Posted on 10/21/2007 1:16:26 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
Absolutely. The day abortion, gay rights, gun control, sanctuary cites, etc, become accepted by Republicans is the day the Republican party ceases to exist as a viable party.
"Your set up is a False Choice."
In the first place, we don't know that Giuliani will be chosen as the Republican candidate. We are almost certain that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee and with that in mind, I will make no choice that might end up seating a person whom I regard as a despot in the White House.
Dr. Dobson is a fine man. He doesn't realize, however, that this country is not a theocracy. What he and his followers will end up doing, if not very careful, is bringing great angst and tribulation on this nation.
"You people" need to get over the notion that you are going to field a candidate who will be elected and deny the Presidency to Hillary and Giuliani. Ain't going to happen, however principled you think the effort might be.
My very last comment to you and yours is, "Grow up!!"
I guess I missed it. Who brought Dr. Dobson into this?
You have it totally wrong.
If McDonalds stopped selling hamburgers, and sold veggie-burgers instead, would you blame consumers if McDonalds’ sales plummeted? “Well, if they’d only try those veggie-burgers, they’d find they aren’t that bad.” Yuck!
We want meat and we won’t buy veggie-burgers. And it’s not our fault.
That dog don't hunt. Rudy will destroy the Republican Party and take down the US with it. Look at what Arnold has accomplished.
I did because I know that he is the genesis of this type thinking.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
That sounds rather childish. How do you figure that?
If Rudy is the Republican nominee, I will probably vote for him. Make up all the lists you want that are good for you. My list is short— can the candidate defeat the democratic nominee who would fail every question on your silly test and about 110 more.
However, I'm going to make some predictions that at the moment might sound crazy---but I think John Edwards will end up as the dim candidate, and I further think that Fred will end up with the pubbie candidacy. I further predict that the pubbies will get substantial majorities in both house.
You heard it here first--LOL!
1. Rudy is now trailing Fred, so that match up is no longer as likely as it once seemed. Despite the dinosaur media's relentless attempt to make that happen.
2. In that event, I would vote for any candidate that supported a biblical and constitutionally sound platform.
This nation will someday pass away. My soul is eternal. Someday I will stand before God and be judged. My obedience to and relationship with God will be an issue. What candidate won the United States presidency will not. The prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah were put into a situation where Israel was facing dissolution due to corrupt government, national sin, and invading enemies. God has not changed, and he still expects us to be obedient to him during times of national travail.
If things get bad you might consider these words:
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
While the list of grievances following might be somewhat different, the principle is timeless.
Look to CA, the blame goes to the top Arnold, who calls himself a Republican. Same with Rudy, if elected.
When Bill Clinton was elected with a democrat congress, 2 years later, the Republicans retook Congress. All blame went to them.
[Actually living one’s values sometimes requires sacrifice. ]
Not when the sacrifice ensures the very outcome you want to prevent with the possibility that doing so will avoid it.
You just made a simple mistake. You should have used a word or term like “ill-suited” instead of “disqualified”. Unsuited is a subjective evaluation of a person, whereas disqualified is an objective reading of the Constitutional definition.
Words have meaning; we should use them intelligently and wisely.
If anything is childish, the things that Dobson had to say are childish and, if carried out, could potentially set the nation back to the Carter years.
I hereby declare that I will support whichever candidate is selected by the Republican Party. Were I to vote for a third party candidate (presumably a Fundamentalist Christian), one might expect to see people ice-skating in Hell with pigs flying overhead.
Dr. Dobson has the potential to become another Ross Perot if he carries out the intent that he declared to Sean Hannity.
"This nation will someday pass away."
I declare that I will do nothing to accelerate its passage even if it means voting for a "Republican" candidate who does not meet my measure concerning abortion and other things that you people on the religious right are hung-up on. END OF DISCUSSION.
Newt put it best. He said that the 2nd amendment doesn’t have any meaning unless it applies to Americans everywhere - whether they are in rural Idaho or DC/NYC. Just like the first amendment.
It should.
What I’ll never forget is friends I know said that Guiliani lived in a house with two homosexual lovers while he was waiting for his divorce to go through. It makes me question his true values if he is literally willing to not only condone that unhealthy lifestyle but live in a homosexual household day and night. If you are a decent person and let’s say you move in with two crack addicts or two thieves. Your own integrity should immediately create conflict with those who are immoral. Yet Guiliani apparently embraces these people and their lifestyle. That’s one reason I don’t trust Guiliani at all.
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.