why you must vote for Huckabee

[daniel777]

because chuck norris doesn't approve. he tells america how it's gona be.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8

i just thought this was amazing. i've probably watched it at least twenty times now.

[twistedsketch]

Chuck Norris rocks! I am concerned with Huckabee's stance on spending, though.

[InHisSpirit]

THATS GREAT!! I wonder if I can get a MySpace code for that?

[daniel777]

THATS GREAT!! I wonder if I can get a MySpace code for that?

yes you can!!!! it's on the youtube page under the label 'embed'. :D

[Izdaari]

I hate to disagree with Chuck, but I think Romney is the best choice. Since I completely agree with their reasoning on this, I'll let National Review explain it:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmMxYTUyYzA1YTk2YzE5NGVmNjc0OGFjYWJmNzMzNjI=&p=1

[daniel777]

I hate to disagree with Chuck,hugh. no, look out for the roundhouse kick......

just kidding :D . i just thought that the political ad was the best i had ever seen. i haven't really started examining all the candidates yet.

[Izdaari]

hugh. no, look out for the roundhouse kick......

just kidding :D . i just thought that the political ad was the best i had ever seen. i haven't really started examining all the candidates yet.
It is! That's an awesome ad! :thumbsup:

[kasprinkle]

I think Chuck Norris is fun, but I respectfully disagree with his choice for President.

I am a conservative and believe me, Huckabee is NO conservative. He's high on taxes, wants special treatment for children of illegal aliens and I believe he is, overall a dishonest politician.

He has often said he is the only candidate with a degree in theology (which is a graduate degree), but the truth is he only holds an undergraduate degree in religion from some little Bible college no one has heard of.

Earlier this week he called a press conference to announce that he had made a very negative campaign ad, but was now NOT going to run it because it was too negative, THEN he showed the ad to the reporters in the room, knowing they would show it all over the country for free. May be smart, but certainly not honest!

Lastly, I believe Huckabee exploits his Christianity. I'm a strong conservative Christian, so I share many of his beliefs, but he uses his religious beliefs to beat people over the head with his policies, example-he says it's not Christian to deny special rights to illegals. You may believe in special rights for illegals, but that's a political decision, not a spiritual one. This week in Iowa, he's been taking the stage while the audience is encouraged to join in the singing of "How Great Is Our God" or "Holy Is The Lord". PLEASE!!! I already have a pastor, I'm voting for a President!

Not telling anyone for whom they should vote. Just suggesting you really check out what this man did as Gov., not just what he says on the campaign trail.

[twistedsketch]

I hate to disagree with Chuck, but I think Romney is the best choice. Since I completely agree with their reasoning on this, I'll let National Review explain it:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmMxYTUyYzA1YTk2YzE5NGVmNjc0OGFjYWJmNzMzNjI=&p=1
Romney waffles as much as Kerry did if not more so.

[Izdaari]

Romney waffles as much as Kerry did if not more so.

I'm aware, though I think a lot of his flip-flopping may be justifiable. And some things he's been consistent on all the way through. From the NR piece:

Some conservatives question his sincerity. It is true that he has reversed some of his positions. But we should be careful not to overstate how much he has changed. In 1994, when he tried to unseat Ted Kennedy, he ran against higher taxes and government-run health care, and for school choice, a balanced budget amendment, welfare reform, and “tougher measures to stop illegal immigration.” He was no Rockefeller Republican even then.All things considered, I think he's the most conservative and most able guy we can actually elect. As NR noted, Giuliani would risk splitting the coalition because he's not socially conservative enough. Huckabee risks splitting the coalition because he's not economically conservative enough. McCain would be acceptable but is less conservative. Thompson is equally conservative but lacks executive experience, and I'm not sure he has a realistic chance. Duncan Hunter is more conservative, but has no chance at all.

[twistedsketch]

I'm aware, though I think a lot of his flip-flopping may be justifiable.
There's a difference between repenting of a pro-choice position and flip-flopping, which Romney has done. There are enough issues that he has flip-flopped on for me to put him in the latter category. If anyone jumped on Kerry for being a flip-flopper, I fail to see how they could not jump on Romney if they had any integrity. I've also seen Romney give enough non-answers to legitimate questions to convince me that 1) he is not forthcoming or 2) he doesn't know what he's talking about. Probably a bit of both.

