(01-23-2012 02:43 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(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.

That's a good point. And in fairness to Huskie84, US churches have preached the former for many years now.

(01-23-2012 02:43 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(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.

I'm mocking you.. I clearly know the difference. I just find it laughable to think christians actually believe he's repented, its just fantastic, SNL couldn't make this stuff up. Of course I also am celebrating it as an Obama supporter so I'm not going to make too big a deal of it. Newt's surge is a true god send for the left, not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.

(01-23-2012 03:18 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  I clearly know the difference.

Actually, your statement below clearly shows you don't.

Quote:I just find it laughable to think christians actually believe he's repented,

(01-23-2012 03:22 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 03:18 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  I clearly know the difference.

Actually, your statement below clearly shows you don't.

Quote:I just find it laughable to think christians actually believe he's repented,

Being gullible makes you a good Christian then? Fair enough.

(01-23-2012 02:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  'Legitimate Christian'

So many definitions of that, all by people who think they are "legitimate" Christians. 'Tis the nature of religion. Everybody believes THEY are "legitimate" and others are not.

(01-23-2012 03:25 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 03:22 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 03:18 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  I clearly know the difference.

Actually, your statement below clearly shows you don't.

Quote:I just find it laughable to think christians actually believe he's repented,

Being gullible makes you a good Christian then? Fair enough.

More of your ignorance.

I'd like to point out this opinion comes from a guy who wants Newt to win. For two reasons.. he can't beat Obama, but also I said on this very board during one of the debates months ago, he seemed like the most sane, well spoken candidate. If he did win, obama care would stay in place, he'd probably stay out of Iran unless completely forced in, he believes in climate change (regardless who he is pandering to right now) and he's intelligent enough to not pull a W. Bush internationally.

Its not like I'm not happy to see Christians pretend his past didn't happen. I get a kick out of it.

(01-23-2012 03:35 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 03:25 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 03:22 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 03:18 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  I clearly know the difference.

Actually, your statement below clearly shows you don't.

Quote:I just find it laughable to think christians actually believe he's repented,

Being gullible makes you a good Christian then? Fair enough.

More of your ignorance.

Feel free to enlighten me then.

(01-23-2012 03:32 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 02:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  'Legitimate Christian'

So many definitions of that, all by people who think they are "legitimate" Christians. 'Tis the nature of religion. Everybody believes THEY are "legitimate" and others are not.

Take that up with your boy who started throwing mud around here..

(01-23-2012 03:36 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  I'd like to point out this opinion comes from a guy who wants Newt to win. For two reasons.. he can't beat Obama, but also I said on this very board during one of the debates months ago, he seemed like the most sane, well spoken candidate. If he did win, obama care would stay in place, he'd probably stay out of Iran unless completely forced in, he believes in climate change (regardless who he is pandering to right now) and he's intelligent enough to not pull a W. Bush internationally.

Its not like I'm not happy to see Christians pretend his past didn't happen. I get a kick out of it.

Who's pretending this did not happen?

Again you don't have a clue what Christianity is nor what forgiveness it, nor what repentance is...

(01-23-2012 03:39 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Feel free to enlighten me then.

I could try, but you'd never be enlightened. You lack the fundamental ability to grasp on Christians view redemption and forgiveness. It will never make sense to you and you will always ridicule it.

You mock what you don't understand.

(01-23-2012 03:57 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 03:36 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  I'd like to point out this opinion comes from a guy who wants Newt to win. For two reasons.. he can't beat Obama, but also I said on this very board during one of the debates months ago, he seemed like the most sane, well spoken candidate. If he did win, obama care would stay in place, he'd probably stay out of Iran unless completely forced in, he believes in climate change (regardless who he is pandering to right now) and he's intelligent enough to not pull a W. Bush internationally.

Its not like I'm not happy to see Christians pretend his past didn't happen. I get a kick out of it.

Who's pretending this did not happen?

Again you don't have a clue what Christianity is nor what forgiveness it, nor what repentance is...

Again.. mocking. Obviously everyone knows it happened.

(01-23-2012 03:32 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 02:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  'Legitimate Christian'

So many definitions of that, all by people who think they are "legitimate" Christians. 'Tis the nature of religion. Everybody believes THEY are "legitimate" and others are not.

Yeah, that never happens w/ atheists.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/...nts/39637/

(01-23-2012 04:07 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 03:32 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 02:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  'Legitimate Christian'

So many definitions of that, all by people who think they are "legitimate" Christians. 'Tis the nature of religion. Everybody believes THEY are "legitimate" and others are not.

Yeah, that never happens w/ atheists.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/...nts/39637/

I'm not an atheist. Of course that happens with them, as well.

I'm agnostic. I don't pretend to know the 'secrets of the universe'. Could one of the religions that mankind has invented over the eons be correct? Sure, anything is possible. Maybe the Greeks were right and we should be worshiping Zeus and Hera. I don't pretend to know, unlike those Christians or Muslims or Jews or fill-in-the-blank who claim to have some definitive knowledge of "God", how we were created, what "God" wants, etc, etc, etc. Is there a higher power? What does he/she/it want? Nobody knows. Agnostic admit that, rather than pretend all the answers exist in bronze-age folklore, or the delusions/visions of "Holy Men" or whatever other mythology you wanna consider. Atheists are certain no God exists. How do they know? They don't. None of us do, no matter how sure you are, no matter how much you think you're a "Legitimate Christian". It's all just arrows in the dark.

