are you arguing for isolationism in this country? I've never really heard a good argument for reconciling isolationism with the teachings of Jesus Christ. It doesn't really seem like they would be compatible.

Chris F
10-25-2011, 06:52 AM
Are you arguing for isolationism in this country? I've never really heard a good argument for reconciling isolationism with the teachings of Jesus Christ. It doesn't really seem like they would be compatible.

The country and the church are separate. America does not need to fight other peoples wars. And the church does not need America to evangelize the world. I am arguing that we should not send troops without a declaration of war period. If there is a threat to us and the countries shores than yes send them. Going to attack Bin Laden should have been declared a war but politics kept it from being declared because they did not want to anger the Saudi's by us waring against a fellow mid east country. Yet thousand invade our borders every week and we offer them food stamps jobs and free education. So isolationism is not adequate for what I want. I want constitutionalism.

Dethbob
10-25-2011, 01:53 PM
...whining about editing on a fan fourm...I do not have the time to edit and proof read...didn't your schooling teaching basic reading comprehension?

Here's a clue: If you're going to fire off a witty post about how much smarter than everyone you are, try using your thumbs instead of gnawing on the keyboard.

a little baby liberal

I'm not the one who called Ronald Reagan a 'Globalist war monger'. All you know about Conservatism is what the faces blather at you from your TV. You don't really think you can rear up on your hind feet and squeak at me about being a Conservative, do you?
If you do not want to engage in a civil discourse then refrain from commenting...you can ask others on this forum it will not be pretty.

I was playing nice, and you called me 'dumbed down' and 'undereducated'. If you think you can sucker punch someone and then run and hide behind the teacher, you deserve what you get.

rearnakedchoke
10-25-2011, 02:03 PM
all this bickering ... this is why you will have another 4 years of obama ... conservatives are so far apart even within themselves that whoever is chosen will cause a rift ..

Dethbob
10-25-2011, 02:15 PM
all this bickering ... this is why you will have another 4 years of obama ... conservatives are so far apart even within themselves that whoever is chosen will cause a rift ..

It is a natural consequence of thinking for ourselves that we will often disagree, but when it counts I think Conservatives will set aside our differences in deference to the good of the Nation.

CAVEMAN
10-25-2011, 05:49 PM
Cain has flip flopped on the Pro life issue for many years and he was a big fan of the TARP bailouts. SO hardly a true conservative. I think his Libertarian leaning on the issues of Pro life and Drugs are the same reason I do not like Ron Paul who is also very Libertarian as well. The GOP will select the lessser of 2 evils to please the moderates so they can please the masses instead of the base. So Cain and Paul will not do to well come election time. Sadly they are much better than Perry and Romney and Newt

Cain does claim to be 100% Pro-Life, but like all politicians, he goes into a gray area when posed with the question of rape, incest, etc.

And as far his position on the TARP Bailouts, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSm2d6DqkUs

VCURamFan
10-25-2011, 05:51 PM
Chael Sonnen

CAVEMAN
10-25-2011, 06:02 PM
I would definitely support Perry, even though he is too soft on illegal immigration. However, I don't think that I will ever find a Presidential candidate that I agree with 100%.

Ding, Ding, Ding.......we have a winner folks.:happydancing:

Exactly, Nate!

NateR
10-25-2011, 07:04 PM
The country and the church are separate. America does not need to fight other peoples wars. And the church does not need America to evangelize the world. I am arguing that we should not send troops without a declaration of war period. If there is a threat to us and the countries shores than yes send them. Going to attack Bin Laden should have been declared a war but politics kept it from being declared because they did not want to anger the Saudi's by us waring against a fellow mid east country. Yet thousand invade our borders every week and we offer them food stamps jobs and free education. So isolationism is not adequate for what I want. I want constitutionalism.

So, what about a situations like the Holocaust, Rwanda, Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc., where people are being systematically exterminated? If that government poses no direct threat to the United States should we just sit on our thumbs and watch millions of people being slaughtered?

I'm not talking about fighting other nations' wars or using government as an evangelization tool. I'm talking about stepping in when people are in need even if it costs us dearly. As Christians, can we just sit back and allow genocide to take place without lifting a finger to stop it?

flo
10-25-2011, 08:41 PM
It is a natural consequence of thinking for ourselves that we will often disagree, but when it counts I think Conservatives will set aside our differences in deference to the good of the Nation.

Absolutely right, Dethbob.