[mccarty]

-

[Izdaari]

mccarty,

Thanks much for your thoughts. I myself am not a Christian conservative of Dobson's or Huckabee's stripe, though I am a theological conservative. I'm not overly concerned with the "hot button" social issues, but more with national security and economics. IMHO the best we're going to get is Romney, McCain or possibly Thompson. I consider any of the Democrats unacceptable because of their weak positions on foreign policy and their fondness for big government and high taxes.

[Izdaari]

There's a difference between repenting of a pro-choice position and flip-flopping, which Romney has done. There are enough issues that he has flip-flopped on for me to put him in the latter category. If anyone jumped on Kerry for being a flip-flopper, I fail to see how they could not jump on Romney if they had any integrity. I've also seen Romney give enough non-answers to legitimate questions to convince me that 1) he is not forthcoming or 2) he doesn't know what he's talking about. Probably a bit of both.
Aye, he's been a bit of a flip-flopper, but none of them is without flaws. Who do you consider a better alternative and why?

[ChristianCenturion]

I... couldn't believe that was an ad. :doh:

[MrJim]

Politics are so fun to watch~it's almost a hobby with me. I don't participate in the process~haven't voted since Reagan in '84 when I was in the USMC~but it's still fun to watch.

When I first received Christ as my Saviour and began to be discipled by the blessed Mennonite folks I also embraced the teaching of the two kingdoms~Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man. I also began to understand a bit the nature of the Sovereignty of God, which I think the anabaptist folks understand even better than the Calvinist folks in many ways. As the Scripture teaches, God appoints the rulers we have according to His will. It's kinda sad to see so many in such turmoil over our next ruler~it truly is in God's hands. As ambassadors of the Kingdom of God we truly are sojourners here in this world being about the Father's business. As a "conservative" forum these ideas will be considered something other than "conservative", but they are not uncommon~especially among conservative anabaptists.

It is something that tears at the church, this political business. Sadly, many in the church are identified FIRST by their political affiliation, then by their faith~and that goes for both sides. Be aware of the true nature of nationalism (or "patriotism" if you prefer)~it is a seductive devil that can easily become idolatry.

And to the charges that come up that practicing "abstinence" isn't practical, or "evil triumphs when good men do nothing", praying and submitting to God is indeed something~whether the next ruler is Obama, Huckabee, Putin, or Kim Jong-il, it ultimately matters not; "my hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness. I dare not trust the sweetest frame, But wholly trust in Jesus’ Name"...

And if your guy or gal doesn't win, at least accept that God has appointed a ruler for you, for whatever reason, and recognize His sovereignty over us and this nation~and move on, continuing to serve the One True God:clap:

[mccarty]

-

[Albion]

Huckabee's too much inclined towards theocracy for my tastes, but although he's wrong on immigration, criminal justice, taxes, and spending, he has some conservative impulses.

In fact, every one of the Republican candidates has some conservative instincts...along with some reason for a conservative to doubt him.

We either have to choose one of them who is:

1) most likely to win in November, 2008 or

2) the one of them who is truest to conservative principles all around.

Since Huckabee is NEITHER of those, he's off my list of possibles.

[MrJim]

Huckabee's too much inclined towards theocracy for my tastes, but although he's wrong on immigration, criminal justice, taxes, and spending, he has some conservative impulses.

In fact, every one of the Republican candidates has some conservative instincts...along with some reason for a conservative to doubt him.

We either have to choose one of them who is:

1) most likely to win in November, 2008 or

2) the one of them who is truest to conservative principles all around.

Since Huckabee is NEITHER of those, he's off my list of possibles.

Curious~who are your top two?

[Albion]

Curious~who are your top two?

I'm curious about that myself!

Seriously, the situation is so fluid and seems to me to change daily, that it is not easy to settle upon any one of these people.

I was inclined towards Guiliani, despite his liberal stances, as long as I belived 1) he is instinctively a law and order, law-respecting kind of man who would keep our country's national defense strong, and 2) was the most likely to beat Hillary.

Lately, the liberal components in that seem to have become more troublesome AND he no longer seems to me to be more likely to beat Hillary than a couple of the others.

