...over Santorum?

Is it about Santorum's lack of "electability" or is it something else?

(01-23-2012 11:36 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  ...over Santorum?

Is it about Santorum's lack of "electability" or is it something else?

They are quite dumb as it is, so maybe they think he invented Butt Froth.

(01-23-2012 11:36 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  ...over Santorum?

Is it about Santorum's lack of "electability" or is it something else?

I'm going to modify my embargo on primary posts to just exclude those about Paul...

1) Newt gave up his philandering a decade ago and has both admitted it was wrong (without any qualifiers) and asked for forgiveness which his daughters have granted him.

So the 'he was a scumbag husband back in the 90's really holds no water with me. To those who have much been forgiven there is a burden to forgive others.

2) Newt is not the ideal conservative, not even close, but on core issues he is 'good enough', more trust worthy than Mitt, and more electable than Paul or Santorum.

How are any of them doing it over Paul? He's the only evangelical currently running for President.

(01-23-2012 11:43 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 11:36 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  ...over Santorum?

Is it about Santorum's lack of "electability" or is it something else?

I'm going to modify my embargo on primary posts to just exclude those about Paul...

1) Newt gave up his philandering a decade ago and has both admitted it was wrong (without any qualifiers) and asked for forgiveness which his daughters have granted him.

So the 'he was a scumbag husband back in the 90's really holds no water with me. To those who have much been forgiven there is a burden to forgive others.

2) Newt is not the ideal conservative, not even close, but on core issues he is 'good enough', more trust worthy than Mitt, and more electable than Paul or Santorum.

Given that you are a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, I suppose you would be the one to answer.

(01-23-2012 12:05 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  How are any of them doing it over Paul? He's the only evangelical currently running for President.

Paul's lack of tact, and his honesty.

Evangelicals have been beat down to the point where they're afraid of liberty and freedom. Saw it again yesterday.

(01-23-2012 12:10 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 11:43 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 11:36 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  ...over Santorum?

Is it about Santorum's lack of "electability" or is it something else?

I'm going to modify my embargo on primary posts to just exclude those about Paul...

1) Newt gave up his philandering a decade ago and has both admitted it was wrong (without any qualifiers) and asked for forgiveness which his daughters have granted him.

So the 'he was a scumbag husband back in the 90's really holds no water with me. To those who have much been forgiven there is a burden to forgive others.

2) Newt is not the ideal conservative, not even close, but on core issues he is 'good enough', more trust worthy than Mitt, and more electable than Paul or Santorum.

Given that you are a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, I suppose you would be the one to answer.

It matters not what box you try to put me in RN

(01-23-2012 12:17 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 12:10 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 11:43 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 11:36 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  ...over Santorum?

Is it about Santorum's lack of "electability" or is it something else?

I'm going to modify my embargo on primary posts to just exclude those about Paul...

1) Newt gave up his philandering a decade ago and has both admitted it was wrong (without any qualifiers) and asked for forgiveness which his daughters have granted him.

So the 'he was a scumbag husband back in the 90's really holds no water with me. To those who have much been forgiven there is a burden to forgive others.

2) Newt is not the ideal conservative, not even close, but on core issues he is 'good enough', more trust worthy than Mitt, and more electable than Paul or Santorum.

Given that you are a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, I suppose you would be the one to answer.

It matters not what box you try to put me in RN

I guess if you fit, you must be it.

(01-23-2012 12:24 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 12:17 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 12:10 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 11:43 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 11:36 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  ...over Santorum?

Is it about Santorum's lack of "electability" or is it something else?

I'm going to modify my embargo on primary posts to just exclude those about Paul...

1) Newt gave up his philandering a decade ago and has both admitted it was wrong (without any qualifiers) and asked for forgiveness which his daughters have granted him.

So the 'he was a scumbag husband back in the 90's really holds no water with me. To those who have much been forgiven there is a burden to forgive others.

2) Newt is not the ideal conservative, not even close, but on core issues he is 'good enough', more trust worthy than Mitt, and more electable than Paul or Santorum.

Given that you are a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, I suppose you would be the one to answer.

It matters not what box you try to put me in RN

I guess if you fit, you must be it.

What you mean by evangelical christian is not what I mean when I say it.

How is Newt attracting voters with so much as a pulse?

(01-23-2012 12:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 12:05 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  How are any of them doing it over Paul? He's the only evangelical currently running for President.

Paul's lack of tact, and his honesty.

Evangelicals have been beat down to the point where they're afraid of liberty and freedom. Saw it again yesterday.

I would add he isn't an effective communicator. If people took the time to visit his website or do any research on their own he would probably get more votes. But if all you base your vote on is what he says during debates...you're not voting for Paul. He speaks over most peoples head...including mine sometimes. I just look up what he's talking about instead of writing it off.

(01-23-2012 11:36 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  ...over Santorum?

Is it about Santorum's lack of "electability" or is it something else?

I think people in the SE have a general distrust for liberal media and anyone who attacks them will be popular. And Newt is better at it than anyone.

(01-23-2012 11:43 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 11:36 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  ...over Santorum?

Is it about Santorum's lack of "electability" or is it something else?

I'm going to modify my embargo on primary posts to just exclude those about Paul...

1) Newt gave up his philandering a decade ago and has both admitted it was wrong (without any qualifiers) and asked for forgiveness which his daughters have granted him.

