Posted on 11/11/2007 6:07:42 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Gee, that really clarifies your position.
“What nonsense you spout here. He’s (Rudy) not pro gay rights or pro abortion. He is pro keeping terrorists out of our country and he thinks Rudy’s the best man for the job. Period.”
That is a political position, not a religious one. A religious figure endorsing a political position means nothing. Thats like the NRA endorsing Tancredo because Tancredo is a Nativist. Or thats like Mothers Against Drunk Driving endorsing Hunter because Hunter is pro 2nd ammendment.
It does mean something to conservative christians, hunterite. I feel Pat was trying to vote for the one who would keep the terrorists away. Pat is certainly prolife and anti gay rights, but in some ways I do think he’s a moderate and not a conservative.
I didn’t mean to say he wasn’t. I think I made an error and it should have said PAT not RUDY. I know Rudy is, but my point was I feel that Pat was endorsing him because of his stand on terror. Pat is pro life and anti gay marriage, not Rudy. I just noticed that when I answered another freeper. Sorry for the confusion.
Be careful what you accuse God’s anointed one of, my friend. God is NOT happy when we talk that way about His kids. You have no idea whether Pat is one way or another, but what you say is just plain ugly. You shouldn’t accuse anyone of being gay if you don’t know for sure.
Which Republican candidates are running on a platform or record of letting terrorist IN the country?
Rudy’s not my number one choice and I don’t fully understand Pat’s endorsement reasons, but I do not believe Pat is pro gay rights or pro abortion. I do believe he’s more moderate than conservative though.
Robertson should pray to God for forgiveness for what he has done. By endorsing a draft-dodging, adulterous cross-dresser, he has spit in the face of God.
Well, there were lots of surprises in this piece for me, starting with the revelation that Gerson served as W’s speechwriter for a long long time....because this piece has Liberal spin written all over it, as far as I’m concerned. True, nobody, especially at this point, figures GW Bush for any kind of conservative, but the Liberal spin for me is this conceit that there are any real “Kingmakers” for Republican candidates and if there are, they are always going to be designated by the Liberal
MSM as being people like Robertson, Billy Graham, etc., in other words, these oddball, eccentric, “too-religious”, too “non-secular”, too out of the mainstream of “real” wised-up, hipper America. So this entire piece seems to be a pretty strenuous exercise is continuing to advance the notion that both the Evangelicals are not really Evangelicals and candidates like Giuliani are not really the moderate, socially “progressive” Republicans they pretend to be.
I know, I know, but Pat feels Rudy, because of his tenure as Mayor, etc., would be the better candidate. I’m not saying I agree with him but I feel that’s HIS thoughts on the matter. Personally, I vote for whomever I feel is the best candidate, not someone who Pat or any other group endorses.
Well, I’m sure God will take care of it in His own way. Just hope Pat listens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.