Chael Sonnen

LMAO!!! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Dethbob
10-26-2011, 03:32 PM
Here's a clue...blah, blah, blah...'Globalist war monger'. All you know about Conservatism...blah, blah, blah...you called me...blah, blah, blah...If you think you can sucker punch someone and then...blah, blah, blah...
After re-reading this post this morning, I googled ‘dethbob:’
Your search - "thank you for being a jerk on the internet" - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
• Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
• Try different keywords.
• Try more general keywords.
• Try not being a jerk.

My post was a little over the top. Sorry about that, ChrisF

rearnakedchoke
11-01-2011, 06:18 PM
Looks like Cain's recent sexual harrassment issues may hinder his chances ... i don't think so, but any skeletons you have in the closet are bound to come out ..

Chris F
11-01-2011, 06:54 PM
After re-reading this post this morning, I googled ‘dethbob:’


My post was a little over the top. Sorry about that, ChrisF

no offense taken We all get a little heated no and again. :) Some advice however, when dealing with the discussion of politics attack an arguemnt not the person and no one will ever mistake you for a liberal that way. If you have just said teh second part and expounded on it a little you would have made a stronger point. I responded to you in the same way you did to me hoping you would see the error. And it seems you have and that is a good thing. Now we can get past it and enjoy getting rid of Obama

Chris F
11-01-2011, 06:59 PM
So, what about a situations like the Holocaust, Rwanda, Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc., where people are being systematically exterminated? If that government poses no direct threat to the United States should we just sit on our thumbs and watch millions of people being slaughtered?

I'm not talking about fighting other nations' wars or using government as an evangelization tool. I'm talking about stepping in when people are in need even if it costs us dearly. As Christians, can we just sit back and allow genocide to take place without lifting a finger to stop it?

Nate Jesus was never political he changed the people not the politics. We should be like Christ and stay out of the politics of things and worry about changing the hearts of people and less about who is or is not in the white house. We will never have a moral society till we change the people and to really do that we need to change the church to stop being like the world and be separate like we are called to be. So frankly I always keep my politics and my faith 2 different issues. To combine them is to pollute one or the other.

Play The Man
11-01-2011, 07:59 PM
Looks like Cain's recent sexual harrassment issues may hinder his chances ... i don't think so, but any skeletons you have in the closet are bound to come out ..

Unless you are Obama. The mainstream media spiked the story about Obama's affair with his staff member. She was sent down to a Caribbean island and vanished off the face of the earth . . . along with the media stories.

NateR
11-01-2011, 08:39 PM
Nate Jesus was never political he changed the people not the politics. We should be like Christ and stay out of the politics of things and worry about changing the hearts of people and less about who is or is not in the white house. We will never have a moral society till we change the people and to really do that we need to change the church to stop being like the world and be separate like we are called to be. So frankly I always keep my politics and my faith 2 different issues. To combine them is to pollute one or the other.

I actually don't worry about who is in the White House anymore, it's a waste of time. Whoever is in office is only there because GOD wants them there at that particular moment. I will vote with my conscience and speak out when appropriate, but it's ultimately all in GOD's hands. If GOD wants to judge this nation for allowing things like gay-marriage and abortion, then I can't say that we don't deserve it.

However, there is nothing political about genocide - it's mass-murder. If GOD has granted our nation with the strength to stop millions of people from being exterminated then it would be a sin to hide behind our Constitution and claim that it is none of our business.

rearnakedchoke
11-01-2011, 09:43 PM
Unless you are Obama. The mainstream media spiked the story about Obama's affair with his staff member. She was sent down to a Caribbean island and vanished off the face of the earth . . . along with the media stories.

tis true .. but i don't think people really care about affairs anymore (yes, sad state of affairs, no pun intended) ... sexual harrassment is a differnet story .. at least in an affair, you had two consenting adults

Play The Man
11-01-2011, 11:50 PM
tis true .. but i don't think people really care about affairs anymore (yes, sad state of affairs, no pun intended) ... sexual harrassment is a differnet story .. at least in an affair, you had two consenting adults

Unfortunately, you are probably correct. I would argue that an employer/employee relationship has an inherent power differential, making "consent" a murkier concept. Voters could decide that for themselves if they were given complete information by an unbiased press.

flo
11-02-2011, 01:56 AM
Voters could decide that for themselves if they were given complete information by an unbiased press.