I think McCain's chances of beating the Democrat may be stronger, but of course he is no more conservative than Rudy and less conservative than several of the others.

Thompson has risen in my mind lately. He seems more relaxed now, has a better program and outlook than I first thought, and has gained some limited momentum. He received an 86% rating from the American Conservative Union for his time in Congress, which was higher than I'd thought, and he is the best one on the illegal immigration issue.

I cannot get over Romney's weakness when pit in polls against Hillary, his failure to impress skeptical younger voters, and his record.

Fortunately, I can let this marinate for awhile and don't have to vote in Iowa or New Hampshire. But my two guides remain--ability to win OR most conservative. Someone in the middle is not for me.

[MrJim]

I know Rush is really hard against Huckabee, which was a surprise, but having listened to him for nearly 20 years I've grown to respect if not always agree with his position. If he suspects something then it needs to be examined.

I can see where political conservatives would pick a fiscal conservative/social liberal over the opposite...is Bush a fiscal liberal? Would he be the spender if there hadn't been a 9/11? I remember his initial campaign where he spoke in one debate about the US not being a "nation builder" yet that's what happened, but then the 9/11 event changed some things around.

Not sure who Rush and that end of the Right is for~immigration, taxes, terror, all sorts of issues. Rush makes a point, that the major GOP victories in the past have been strong conservatives (Reagan, Gingrich's Contract with America), and that it could happen again if someone would stand on those. It sounds to me he's trying/wanting Fred T to be that guy but who knows?

Seems a little unsettling not to have a pick at this point (like I said earlier, I like to watch, and even though I don't participate doesn't mean I don't have druthers ;) )

...bettin' Obama sews up the Dem nomination by end of February...

[Albion]

I hate to disagree with Chuck, but I think Romney is the best choice. Since I completely agree with their reasoning on this, I'll let National Review explain it:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmMxYTUyYzA1YTk2YzE5NGVmNjc0OGFjYWJmNzMzNjI=&p=1

To tell the truth, the National Review article was disappointing to me. It didn't tell us much we didn't already know, but more than that, it based everything IMO upon believing Romney when he SAYS he's conservative now.

Almost everything in his record is to the opposite. I also remember his father (whom Mitt says he's like) who ran for office as a conservative and then completely betrayed the cause after election.

[mccarty]

-

[Albion]

I know Rush is really hard against Huckabee, which was a surprise, but having listened to him for nearly 20 years I've grown to respect if not always agree with his position. If he suspects something then it needs to be examined.

I haven't tuned in to Rush lately, but I agree that he's usually quite perceptive about these things.

I can see where political conservatives would pick a fiscal conservative/social liberal over the opposite....
Not sure who Rush and that end of the Right is for~immigration, taxes, terror, all sorts of issues. Rush makes a point, that the major GOP victories in the past have been strong conservatives (Reagan, Gingrich's Contract with America), and that it could happen again if someone would stand on those. It sounds to me he's trying/wanting Fred T to be that guy but who knows?

Seems a little unsettling not to have a pick at this point

I know the feeling. This is unprecedented in my memory.

...bettin' Obama sews up the Dem nomination by end of February...

My bet is that Billary cannot be stopped, no matter what happens in the first caucus or primary states.

[Albion]

I'm curious what you mean by this, Albion. Doesn't Huckabee generally fall along the lines in these areas of what most conservatives endorse?

Gosh, no. On immigration, he was awful as Governor of Arkansas. On his record, he'd be the worst of all the Republican candidates. He apparently didn't even think that there was much concern over open borders--when the campaign began. That's bad enough.

On criminal justice, you know that he pardoned over a thousand hard-time criminals. There was that one particular one who Romney made much of, but I wouldn't make a judgment on one case.

As for taxes, he raised them and spent it HUGELY. Now, consider who is for and who is against him. Chuck Norris likes his gun stance, I guess. And the head of the Minutemen endorsed him. More specifically he endorsed the policy paper that Huckabee released recently. I am not persuaded by this kind of eleventh-hour conversion, not in Romney's case and not with Huckabee either. Phyllis Schlafly is stronly opposed, so you have a lot to choose from if endorsements are important to you.

