Posted on 03/10/2012 3:53:42 AM PST by God-fear-republican
If Newt wins the nomination, he will be our next President as I can see the Divine Hand in all of these.
Early last year, Newt walked all along on the campaign trail, no followers, no press, no reporters, even no campaign manager, no staff, operated out of his rental car. His campaign manager left him because he paid no attention on fund raising or organization. He believed he could win with his speeches of ideas alone.
Newt still found time to attend Mass to fulfill his obligation on one Monday which was designated as the Day of Obligation while most cradle-Catholics who voted for Obama would not remember what it was! Newt is a convert to Catholicism and the fact he made time to go to Mass on a weekday on the campaign trail spoke volume about him.
I really believe that Newt is a changed man, a repentant sinner, who is very confident that he can restore the beauty of our country and he really believes if he is put into that capacity with his blessed talent and strength, it is God’s plan, God’s doing, not his.
The evil side was afraid of him, so they buried him with 96% of their dirty ads in Iowa, on Newt alone. Santorum worked very hard, almost like with superhuman strength as he walked all over Iowa soil to “almost” win the first republican caucus. (Later, they corrected that Santorum won by 34 votes over Romney when they needed to build him up to replace Newt to face Romney.)
Newt lost New Hampshire to no one’s surprise. The anointed front runner Romney just barely won Iowa, now won New Hampshire, was predicted to shoe in in South Carolina and went on to win the nomination. But SC was the first stop against the liberal force, the dark side. Newt started his southern strategy here and won big, shocking the whole establishment and Romney camp. They would not let it being repeated in Florida. They went all out in all fronts to destroy Newt with false ads, with Drudge Report, with all exaggerated or false recalling form different republican politicians about Newt character and philosophy, about his step-down from Congress. The fault that he committed in Congress was peanut compared to what is going on with ALL politicians especially ones in DC. He spent $50,000 of his campaign chest to fund a political course or study on campus if I remembered correctly. Later this accusation was tossed out by the court as what he did was completely legal. He created so many enemies as he was brilliant but arrogant.
After losing Florida, Newt decided to take a break in campaigning to regroup for Super Tuesday as he ran out of cash and strength. Santorum remain as the lone anti-Romney candidate and with the help of MSM and the liberal dark side, they made him the winner of Iowa caucus. With hard work Santorum went on to win in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado. Newt had become a distant memory. The enemies planned this out because they wanted to divide the Republican Party and to put Newt away for good while he withdrew from campaigning. That was a mistake on Newt part but it turned out to be destined as Santorum was needed to stop Romney while Newt regrouped. Santorum emergence was necessary so that the conservative republicans who were undecided about Newt could have an outlet instead of most or half went to Romney. Santorum is needed to take a big chunk of delegates from Romney. Newt could not stop Romney alone; he needed Santorum whether or not he liked it or knew so or not. And this is still true today. We need both to siphon enough delegates from Romney to prevent him from reaching the threshold of 1,144 delegates for the nomination.
Now Newt focuses on Alabama and Miss, then Texas to win all southern states convincingly, as he did in Georgia. And he will win some Eastern states which are more independent-minded after April 1st. Romney cannot afford to lose any of these states which allocate their delegates by winner-take-all basis.
At the end, Romney will not have 1,144 delegates and we will come to the brokered convention which will provide the format, the forum that Newt loves dear. There will be no more untrue ads, no more campaigning; the MSM will be forced to cover Newt’s speeches and ideas, giving him full national exposure. This forum will also expose the insincerity and flip-flop of Romney, will reveal that Santorum is deserved to be Newt’s under-study for now. He might be a great leader some day but not now.
Now is Newt’s time. Newt will bring them up to their feet at the convention with standing ovations and hopes.
Newt is our last hope!
I don’t believe it is self-defeating. Why do you say so?
I think God exists inside of us, outside of us, and even if we didn’t exist.
Relativism (of the sort we are discussing) is inherently self-defeating because generally speaking no statement of relativism can stand on its own merit.
And God existed outside of us first, since (as you describe) we are the creation and He is the Creator.
Generally speaking, that wasn’t much of an answer. Why can’t it stand on it’s own merit?
What sort are we speaking of?
May DIVINE providence enter in.
Yes, only it isn't an answer so much as a mystery acknowledged.
Thanks. It’s not very hard to acknowledge a mystery.
The relative is always defined by the absolute.
What if there is no absolute? How does one actually prove that the absolute exists, to someone that believes differently?
We’ll examine the two possibilities:
1) Absolute truth exists;
2) Absolute truth does not exist, only relative truth exists.
Both statements assert absolute truth—that is, both are stating something absolutely. Therefore, statements of relativism are proof in themselves of the absolute.
Can you define the absolute truth that does exist?
How about other possibilities?...absolute truth is different for each of us?
...Or absolute and relative truths coexist?
Here’s an example of absolute truth:
“Sometimes the truth is relatively hard to find.”
(Are you starting to get it yet?)
Sorry, I disagree. Perhaps for you it is.
Thanks for the conversation.
The same conversation once occurred between me and a close relative. He eventually came up with an idea that seemed at first to demonstrate that he was right in his assertion that nothing is absolute.
His idea was mathematical. Just look at asymptotes, he told me. See? They are the proof of relativism—the asymptote approaches, but never touches, the line.
But then I realized that my relative had in fact proven that the relative is in fact defined by the absolute (the absolute is the line which describes the asymptote).
This mathematical proof reflects a very important reality—all that can be said to be relative is so only because of the existence of the absolute.
One last thing to consider, and this offers the chance to negate all the lies told in public schools and universities: Truth is not ours to define in our imaginations—it is external to us, to be discovered and observed.
The absolute truth I’m speaking of is not mathematical/logical in nature.
Except for the part about needing to be discovered, I agree that...’Truth is not ours to define in our imaginations—it is external to us, to be discovered and observed’...I just happen to believe that this truth is different for each of us, as God planned. To me this is reflected in our belief in self-evidential truths.
This truth I speak of, is absolute only to the individual. When applied to more than one individual, it becomes a reference. This reference, is what defines the relative.
For a truth to be self-evident means that it is true in itself, and needs no external verification by either things or individuals.
Can you give me an example or two of truths that are different for each of us, and what exactly you mean by “it becomes a reference?”
Yes, true to the person it is evident to.
That everyone worships the same God, and using this as the reference to base moral decisions on.
Our moral decisions are relative to our self-evident truths.
Now I understand your use of the word “reference.” And it is not a relative but an absolute in the way you use it.
Yes. The absolute applies only to the individual. When more than one person is involved, the absolute goes out the window...then we have relative or references.
I am not semantically inclined. I am talking about the absolute, universal truth that so many freepers talk of.
You have switched the meaning of “absolute” with that of “relative.”
Absolute means external, objective, never changing truth.
Relative means internal, subjective, transient assertion.
The only benefit to pretending relative truth exists in place of absolute truth is to set the stage for the purpose of lying. In an imaginary world where truth is only relative (subjective), there’s no such thing as lying.
As I pointed out to you earlier in our semantic exchange, assertions of relativism are themselves presumed to be absolute although the speaker very often doesn’t realize it.
As I mentioned before, I’m not sematically inclined. I really don’t care about definitions. I am merely stating that when it comes to more than one individual, I simply do not believe a moral/spiritual/metaphysical/whatever one chooses to call it, truth, exists.
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.