"Treebeard," in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Two Towers:
"We Ents don't say anything unless it is worth taking a lonnnng time to say it."
Posted on 09/26/2007 5:49:53 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
Thompson's refusal to back a nationwide ban on gay marriage has irritated potential supporters.
Fred Thompson is failing to meet expectations that he would rally widespread support from Christian conservatives, and he almost certainly will not receive a joint endorsement from the loose coalition of "pro-family" organizations, according to leaders of the movement.
Many religious conservatives, faced with a Republican primary top tier that lacked a true kindred spirit, initially looked to Thompson as a savior. But the former Tennessee senator has disappointed or just not sufficiently impressed the faith community since his formal campaign launch earlier this month.
While Christian conservatives once seemed willing to readily give Thompson the benefit of the doubt earlier this summer, when questions were raised about his lobbying for a pro-abortion-rights group, they are not willing to turn the other cheek anymore.
Even some on the religious right who remain sympathetic to Thompson are unhappy about his refusal to back a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and were unpleasantly surprised by his confession that he doesn’t belong to or attend any church and won’t talk about his faith.
It was Thompson’s refusal to discuss his faith that is likely to deny him any unified backing from the organizations that comprise the Arlington Group, the umbrella coalition of almost every major social conservative group in the GOP constellation.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Is your PURORESU the Gairaigo for Pro Wrestler ?
Ore wa Nihonjin de wa nai, keredomo uchi no yomehan Nihonjin desu.
If the above does not apply, then I apologize. If it does, then I think you are very clever in your choice of a name to
call yourself.
Anyway, because you are posting on a CONSERVATIVE website I think you are family, or as we say in Hawaii,....Ohana or in
Japanese....Kazoku
Keep up the good posting!!!!!
Agreed.
The term “nationwide ban on gay marriage” is a giveaway. Christians tend to speak of an “affirmation of traditional marriage” rather than some sort of “ban.” How many “bans” would we have to make? A “ban” against human-dog marriage. A “ban” against an adult marrying a child. A “ban” against marrying more than one person. A “ban” against marrying your car. And so on. Christians talk about affirming standard definitions of marriage: one man, one woman.
You too! I usually save the rancor for those who simply attack people for not being sheep. :)
The point that seems to be going over your big-font head is that certain amendments if added would change the principles of the Constitution away from the intent of the Framers.
Heck, we could add Amendments to the Constitution straight out of the Communist manifesto, but of course that would change the principles of the Constitution.
You get, yet?
I agree completely. Lots of people slamming Dobson without knowing a thing about him.
I’m a genius and a retard all rolled into one. Humor me.
What is that a picture of?
Not a good comparison, the Prez election doesn't have the same dynamics. Also, we lost many seats because dems ran to the right of pubbies. Hillary will NOT be running to the right of Fred...LOL!
In the prez general election, they will vote for Fred.
Do you think that if Mitt or Giuliani get the nod the religious right would come out to vote for either of these two but wouldn't for Fred?
If you do you are delusional. If you don't then this whole dialogue is moot.
Why, Treebeard, of course.
Incorrect...
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...
hehe I know I didn’t write the constitution silly. Heck I can hardly spell it.
Yes I read article V . It describes the power of Congress to amend the constitution . I do understand that
that is in the scope of their power.
It is foolish for anyone to encourage any amendment that restricts our freedom. Why would anyone want that ??
BUT if We the People want the constitution amended to define and restrict marriage then so be it, but it would be very dangerous to push for such legislation.
“For Pete’s sake, evalengelicals — lighten up!!!”
That said, I think your use of “lighten up” is actually a way you have to tell us:
1. keep your mouths shut;
2. don’t express your views;
3. don’t say anything that would imply that “conservatism” has become a term only for economic free market politics, and nothing else.
4. basically, any reference to God, the Bible or American Christian history and heritage has no place in any discussion.
“With regards to running as a pro-choice candidate, I googled that as well and there is no proof or evidence of Thompson or his campaign stating anything that could be construed as pro-choice in either of his Senate campaigns. None.”
Unfortunately you are badly mistaken. I’ve posted the proof multiple times.
Nonsense!
The article at the top of this thread is about evangelicals not supporting Thompson. I offered that it is reported that Thompson fought the pro-life plank. In a follow-up I mentioned that one such report came from Chuck Baldwin, an evangelical who has a radio program. Also reported is that he was pro-choice both times he ran for Senate. This was reported by Terrence Jeffrey, a Pulitzer-nominated conservative writer. Discussing reasons that evangelicals don't support Fred Thompson is not "spreading rumors" or "smearing" anyone. These reports pop up all over the place. If you can't handle hearing such reports being discussed - right or wrong - that may be swaying evangelicals, then maybe you're in the wrong thread.
Another thing that has been brought to light here is that Fred Thompson thought that abortion was a "distracting issue". Well, evangelicals think that it is a DEFINING issue, and not a mere distraction. This may also be another reason that evangelicals are hesitant to support Thompson.
Well, I’m hoping the GOP gets enough balls to force it to a constitutional amendment getting rid of it forever.
I lament the honest reality of your post . . .
Incorrect...
LOL! You don't.
O.K., so where are the Evangelicals going to go? To the Baptist minister, Mike Huckabee? I’ll tell you right now, America is NOT ready to elect a preacher POTUS.
They need to remember what Bill Buckley said when someone asked him, for whom should I vote? He said: “The most rightward, electable person.”
Already exposed as innuendo unsupported by facts. "Reported?" What are you, sinking to Katie Couric tactics nown?
Ronald Reagan was NEVER "adamantly pro-choice." Willard Mitt Romney LIED.
"Treebeard," in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Two Towers:
"We Ents don't say anything unless it is worth taking a lonnnng time to say it."
Whoever the hell that is, this time he got it terribly wrong.
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.