Posted on 12/19/2007 4:12:21 PM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
I couldn't find the video.
I didn't get the graph at all, just saw the upper right quadrant is x,y ++, going clockwise, +-, --, -+ which is not germane to the discussion. Or is it lol?
I am saying that without the ornaments, there would be a big white area in the upper left quadrant, and it would not look much like a cross. Given the placement of the ornaments in such an nonsensical position, it certainly looks like they were placed there to maintain the high contrast and enhance the "cross" effect. They are very effective at doing just that.
Did you know Huck wants to shut down Gitmo?
One problem being that from day one the Bush administrative has been unwilling to say this. This is a war against the jihad.
A link for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xn7uSHtkuA
You do understand that I am NOT on the side of the “† conspiracy”, right? From the tone of your post, I couldn’t tell.
Pay particular attention to the light on the right (his right) of his face. It remains even when the bookcase is no longer viewable; suggesting another light source.
If you really want a candidate’s Christmas message to creep you out, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzBvQ9EeF3k
It didn't matter to me which side you were on, and I wasn't sure anyway. I haven't followed Huckabee enough to keep up on him.
I watched the first one and didn't have a problem with the message, but the libs will be all over him. My analytical skills aren't too sharp today on the other, watched it again, saw the panning of the camera, and it did seem that the cross stayed more illuminated throughout to me, will pass for now on any conflict about it.
The second one seemed like the real deal (her), didn't creep me out maybe because your warning alerted me to something even more ominous, same ole same old with her, but I didn't like the use of Christmas present labels as a backdrop for her agenda, don't know what Universal Pre-K is actually. She's giving us all these gifts. No thanks. It started out kind of nice until I saw the first label which was a big turnoff, downhill from then on.
One in the same: ideals are derived from a vision of who God is in your life.
This might be the dumbest thing I ever heard. If “being a pastor and understanding the theological nature of the war” makes one well prepared, I think we should get the Pope to be Commander in Chief, or maybe at least someone who when he says he has a theology degree really does. [libbylu]
I would say that good theological training doesn’t automatically provide a big fringe benefit in foreign policy; but in a Jack Bauer “24” setting where a POTUS needs to show both discernment about how to respond to a terrorist-sanctioning state + be in prayer mode with the true God of the universe in a dirty bomb environment, a candidate who at least isn’t handicapped in the religious discernment department would be a plus…as would a POTUS candidate who can pray to the true God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
So, in this sense theological training isn’t the issue as much as it is vulnerability to deception.
If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--serves as an indicator that he/she might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist! The ramifications of having someone who may have something pulled over on them in the White House as the “leader of the free world” is no comparison to any other elected position.
How does being a pastor give one any more ability to fight the bad guys than anyone else? And, does he understand Islam any better than the LDS religion? This is the most ridiculous answer ever. [Keepitreal]
The bigger question is does the LDS candidate understand even understand the major faith of his own land?
If I... .
(a) was a POTUS candidate from a commonly regarded "cultic group"; and .
(b) mislabel 75% of my voting base's primary faith tenets & claims as mere "apostate" status (Note: 75% of people claim to be "Christians" in the more mainline/Protestant/Catholic sense--& frankly, this % is higher in the Republican party) Then...
Conclusion: I not only show open disdain for my voting base, but betray my ability to inspire confidence in my ability to accurately define a major world religion. If I cannot accurately define a major world religion, what confidence do I inspire re: my ability to handle national security issues, terrorist issues, & negotiation issues pertaining to another world religion like Islam?
One in the same: ideals are derived from a vision of who God is in your life.
I'll have to disagree with that. It is not uncommon for people who share a theology to espouse totally different ideologies. Myself and my socialist sister, for example.
Moreover, if we make the mistake of casting the War on Terror as a war of competing theologies, all we will have accomplished is to make enemies of a billion-and-a-half Muslims. Unnecessarily.
Has anyone asked Huckabee exactly what he was ‘apoligizing’ for related to Bhutto’s assasination?
I can’t believe he offered up an apologize today in regards to the assasination, and I want to know what, EXACTLY, he was talking about.
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.