That is the main point in a nutshell. Our press has been more than negligent, they helped propel BO into office. I don't want them biased to my viewpoints, I want them unbiased.

Chris F
11-02-2011, 06:44 AM
I actually don't worry about who is in the White House anymore, it's a waste of time. Whoever is in office is only there because GOD wants them there at that particular moment. I will vote with my conscience and speak out when appropriate, but it's ultimately all in GOD's hands. If GOD wants to judge this nation for allowing things like gay-marriage and abortion, then I can't say that we don't deserve it.

However, there is nothing political about genocide - it's mass-murder. If GOD has granted our nation with the strength to stop millions of people from being exterminated then it would be a sin to hide behind our Constitution and claim that it is none of our business.

Political involvement is not in Scripture. By your logic every wrong that we do not respond to means we sin. Sin is defined as missing the mark and Paul says the law exist so that we may know what sin is. So please show me book chapter and verse that says a country is responsible for the ills of the world. By your same logic the Crusades were justified. A country cannot cause one to sin per se. I know you know better than that. Nothing happens unless God allows it. If there is such an atrocity than obviously he allowed to happen. Just as millions of jews were killed and thousands of Christians in the the early centuries. As well as the countless martyrs in places like Iraq Egypt, etc etc. Should America bomb Egypt since hundreds of Christians are being killed daily? The best thing we can do Is pray and support missionaries. My money would be better spent that way then forced taxation to be the worlds police.

3dlee
11-02-2011, 06:34 PM
hey chris. havent read all your posts in this thread. not sure who you're supporting. but from reading your last post, have you been to www.ronpaul2012.com ? :Whistle: :cool:

Chris F
11-03-2011, 04:24 AM
hey chris. havent read all your posts in this thread. not sure who you're supporting. but from reading your last post, have you been to www.ronpaul2012.com ? :Whistle: :cool:

Ron Paul is the most constitutional Candidate out there. However like NateR I vote my conscience. I cannot vote for a guy who is not 100% pro life and who actually think legalizing drugs is a good idea. But he is constitutional that is for sure.

KENTUCKYREDBONE
11-03-2011, 08:08 PM
So far I think Herman Cain would be a good President and exallent canidate to beat Obama! The Obama loveing Press seems scared of him!

NateR
11-03-2011, 11:52 PM
Political involvement is not in Scripture. By your logic every wrong that we do not respond to means we sin. Sin is defined as missing the mark and Paul says the law exist so that we may know what sin is. So please show me book chapter and verse that says a country is responsible for the ills of the world. By your same logic the Crusades were justified. A country cannot cause one to sin per se. I know you know better than that. Nothing happens unless God allows it. If there is such an atrocity than obviously he allowed to happen. Just as millions of jews were killed and thousands of Christians in the the early centuries. As well as the countless martyrs in places like Iraq Egypt, etc etc. Should America bomb Egypt since hundreds of Christians are being killed daily? The best thing we can do Is pray and support missionaries. My money would be better spent that way then forced taxation to be the worlds police.

I guess my perspective on it is just a bit different seeing as how my family tree on my father's side comes to a dead halt at Auschwitz.

rearnakedchoke
11-04-2011, 03:11 AM
Unfortunately, you are probably correct. I would argue that an employer/employee relationship has an inherent power differential, making "consent" a murkier concept. Voters could decide that for themselves if they were given complete information by an unbiased press.

apparently cain is saying that rick perry is the one who is pushing the story .... all this infighting is going to just lead to a split in the party

Chris F
11-04-2011, 03:26 AM
I guess my perspective on it is just a bit different seeing as how my family tree on my father's side comes to a dead halt at Auschwitz.

I hear you brother but God is still God even when bad things happen. Had Japan not bombed us the US would have never joined in WW2. But I understand how you feel. See how my mothers side was nearly eradicated by Americans during the trail of tears.

NateR
11-05-2011, 07:44 AM
God is still God even when bad things happen.

That goes without saying and I don't think I even implied that was not the case.

adamt
11-05-2011, 06:04 PM
Political involvement is not in Scripture. By your logic every wrong that we do not respond to means we sin. Sin is defined as missing the mark and Paul says the law exist so that we may know what sin is. So please show me book chapter and verse that says a country is responsible for the ills of the world. By your same logic the Crusades were justified. A country cannot cause one to sin per se. I know you know better than that. Nothing happens unless God allows it. If there is such an atrocity than obviously he allowed to happen. Just as millions of jews were killed and thousands of Christians in the the early centuries. As well as the countless martyrs in places like Iraq Egypt, etc etc. Should America bomb Egypt since hundreds of Christians are being killed daily? The best thing we can do Is pray and support missionaries. My money would be better spent that way then forced taxation to be the worlds police.