So the 'he was a scumbag husband back in the 90's really holds no water with me. To those who have much been forgiven there is a burden to forgive others.

2) Newt is not the ideal conservative, not even close, but on core issues he is 'good enough', more trust worthy than Mitt, and more electable than Paul or Santorum.

Just stop. No poll shows that. All show Paul and Obama statistically tied. They all show Newt getting blown out.

Because he apologized?? Really?? I mean come on.. at least just say you think he can beat Obama or that you don't put morals first. Its just baffling.. and hilarious to me, that legitimate Christians can justify voting for this guy.

(01-23-2012 01:29 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Because he apologized?? Really?? I mean come on.. at least just say you think he can beat Obama or that you don't put morals first. Its just baffling.. and hilarious to me, that legitimate Christians can justify voting for this guy.

God didn't disqualify Paul from leadership in the church because he had persecuted other Christians (read sin). Peter openly denied Christ (sin) yet went on to be a powerful leader in the church.

Those who believe a "legitimate" Christian can't justify voting for Newt have no knowledge of what forgiveness and redemption really are. They also have no clue of what it means to legitimately be Christian.

(01-23-2012 01:29 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Because he apologized?? Really?? I mean come on.. at least just say you think he can beat Obama or that you don't put morals first. Its just baffling.. and hilarious to me, that legitimate Christians can justify voting for this guy.

A 'Legitimate Christian' looks at his own sin, and the forgiveness of that sin on a daily and continuing basis with such awe, that his heart breaks for the pure mercy and Grace that has been bestowed on him.

The 'Legitimate Christian' knows there is *nothing* they do which warrants the affections of, or forgiveness from Christ. The mystery that a perfect and holy God would forgive them for their transgressions against his rather simple law will floor a 'Legitimate Christian'.

Finally a 'Legitimate Christian', being aware of both the Grace and Mercy they have been bestowed and that they completely lack any just claim to that forgiveness seek to pass that same forgiveness along to others.

Quote:Romans 4:

“16 So the promise is received by faith, It is given as a free gift. And we are all certain to receive it, whether or not we live according to the law of Moses, if we have faith like Abraham’s.”

“Because of our faith, Christ has brought us into this place of undeserved privilege where we now stand,”

15 years ago I was fornicating, drinking too much, and committing more sins as practice than I care to list. How dare I claim that I have been forgiven and *NOT* be willing to look for that in others.

(01-23-2012 01:36 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 01:29 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Because he apologized?? Really?? I mean come on.. at least just say you think he can beat Obama or that you don't put morals first. Its just baffling.. and hilarious to me, that legitimate Christians can justify voting for this guy.

God didn't disqualify Paul from leadership in the church because he had persecuted other Christians (read sin). Peter openly denied Christ (sin) yet went on to be a powerful leader in the church.

Those who believe a "legitimate" Christian can't justify voting for Newt have no knowledge of what forgiveness and redemption really are. They also have no clue of what it means to legitimately be Christian.

Apparently all it means is that you can be a terrible person but if you apologize its no big deal. No wonder we give trophies for last place in this country.. talk about lowering the bar.

(01-23-2012 02:28 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 01:36 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 01:29 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Because he apologized?? Really?? I mean come on.. at least just say you think he can beat Obama or that you don't put morals first. Its just baffling.. and hilarious to me, that legitimate Christians can justify voting for this guy.

God didn't disqualify Paul from leadership in the church because he had persecuted other Christians (read sin). Peter openly denied Christ (sin) yet went on to be a powerful leader in the church.

Those who believe a "legitimate" Christian can't justify voting for Newt have no knowledge of what forgiveness and redemption really are. They also have no clue of what it means to legitimately be Christian.

Apparently all it means is that you can be a terrible person but if you apologize its no big deal. No wonder we give trophies for last place in this country.. talk about lowering the bar.

It depends on what you mean.

Are you concerned about "lowering the bar" for a high level political leader?

Or b/c that's what is acceptable in Christianity.

B/c if it's the latter, you have it backwards. The bar is set by Jesus' absolute perfection. Anyone who thinks they get salvation b/c of their own good life is the one who lowers the bar.

If it's the former, you may have a valid point. However, given that we know Clinton and Obama have led very flawed lives, I assume you've been outspoken critics of them.

(01-23-2012 02:28 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 01:36 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 01:29 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Because he apologized?? Really?? I mean come on.. at least just say you think he can beat Obama or that you don't put morals first. Its just baffling.. and hilarious to me, that legitimate Christians can justify voting for this guy.

God didn't disqualify Paul from leadership in the church because he had persecuted other Christians (read sin). Peter openly denied Christ (sin) yet went on to be a powerful leader in the church.

Those who believe a "legitimate" Christian can't justify voting for Newt have no knowledge of what forgiveness and redemption really are. They also have no clue of what it means to legitimately be Christian.

Apparently all it means is that you can be a terrible person but if you apologize its no big deal. No wonder we give trophies for last place in this country.. talk about lowering the bar.

There is a difference between apology and repentance... If you want a perfect moral man to lead you then you're an anarchist by default.

(01-23-2012 02:28 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Apparently all it means is that you can be a terrible person but if you apologize its no big deal.

No, that is not what it means. You don't understand the concept of forgiveness and redemption.

Quote:No wonder we give trophies for last place in this country.. talk about lowering the bar.

Giving trophies to those in last place is entirely an invention of the left in this country.