[mccarty]

-

[Rochir]

because chuck norris doesn't approve. he tells america how it's gona be.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8

i just thought this was amazing. i've probably watched it at least twenty times now.

LOL; that's pretty quaint!:P

[ReformedChapin]

Because I was born in Guatemala I havent acquired my american citizenship. But I would vote for huckabee because he is the only thing close to christian that has a chance of winning.

[twistedsketch]

Aye, he's been a bit of a flip-flopper, but none of them is without flaws. Who do you consider a better alternative and why?
When it comes to knowing what they believe and why, everybody. At least with Giuliani, you know what you're getting - and he is my least favorite Republican candidate. Romney is just about tied with him.

I like Fred Thompson better because he is a fiscal conservative and he would at very least overturn Roe vs. Wade if he had the chance.

I like Ron Paul better because he is a stronger capitalist and socially conservative. He would neither secularize America, nor would he try to get Washington to do the church's work for it. He would also work to overturn Roe vs. Wade. His foreign policy is a deal breaker for me, but I still respect him more than Romney.

I like Duncan Hunter better, because he agrees with me on most of the issues.

I liked Tom Tancredo better when he was in the race, because he was also very solid on the issues. If he was going to do one thing, he was going to secure our borders and take care of illegal immigration. He would also be good on taxes, abortion, and other issues.

[_beloved_]

Huckabee projected winner (ABC news and FOX)

25% votes in so far

35% Huckabee
24% Romney
14% Thompson
12% McCain

[daniel777]

Huckabee projected winner (ABC news and FOX)

25% votes in so far

35% Huckabee
24% Romney
14% Thompson
12% McCain


It was all Chuck


When the boogie man goes to bed at night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.

Chuck Norris can have his cake AND eat it too.

Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. too bad he never cries.

Regular people wear superman underwear. superman wears Chuck Norris underwear.

There are only two categories of people: people who are still alive, and people Chuck Norris has killed.


sorry i couldn't resist :D . it was too tempting.

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Huck has my vote! I have researched all the main candidates from both parties and I think he has the most biblical world view. That and he is one of the more honest canidates from what I have seen and heard.

[mccarty]

-

[MrJim]

Unfortunately, there is only one camp that is actually so bold as to step up to define the heart of God through political action and that, clearly, is the Christian right/Evangelical segment, and they didn't learn their lesson the first time around by such action, and that really, really, REALLY scares me because the end result proves to be a scenario whereby the motive is selfishness of the heart above all else, and thus clear and complete evidence that such is highly generic, certainly selfish, in nature. That of course is the human judgment, its accuracy is dependant on that person's relationship between himself and God that I in no way have a right to judge.

Interesting post~a lot of things come into play, as I stated in my earlier post about the nature of nationalism is reflected somewhat in what you've posted. I want to comment on some domestic issues you've raised.

Couple things~on the nature of selfishness, the concerns the right has with taxes is socialism/wealth redistribution. In some nations you just work and the gov't give you an allowance and they handle the rest. That system has shown it doesn't work very well. The right simply wants what it has earned, and there is ample scriptural evidence that this is good. Forced redistribution is not a scriptural principal~God wants a cheerful giver, in fact contrary to popular belief, while tithing is a biblical teaching it's not a Christian one~God even did away with the forced 10% giving. It's what people do with their money that's the issue, not that they have it.

Immigration~a topic close to my heart I'll admit. I love mexicans~I admit it. I've worked with them for almost 20 years. The guys are hard workers and the women are uber lovely. One fellow I've worked with for over 15 years recently became a US citizen. Yet one of my failings is that I would like to see them all deported and brought back in legally~yeah, like I said, it's a failing of mine. I should be detached enough from the worldly nation's business but as an observer it appears that a mass amnesty or a complete open border would lead to some serious internal unrest that would lead to a lot of violence. Things done in a more orderly and lawful way would work things out better in the long run.

The Right has its issues, but the Left is no alternative. They have demonstrated that they would put forth efforts that would redistribute wealth through heavy taxes and allow amnesty/open borders. They also believe in more license in wanting to openly endorse what God obviously opposes~ abortions and homosexuality. The question that arises is "what's next" in allowing what God hates-pedophilia, bestiality? Sounds crazy, but talk of allowing legal abortions and married homosexuals sounded crazy 100 years ago.