Nate Jesus was never political he changed the people not the politics. We should be like Christ and stay out of the politics of things and worry about changing the hearts of people and less about who is or is not in the white house. We will never have a moral society till we change the people and to really do that we need to change the church to stop being like the world and be separate like we are called to be. So frankly I always keep my politics and my faith 2 different issues. To combine them is to pollute one or the other.




well, that's not a fair position at all. the government WAS the religion from moses to Jesus' time. Jesus was as political as you can get. He was defying the pharisees and saducees at every turn, defying tradition and everything.

The tithe instituted in the old testament and still looked at today as gospel was not an offering. It was a tax. Tithe meaning tenth, it was a 10 percent tax. To be used for the salary of the government(priests, levites) and for the welfare of those that needed it.

In most cases you can't sepearate religion and politics nowadays.

Now, i understand where youre coming from though and am not really trying to start an argument. BUT the church is the one who dropped the ball, and the politicians were there to pick it up. It is the churchs job to provide healthcare, education, and food for those that need it. Not the governments. If 'separation of church and state' means anything, it means the government needs to butt out of the things that are the church's duties. If people gave to the church of their time and talent like they should have maybe we would never would have dropped the ball. Now we have reliquished our power to the government and they have imposed taxes in well in excess of the ten percent standard. And anything beyond 10 percent is a judgement on a nation.

Actually the governments only job is to restrict(biblically and constitutionally), protect(biblical, constitutional) and interstate infrastructure(constitutional).

And I might add, that it really isn't the church's job to educate either. It is the families' job to nurture and educate.

flo
11-05-2011, 07:37 PM
I guess my perspective on it is just a bit different seeing as how my family tree on my father's side comes to a dead halt at Auschwitz.

But I understand how you feel. See how my mothers side was nearly eradicated by Americans during the trail of tears.

Oh, that's just awful! Very, very sad. Nate, for some reason I thought your dad was from Mexico. But then, I get things mixed up easily.

NateR
11-06-2011, 12:29 AM
Oh, that's just awful! Very, very sad. Nate, for some reason I thought your dad was from Mexico. But then, I get things mixed up easily.

My dad was born in Mexico, but that's only because his great-grandparents, grandparents, great-aunts, great-uncles, etc. were turned back at Ellis Island when they were trying to flee Nazi Germany. Some of them were able to make it to Mexico and settled there. The rest, however, were sent back to Germany where they were exterminated in Auschwitz.

When you have people fleeing certain death showing up on your doorstep and you turn them away, that's when isolationism has gone too far.

Chris F
11-06-2011, 02:04 AM
well, that's not a fair position at all. the government WAS the religion from moses to Jesus' time. Jesus was as political as you can get. He was defying the pharisees and saducees at every turn, defying tradition and everything.

The tithe instituted in the old testament and still looked at today as gospel was not an offering. It was a tax. Tithe meaning tenth, it was a 10 percent tax. To be used for the salary of the government(priests, levites) and for the welfare of those that needed it.

In most cases you can't sepearate religion and politics nowadays.

Now, i understand where youre coming from though and am not really trying to start an argument. BUT the church is the one who dropped the ball, and the politicians were there to pick it up. It is the churchs job to provide healthcare, education, and food for those that need it. Not the governments. If 'separation of church and state' means anything, it means the government needs to butt out of the things that are the church's duties. If people gave to the church of their time and talent like they should have maybe we would never would have dropped the ball. Now we have reliquished our power to the government and they have imposed taxes in well in excess of the ten percent standard. And anything beyond 10 percent is a judgement on a nation.

Actually the governments only job is to restrict(biblically and constitutionally), protect(biblical, constitutional) and interstate infrastructure(constitutional).

And I might add, that it really isn't the church's job to educate either. It is the families' job to nurture and educate.

what you are advocating is a theocracy. We do not live in Moses time we live here in America and are subject to the constitution and as it is written being the world police is not constitutional even if it is to protect the persecuted. If you want something different than you must change the Constitution

Chris F
11-06-2011, 02:05 AM
My dad was born in Mexico, but that's only because his great-grandparents, grandparents, great-aunts, great-uncles, etc. were turned back at Ellis Island when they were trying to flee Nazi Germany. Some of them were able to make it to Mexico and settled there. The rest, however, were sent back to Germany where they were exterminated in Auschwitz.

