One Less Republican in Camp

I'm not the best person to ask. As a mathematician, I know plenty of people who aren't very . . . stable.

You are right about FReepers, but anonymity allows people to be more strident than they would otherwise be. Actually, it's a phenomenon that one sees in academia. There's a prof who's office is next to mine who puts those Salon.com Bush-bashing cartoons on his door.

Imagine my surprise when I was running and saw him dropping off his kid at the local exclusive private day school.

OK, not so much surprise, actually. But the point is that it is easier to be strident in your positions when there is no consequence. Well we had eight years of Clinton... Do you think that the voting public would see a difference if it had been eight years of Clinton and then eight years of Gore? Gore almost won so I don't think that's the case... People liked Bush more and I really think that's what it's all about... likeability more than what a politician does. We seem to have the extreme of the extreme on FR. I don't know anyone in my life who is really like most of those who post here on FR do you?

We have a 2 party system.

Just who anointed the Screw Party system? Where is this written in the law of the land? We have been sold that bill of goods for above 100 years too. We just might have better government if a third party or Independents were in Congress. They would be the swing vote on most issues, instead, we have the RINOs voting Democratic most of the time. How is that good for us?

Huh? Actually it was Washington who noticed that we had a 2-party system. And there are some good points to a two party system but that's not the issue. The issue is what is the most effective way to advance the an agenda, in our case the Conservative agenda.

Look it doesn't help the conservative cause if we deceive ourselves with unrealistic expectations. Where is the 3rd party to rival the Republicans and Democrats?? How much money, time, and work will it take for a third party to develop into a dominate party? And once it does, how will it avoid the problems that the Republicans have? (Attracting Rinos.)

The most effective way to do advance the Conservative agenda is with the Republican party. It's a lot easier to elect one more senator to regain control of the senate, or 10 new conservative senators to have conservative control of the senate.

A third party can be very effective if they follow the example of New York's Conservative Party. They will endorse candidates if a couple of conservative issues are supported. If the Repub or Demo won't agree with their issues, then the Conservative Party will run their own cadidate. (The Club for Growth does the same thing by challenging Rinos in the primaries.) But I assume that you are not talking about a 3rd party which votes Republican 90% of the time.

But a conservative party can actually hurt the conservative agenda, by splitting the conservative vote. Bush won in part because of Nader's 3rd party challenge to Gore. In one state the margin of victory was less than the number of votes Nader got. If Gore had got Naders votes, he would have won the state and be president now. (Is there really that big of difference between Gore and Nader???) It would be a shame if we ended up with President Hillery because in one or two states the conservative vote was split.

I never said he was a sinner, did I? Quite the contrary...I believe he's a man of character, and that's a welcome change from what we had for eight years. But that doesn't change the fact that since 1995, the federal government has gotten bigger, more bloated, more intrusive, the rule of law and our constitutional rights have suffered a number of blow, as have property rights, etc. Where has the GOP majority "leadership" been? Stumbling over themselves to help the Socialists advance their agenda. No thanks, I'm out. I'll find a true conservative that I can trust not to turn into a jellyfish, and vote for him/her...and stay true to my principles.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

Then why bother obtaining a marriage civil certificate issued from the government? Wouldn't spoken marriage vows before a "preacher" be good enough?

Yes.

Actually, I can see where even a "preacher"'s presence would be required. He/she is no different from any other Christian... a simple ceremony between two people, brought together by God, as a declaration of their serving Him together for the remainder of their lives, would suffice.

"Preachers" as a separate office isn't even scriptural. Historically it only appeared around the fall of the Roman Empire. But I digress: it's the blasé acceptance of things, such as the insistence that a "state official" rubberstamp a betrothal, that indicates how spiritually stagnant we have become, both as Christians and as a nation.

The "civil certificate" is only something that has been imposed upon us by man, not God.

Also see Titus 3:1-2

If you believe that Americans are to be a free people under God, then you must completely disregard everything you have been taught about this passage of scripture.

For one thing, there are no "rulers" over us in America. The authority to govern is not with the government, but with the people. God didn't ordain a "state" over us: He entrusted the power to US.

That doesn't fly particularly well with the statists among us: the ones who WANT us to continue blind in that delusion, that we are to be "subject" to caesar/king/president. Theirs isn't the spirit of the Bereans at all: they only want centralized power, so that THEY might wind up holding the reins.

I do believe that Paul wanted his Cretan audience to be reminded that there is such a thing as authority from God (this being Crete, that would be easy enough to forget :-) but I fail to see this as a dire warning to "follow the leaders... or else." As Peter said later, "we are to follow God and not men."

How much more does that apply, in a land where God has NEVER placed men over us? We are accountable to Him and no others... true?

...and 1 Peter 2:13-17.

God didn't set up a king over us.

Nor did He commission a governor over us.

He gave the stewardship over America to ALL of us. Perhaps He is letting this country serve as an object lesson for all time, to prove to the nations how nothing can survive without dependence upon Him.

So far, we're hellbent on proving Him wrong.

Insisting that we kowtow to this government or any "officials" isn't gonna help our case in the long run.

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.