These continued efforts by the left to rub these kinds of issues into the Right's noses are the very kinds of things that lead to violence and revolt. As an observer to history I can see a path to another Civil War being sewn by the actions of the political left. Having been a WN [White Nationalist/Neo-Nazi] a few decades ago I still keep my ear close to the ground in that community. There's always been rumblings and cycles. What really bothers me is that I'm hearing their kind of talk among regular people-coworkers, some guy in line at the store, a lady at the bank...rumblings that before I only heard in the underground of america. People think that the US is too civilized for such a thing but that is just whistling in the dark. I fear there are unintended consequences to the agendas of both parties, yet the greater ones are with the left.

One thing I've learned over the years is that there isn't always just 2 sides to a story. Many Christians look at american politics and pick a side. The left looks at issues you've spoken of and believe the real Christian positions are defined by the Democrat party. The right looks and picks the GOP. There's a grey middle ground of independents/libertarians, but basically the sides are picked. My belief, and the belief of many others is that neither side is correct, and choose another way. See, I try to look at things from what is referred to as a "Christian Worldview", yet I try not to have an "American Christian Worldview", which is often what is touted. Americans look at politics as a two party system, yet the rest of the world simply looks at America as a system. I want to have a faith that is the same whether I live here in Pennsylvania or if I live in Iran or North Korea or England. I belong not to the United States but to the Church~the Kingdom of God, a nation of its own that supercedes political boundaries, and that's where my energies and efforts must focus.

[Gregged]

Politics are so fun to watch~it's almost a hobby with me. I don't participate in the process~haven't voted since Reagan in '84 when I was in the USMC~but it's still fun to watch.

When I first received Christ as my Saviour and began to be discipled by the blessed Mennonite folks I also embraced the teaching of the two kingdoms~Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man. I also began to understand a bit the nature of the Sovereignty of God, which I think the anabaptist folks understand even better than the Calvinist folks in many ways. As the Scripture teaches, God appoints the rulers we have according to His will. It's kinda sad to see so many in such turmoil over our next ruler~it truly is in God's hands. As ambassadors of the Kingdom of God we truly are sojourners here in this world being about the Father's business. As a "conservative" forum these ideas will be considered something other than "conservative", but they are not uncommon~especially among conservative anabaptists.

It is something that tears at the church, this political business. Sadly, many in the church are identified FIRST by their political affiliation, then by their faith~and that goes for both sides. Be aware of the true nature of nationalism (or "patriotism" if you prefer)~it is a seductive devil that can easily become idolatry.

And to the charges that come up that practicing "abstinence" isn't practical, or "evil triumphs when good men do nothing", praying and submitting to God is indeed something~whether the next ruler is Obama, Huckabee, Putin, or Kim Jong-il, it ultimately matters not; "my hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness. I dare not trust the sweetest frame, But wholly trust in Jesus’ Name"...

And if your guy or gal doesn't win, at least accept that God has appointed a ruler for you, for whatever reason, and recognize His sovereignty over us and this nation~and move on, continuing to serve the One True God:clap:

Good post Mr Jim!

==================

From what I hear politics over there is all about how many dollars you have... and in the "Christian" arena, is all about Dominionism - when did God tell us to prepare the earth for His return by "Democratising" the world and making it all Christian? Weren't we told to spread the Gospel and pray for our leaders? Does the Bible tell us to bring change through politics? Did any of the disciples or apostles do that? As I have heard people who have come out of the dominionist movement there - talking politics often replaces prayer!

Is Bush Christian? Is Huckabee? Not for me to say of course, but understand the terms used. Is Bush "born again" in a Christian sense, or in the sense of rising from the coffin from his Skull&Bones initiations? Because the same "born again" language is used. Yet of course, people hear "I'm born again" and "I read the Bible"... So? Do you think a true Christian get into any high political position without compromising or towing the line? Does the CFR, who Huckabee presented to, have a Godly agenda?!

As for national defence - I would look internally first! And when did national defence, or the safety of ourselves and family get transferred to us trusting in government? I wouldn't! Trust God for that safety!