When you have people fleeing certain death showing up on your doorstep and you turn them away, that's when isolationism has gone too far.


Again it is horrible but as republic we are bound by laws not by emotions. We cannot pick and choose what we will and will not follow.

NateR
11-06-2011, 02:19 AM
Again it is horrible but as republic we are bound by laws not by emotions. We cannot pick and choose what we will and will not follow.

Actually, refusing to help the Jews who were being persecuted by the Nazis had more to do with cowardice and anti-Semitism than it did with adhering to the Constitution. Not to mention the fact that there were a lot of Hitler supporters within the US at the time.

Anyways, choosing to step in and prevent someone from being murdered has nothing to do with emotions. It's simply the right thing to do. Sin is not just doing what's wrong, it's also failing to do what's right.

flo
11-06-2011, 02:33 AM
Actually, refusing to help the Jews who were being persecuted by the Nazis had more to do with cowardice and anti-Semitism than it did with adhering to the Constitution. Not to mention the fact that there were a lot of Hitler supporters within the US at the time.

Anyways, choosing to step in and prevent someone from being murdered has nothing to do with emotions. It's simply the right thing to do. Sin is not just doing what's wrong, it's also failing to do what's right.

Absolutely.

Thanks for sharing some of your history, I had no idea you lost so many family members.

Chris F
11-06-2011, 03:53 PM
Actually, refusing to help the Jews who were being persecuted by the Nazis had more to do with cowardice and anti-Semitism than it did with adhering to the Constitution. Not to mention the fact that there were a lot of Hitler supporters within the US at the time.

Anyways, choosing to step in and prevent someone from being murdered has nothing to do with emotions. It's simply the right thing to do. Sin is not just doing what's wrong, it's also failing to do what's right.

book chapter and verse please. You act is if America has a great track recrd of treating people right. Exterminating Indians from all tribes. Killing countless Mormons because of their beliefs. Putting Asians in mini concentration camps because the way they look. You are emotionally attached because of your family lines. You cannot justify evoking the name of God to justify you political opinions. By your same logic as I already pointed out we should be bombing Egypt, The Saudis and Iran because they kill Christians everyday. After you cite book chapter and ver for you religious doctrine please cite Article, section and subsection for your political justification as well. Or I can save you some time and tell you they are not in neither. I am sorry what happen to your family and I am sure many of us of stories as well. But it does not give any of us the right to twist the bible to fit a political agenda. It was that same errant thinking that cause the Crusades, The Inquisition etc etc. Did you ever think maybe God was simply dealing with His chosen people once again much the way he did in most of the OT and it happen for a reason? When God steps off the throne and you take his place then maybe you might have a point NateR. Stop making it so personal and look at it objectively.

NateR
11-06-2011, 05:19 PM
book chapter and verse please.

"Sin is not just doing what's wrong, it's also failing to do what's right."

Seriously? You don't think that's a Biblical principle? There are positive commandments and there are negative commandments. Breaking a positive commandment (failing to do what's right) is just as much a sin as breaking a negative commandment (doing what is wrong).

The two greatest commandments are positive commandments:

Mark 12: 29-31
Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Since these commandments tell us what we should do, not what we shouldn't do, then you can only break these commandments by not doing what is right. Since Jesus Himself describes these as the two greatest commandments, then we can conclude that failing to do the right thing can actually be worse than doing the wrong thing.

Chris F
11-07-2011, 03:19 AM
"Sin is not just doing what's wrong, it's also failing to do what's right."

Seriously? You don't think that's a Biblical principle? There are positive commandments and there are negative commandments. Breaking a positive commandment (failing to do what's right) is just as much a sin as breaking a negative commandment (doing what is wrong).

The two greatest commandments are positive commandments:

Mark 12: 29-31
Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Since these commandments tell us what we should do, not what we shouldn't do, then you can only break these commandments by not doing what is right. Since Jesus Himself describes these as the two greatest commandments, then we can conclude that failing to do the right thing can actually be worse than doing the wrong thing.