Did I miss a stat somewhere that says HIS voters were the evangelical ones? Can someone post a link?

Gingrich's daughters forgave him for cheating on his stepmom? What? I don't think it's them he needed to apologize to.

Clinton apologized too, to America and his wife. Oh, and he kept his marriage together.

Gingrich admitted he made a mistake, but he still denies that it was hypocritical for him to preach family values and bash Clinton (for example by designing ads asking mothers "What did you tell your kids?") while carrying on his own affair. I would also argue he has not been completely open about the details of Marianne's (open marriage, the timing with the MS diagnosis) charges.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol...103098.htm

Quote:Yet according to GOP congressional aides, the planning for the ads began in earnest about a month ago at a House leadership meeting. At the session in Gingrich's office, Linder said anger over Clinton was the best way to excite conservative voters and win some of the uphill House races. "Nothing else is going to put those second-tier guys over the top except making Clinton the issue," one aide said describing the conversation.

In subsequent weeks, Gingrich's pollster, Linda DiVall began conducting focus groups to test themes. Galen and Rich Gaylord, two of the speaker's most trusted advisers, helped develop the spots. Up until the final edit, Gingrich was kept apprised and suggested adjustments in the commercials, one adviser said.

While the first news accounts suggested a $10 million advertising assault on Clinton, the money is financing 29 locally tailored issue ads, along with the three Lewinsky-related spots. The purchase for the scandal ads is relatively modest, limited to 30 House districts and for only the few days before Tuesday's election.

The harshest attack ad, which hits Clinton for not telling the truth, is running in just three southern districts and is viewed as a bone to disenchanted conservatives there. A second spot, in which two mothers discuss "What did you tell your kids," is being shown in moderate suburban areas such as Santa Barbara, Calif., and parts of New Jersey. The final commercial, which uses the infamous video clip of Clinton wagging his finger as he denied the Lewinsky affair, is airing in places such as Utah, Idaho and Cincinnati, where Clinton is very unpopular.

In the end sanctimonious conservatives just want to rationalize giving a free pass to a candidate who fails them morally but still offers them low taxes. Same happened with Vitter.

(01-23-2012 05:28 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Gingrich's daughters forgave him for cheating on his stepmom? What? I don't think it's them he needed to apologize to.

Clinton apologized too, to America and his wife. Oh, and he kept his marriage together.

Gingrich admitted he made a mistake, but he still denies that it was hypocritical for him to preach family values and bash Clinton (for example by designing ads asking mothers "What did you tell your kids?") while carrying on his own affair. I would also argue he has not been completely open about the details of Marianne's (open marriage, the timing with the MS diagnosis) charges.

We agree on something.

Going after Clinton was the dumbest thing the republicans have done in my lifetime (with the possible exception of Watergate, and I am serious when I say that's only a "possible" exception).

If you can't keep your own pants on, you've got no business lecturing anyone else about theirs.

Admittedly, the perjury element was enough to justify pursuing, and Newt's failings don't extend that far. But the situations are still close enough together that attacking either one and exonerating the other makes no sense.

(01-23-2012 05:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 05:28 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Gingrich's daughters forgave him for cheating on his stepmom? What? I don't think it's them he needed to apologize to.

Clinton apologized too, to America and his wife. Oh, and he kept his marriage together.

Gingrich admitted he made a mistake, but he still denies that it was hypocritical for him to preach family values and bash Clinton (for example by designing ads asking mothers "What did you tell your kids?") while carrying on his own affair. I would also argue he has not been completely open about the details of Marianne's (open marriage, the timing with the MS diagnosis) charges.

We agree on something.

Going after Clinton was the dumbest thing the republicans have done in my lifetime (with the possible exception of Watergate, and I am serious when I say that's only a "possible" exception).

If you can't keep your own pants on, you've got no business lecturing anyone else about theirs.

Admittedly, the perjury element was enough to justify pursuing, and Newt's failings don't extend that far. But the situations are still close enough together that attacking either one and exonerating the other makes no sense.

Am I the only one who see's the difference in Clinton getting a BJ in the Oval office while married then perjuring himself and Newt having an affair? Really? Silly me. Yes...the part of it happening in the Oval Office is kind of a big deal to me.

No you're probably not. But I think making an issue about where it happened it ridiculous (as long as it's in private). But if you want to go that route, Gingrich's (second) ex said he and Callista were having sex in her bed. I know which I think is worse.

(01-23-2012 05:38 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Am I the only one who see's the difference in Clinton getting a BJ in the Oval office while married then perjuring himself and Newt having an affair? Really? Silly me. Yes...the part of it happening in the Oval Office is kind of a big deal to me.

I'm not nearly as outraged about the Oval Office part as you are, but I can understand how you could feel differently.

To me the perjury is the one thing that makes it worse. Perjury strikes at the very heart of our legal system. It wasn't as big a deal in Europe, not so much because attitudes toward sex are different but because their legal system operates so differently that their attitudes toward perjury are vastly different.

But what Newt did is close enough that no way should he have been running around yelling and screaming at Clinton at the same time that he was banging Callista.

One thing I will say about Newt--he picks better looking women than Bill does, although Callista could stand to lose the current 'do. Of course I have heard people who were on the inside at one time say that Bill picks beter looking women than Hillary does, so who knows?