Posted on 12/03/2011 6:47:57 PM PST by Grig
Comparing and contrasting Newt and Mitt is a real eye-opener. The two men have taken very different paths in their personal and professional lives, and have wildly different personalities. Newt is a dreamer, Mitt a doer. Newt is reckless, Mitt is careful. Newt is famously undisciplined, Mitt is the epitome of self-discipline. Romney is a leader, Newt simply is not–according to those who worked most closely with him. Both men are intelligent, yet have chosen different ways to use their intelligence.
In education, Romney pursued business and law, while Newt chose modern European History. Romney earned his education quickly and entered the private sector, while Newt preferred academia.
Romney went on to a successful career in business, becoming wealthy helping businesses and creating jobs, while Newt made a career in government, becoming wealthy by exploiting his position of power and selling influence. Romney's skills were in high demand in the private sector, while Newt was removed from leadership in the House due to the chaos he created.
In matters of faith, Romney is a life-long member of his church and has a record of many years of service to it. Newt went from Lutheran to Baptist, to Catholic, with some speculation of political motive in making the conversions. I am not aware of service Newt may have given to his church. In their personal lives, they could not be more different. Mitt married his high school sweetheart after 4 years of courtship, and remains happily married. Newt also married his high school sweetheart - his geometry teacher whom he began dating at age 16. He has admitted that there is some truth in the notion that he hates women. He has a turbulent marital history due to selfishness and uncontrolled sexual appetites. While Romney helped Ann through both MS and cancer, Newt divorced Jackie, who had cancer–saying she was ‘not pretty enough or young enough to be a president’s wife–and besides she has cancer’. Newt divorced Marrianne, who was also diagnosed with MS. At the time, he asked Marrianne if she would please tolerate the six year affair with Callista, and remain married to him. She refused. He married Callista in 2000.
In matters of character, the contrast is keen. Romney has no hint of scandal–personal or professional. Newt has rumors of sexual scandals–including the infamous oral sex in a car with his neighbor's wife, while his little daughter was near. Newt also has a history of ethics violations, shady book deals, sham fundraising practices, and inconsistencies about whether he was hired as an ‘historian’ or as a lobbyist.
In the presidential campaign, they have also chosen very different paths. Romney is serious, organized, hardworking and prepared, while Newt has been flying by the seat of his pants. He now finds himself in the running, but unprepared, due to a severe lack of preparation and organization. While Romney has been mostly humble about his long term frontrunner status, Newt proclaimed himself the nominee after less than two weeks at the top of the polls.
There are many other differences--too many to list here. But we easily know enough to determine who is more worthy of support. We should not divorce the way a man lives in his personal life, from his actions in public life. Character is revealed in both professional and personal decisions. Romney has a solid record of being true to his word, family, and stewardships. Newt does not. While both men have significant accomplishments, only one has the background, character, leadership and temperament we need. That person is Mitt Romney.
Of course what he doesn't get is rebuttal to what is posted...
Which given the citations is understandable.
Galatians 6:9
And let us not be weary in well doing for in due season we shall reap if we faint not.
this isn’t the religion forum you idiots. so stuff it. All it is, is annoying spam.
.
Its right about Noot, but wrong about Romney.
.
What I see is Paul listing several proofs of the Resurrection existing and being universal, and includes the practice of baptism for the dead as an example.
What the text records:
29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31 I face death every day—yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
“Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”
33 Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.” 34 Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame.
Both Noot and Mutt can be counted on to govern left.
Both have proven records of doing so, and in addition, Newt even goes so far as to sabotage conservatives.
Newt also advocated drilling in the US back in ‘08....”Drill Here, Drill Now”.
MORMONism says: Baptism for the dead is what we do BECAUSE the Bible has been corrupted.
Christianity says: Baptism for the dead is what folks OTHER than Christians do, because they claim the Bible has been corrupted; with no proof.
Were you to pay closer attention to the context, Paul repeatedly uses words like "us", "we", etc in an INCLUSIVE manner. That is until vs 29 where an exclusive term "THEY" is used twice. It is clear that Paul is referencing someone OTHER than the Christians at Corinth. If the rite was a legitimate part of apostolic teaching, we might have expected the apostle to say “what shall you do . . .” or “what shall we do . . .”
Second, there is absolutely no TEACHING in the verse, it is only MENTIONED.
Paul, within a greater context was arguing against those who said there was no resurrection. These false teachers are inconsistent: they deny the resurrection, yet engage in a practice — baptism for the dead — which is based on the hope of resurrection.
Ironically, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism espouses much the same interpretation of the verse: “... Paul clearly refers to a distinct group within the Church, a group that he accuses of inconsistency between ritual and doctrine.” Again, this is a group OUTSIDE of orthodoxy of Christianity so much as not to be considered Christian - "they". Paul associates the practice with false teachers and teachings.
" Newt has had heroic convenient changes of mind position."
.
We Whores of Babylon salute you for your honesty.
>> “Both Romney and Newt share the belief that government is the solution. That all we need is to ‘fix’ the system and make it work better.
.
They are different faces of the same corrupt static Politics as Usual Establishment coin.” <<
.
Exactly.
Well why not?
You've 'accepted' heresy from a PROVEN conman and liar.
Are you SURE?
take your spam and stick it up your ass
But I'm a spam LOVER; I can’t help it!
take your spam and stick it up your ass
But he DO get jollies!!
WOW Mr. M you are totally fixated on people’s rectums, you have asked, no demanded that posters on FR put everything in a violent fashion there in about ten posts now.
What a strange little person you are.
I’ll just go with this one instead:
“And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
Genesis 1:12
Call me a purist.....
:)
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.