Using your logic NateR Jesus sinned because he was not the political savior the Jews wanted. Also by your logic you are applying a verse that refers to us as an individual not as a nation. If we accepted your POV than we would need to also embrace socialism because if our neighbors needs food we must give it to him as a nation because the Book of James clearly says to help those in need of food and such. Your entire argument is a slippery slope and out of pure emotion. I think it is better to just agree to disagree.

rockdawg21
11-07-2011, 10:43 PM
You guys will grill me for it, but Newt Gingrich. I took an 8-hour course he taught at some university (can't remember but it is a video course) and it was incredible. He is a guy who knows what needs to be done, even predicting what was going to happen to the republican party and spoke of shifts toward socialism due to the democratic party's influence on the young. This was something from the early 2000s.

He won't get the nomination, but he's who I'd like to see.

flo
11-07-2011, 10:52 PM
You guys will grill me for it, but Newt Gingrich. I took an 8-hour course he taught at some university (can't remember but it is a video course) and it was incredible. He is a guy who knows what needs to be done, even predicting what was going to happen to the republican party and spoke of shifts toward socialism due to the democratic party's influence on the young. This was something from the early 2000s.

He won't get the nomination, but he's who I'd like to see.

Totally agree with you, rd (well, except for that last bit). Don't count him out yet, Obama was in 3rd place at this time in 2007 and McCain was in 5th...

With Gloria Allred trotting out a new accuser against Cain, he will start falling in the polls (whether the allegations are true or not, some people will react negatively). Heh, I actually predicted she would dig someone up to "represent" when the original harassment allegations came out.

So he could still be the nominee, he and Cain did a super job in the Texas debate Saturday, IMO.

Bonnie
11-08-2011, 06:33 AM
You guys will grill me for it, but Newt Gingrich. I took an 8-hour course he taught at some university (can't remember but it is a video course) and it was incredible. He is a guy who knows what needs to be done, even predicting what was going to happen to the republican party and spoke of shifts toward socialism due to the democratic party's influence on the young. This was something from the early 2000s.

He won't get the nomination, but he's who I'd like to see.

Totally agree with you, rd (well, except for that last bit). Don't count him out yet, Obama was in 3rd place at this time in 2007 and McCain was in 5th...

With Gloria Allred trotting out a new accuser against Cain, he will start falling in the polls (whether the allegations are true or not, some people will react negatively). Heh, I actually predicted she would dig someone up to "represent" when the original harassment allegations came out.

So he could still be the nominee, he and Cain did a super job in the Texas debate Saturday, IMO.

I would like to see more of him. I wish they would have more of these one-on-one debates between all/each of them that way we could cut-n-weed the pool quicker.

Chris F
11-08-2011, 05:52 PM
You guys will grill me for it, but Newt Gingrich. I took an 8-hour course he taught at some university (can't remember but it is a video course) and it was incredible. He is a guy who knows what needs to be done, even predicting what was going to happen to the republican party and spoke of shifts toward socialism due to the democratic party's influence on the young. This was something from the early 2000s.

He won't get the nomination, but he's who I'd like to see.

actually there is a lot of talk within the party that Him and Cain will be the ticket. Which is sadly unlikely to be anymore earth shaking than the McCain/Palin circus 4 years ago. So if they do win and become the choice we will see Obama for 4 more years. But Newt has a strong following and Cain has the $$$$$

NateR
11-09-2011, 01:06 AM
I'm about 75% sure that we'll see Obama win a second term. :sad:

flo
11-09-2011, 02:16 AM
I'm about 75% sure that we'll see Obama win a second term. :sad:

Sig bet on that?


:)

NateR
11-09-2011, 01:52 PM
Sig bet on that?


:)

That's tempting, but I'm not sure if I should enter a bet that I actually want to lose. :laugh:

County Mike
11-09-2011, 01:53 PM
I'm about 75% sure that we'll see Obama win a second term. :sad:

Unfortunately, I agree. It's not that the American people love Obama so much. It's that the Republican's can't get a candidate with enough charisma to win the vote from the ignorant masses.

I'd really like to see a test given prior to the vote. You should have to show some basic knowledge of what the candidate stands for before you can elect them to run our country. Until then, we'll have people who vote simply because "He looks better" or "He seems cool".

Chris F
11-09-2011, 04:38 PM
I'm about 75% sure that we'll see Obama win a second term. :sad:

+1 :cry:

Chris F
11-09-2011, 04:43 PM
Unfortunately, I agree. It's not that the American people love Obama so much. It's that the Republican's can't get a candidate with enough charisma to win the vote from the ignorant masses.

I'd really like to see a test given prior to the vote. You should have to show some basic knowledge of what the candidate stands for before you can elect them to run our country. Until then, we'll have people who vote simply because "He looks better" or "He seems cool".

So sad but so true. Ever since the age of television the election process has became more about popularity the capability. Men like Truman, FDR, Teddy, even Abe would not win anything if they were in the TV era. even most of our founders were considered less than handsome in their generation. John Adams was obese, Madison was described as ghastly. So until we educate we will always get looks over substance. Why do you think they are so desperate to get the public school masses dumbed down.

rearnakedchoke
11-09-2011, 04:56 PM
Unfortunately, I agree. It's not that the American people love Obama so much. It's that the Republican's can't get a candidate with enough charisma to win the vote from the ignorant masses.

I'd really like to see a test given prior to the vote. You should have to show some basic knowledge of what the candidate stands for before you can elect them to run our country. Until then, we'll have people who vote simply because "He looks better" or "He seems cool".

just trying to figure out who the ignorant masses are ... when bush won his second term, there was about a 55% voter turnout .. when obama won, it was a little under 57% .. is it that 1.5 % who are the ignorant masses? or the independant voters who voted R in 2004 and then D in 2008???

flo
11-09-2011, 05:15 PM
Oh, ye of little faith!

Don't worry, I'm really confident that after the first couple primaries, when we have a nominee, the repubs and many independents will get behind him.

Historically, a president has never won reelection with the numbers Obama has right now. I believe that's one barrier he is not going to break.

flo
11-09-2011, 05:19 PM
John Adams was obese.

Pleasingly plump would be more accurate. :laugh:

I'm in the midst of McCullough's John Adams, can you tell?

I think the rest of your comment is very true.

NateR
11-09-2011, 05:48 PM
just trying to figure out who the ignorant masses are

These people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw7W8hpDxnY)

And let's not forget these people (http://youtu.be/e_JJLLfTR8I)

County Mike
11-09-2011, 06:30 PM
just trying to figure out who the ignorant masses are ... when bush won his second term, there was about a 55% voter turnout .. when obama won, it was a little under 57% .. is it that 1.5 % who are the ignorant masses? or the independant voters who voted R in 2004 and then D in 2008???

When Bush won both his terms, he was the more popular candidate. Which one was the better choice is up for debate. The presidential campaign is a popularity contest more than a "who's best for the job" contest.

rearnakedchoke
11-09-2011, 07:39 PM
These people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw7W8hpDxnY)

And let's not forget these people (http://youtu.be/e_JJLLfTR8I)

i don't know what's worse .. the video or the people leaving some of the comments below ... i guess people get real brave when they know their identity will remain unknown .. LOL

flo
11-09-2011, 09:30 PM
These people

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw7W8hpDxnY)

What's with the bobble-head in the blond wig? :scared0015:

And let's not forget these people (http://youtu.be/e_JJLLfTR8I)

Now that's VERY telling, isn't it? I hadn't seen that before, wow.

Nate you forgot these two:

Obama money (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32kkgQ23e0M)


Mmmm, mmm, mmm. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ty7WU872Lk)

Chris F
11-10-2011, 06:54 PM
Pleasingly plump would be more accurate. :laugh:

I'm in the midst of McCullough's John Adams, can you tell?

I think the rest of your comment is very true.

That is a good book. As for plump vs obese well my saying is I am in shape ROUND is a shape. :laugh:

Chris F
11-10-2011, 06:57 PM
When Bush won both his terms, he was the more popular candidate. Which one was the better choice is up for debate. The presidential campaign is a popularity contest more than a "who's best for the job" contest.

Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. Gore beat him in the area thanks to NY and CA. This is the reason we have the electoral college. That state with smaller population do not get ignored. 2004 he rode the 9/11 bandwagon and anyone was better than John Kerry

Bonnie
11-11-2011, 02:37 AM
Did anyone watch the Republican debate last night? I thought it was good and it was nice to see they weren't attacking each other. One group who was asked who they thought was the winner said even though they hadn't gone in supporting Newt Gingrich, they thought he did the best job last night and would love to see him debate Obama. Poor Perry, clearly debate is not his strongsuit. I think Gingrich and Cain definitely have the edge in this type of arena, although, Cain probably shouldn't have used the words, "Princess Nancy" when referring to Nancy Pelosi. :laugh:

I feel like the top three at this point are Gingrich, Cain and Romney with Perry and Ron Paul trailing behind.