Whoever gets in is God's person - whether it's for good, or for judgment of that nation or to be used to bring judgment on others. It's in God's hands!

[Gregged]

These continued efforts by the left to rub these kinds of issues into the Right's noses are the very kinds of things that lead to violence and revolt. As an observer to history I can see a path to another Civil War being sewn by the actions of the political left. Having been a WN [White Nationalist/Neo-Nazi] a few decades ago I still keep my ear close to the ground in that community. There's always been rumblings and cycles. What really bothers me is that I'm hearing their kind of talk among regular people-coworkers, some guy in line at the store, a lady at the bank...rumblings that before I only heard in the underground of america. People think that the US is too civilized for such a thing but that is just whistling in the dark. I fear there are unintended consequences to the agendas of both parties, yet the greater ones are with the left.

Interesting Mr Jim. I was thinking about this the other day. I've read a number of stories on and off the forum, linked to news reports of racial tension there, and the inactivity of the authorities to bring proper justice. For example Sarah Kreager, Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian. I don't know all the details and their backgrounds but was wondering if this was being allowed to steer towards a time of big unrest.

Personally, I think these type of crimes done by whatever people group you are classified in, should be punished to the full extent of the law. I have never been, nor ever will be a white supremecist (which surely goes against "all men are born equal" ;)) because Scripture tells us that from one man came all men.

[Albion]

I guess my main question for all of those that are trying to support the notion of defining Christianity within the realgms of less tax cuts, sending illegal immigrants back to their own country, voting anti gay and anti abortion, solely to those attempting to place the label of Christ within the realgms of that legal definition if in fact there are any here attempting to do so whatsoever, whether or not the vast majoritiy of those that support those things truly understand they are perhaps the most selfish reasons you could ever vote for politically and what type of repurcussions may come from what they're supporting from the standpoint of what they're portraying to the rest of the world in the name of Christ, because that's extremely serious.

Well, that's one of the longest sentences I've read since we were assigned some of Faulkner's works in college!

If the point is that there is something questionable about the idea of imposing Christian virtue upon the nation by way of electing someone whose policies are indifferent to public opinion or the national good so long as the officeholder thinks they are "good" in a Christian sense, I'm with you. We are not electing a pastor, but a president.

On the other hand, most of the policies you mentioned are real Conservative ones...and ones that most Americans agree wtih. That's not something triggered specifically by a Christian conscience.

[MrJim]

On the other hand, most of the policies you mentioned are real Conservative ones...and ones that most Americans agree wtih. That's not something triggered specifically by a Christian conscience.

Not even a little bit?

[mccarty]

-

[MrJim]

mccarty, you should stop by the baptist forum and meet James01~you two are speaking the same language ;)


there are those that can post as convincing an argument against the left side~if you are gonna play the politics game ya picks yer sides, and each can present a "Jesus is on my side" story...

[mccarty]

I decided to remove my comments after further reflection.

[Nadiine]

Whoever gets in is God's person - whether it's for good, or for judgment of that nation or to be used to bring judgment on others. It's in God's hands!
(nevermind that we happen to BE His "hands and feet" on the earth and we work to help accomplish His good pleasure and will)???
:idea:

[mccarty]

I decided to remove my comments after further reflection.

[Nadiine]

Nadiine, perhaps you solved the mystery question right there, maybe it's that simple.
it's that simple to me... lol

We might as well say, "well, God doesn't NEED our money - He's capable all by Himself to do everything"... but He gets it done THRU our willingness to give (sometimes sacrifically) - that's the SYSTEM we're in & that's how it works.

We are His vehicles to use down here in the physical sense to get His will accomplished. (vessels).
Removing myself from the process is hardly my ideal of service to the Lord.

[mccarty]

I decided to remove my comments after further reflection.

[Gregged]

(nevermind that we happen to BE His "hands and feet" on the earth and we work to help accomplish His good pleasure and will)???
:idea:


Um... yes Nadiine... :idea: to spread the Gospel! :)

Ro 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!


If people followed the first two commandments then we wouldn't even need politics! Which is greater? Prayer or politics :) Which is done more in the Dominionist agenda?

If Jesus was here as He was 2000 years ago, which would he tell the church to do? Spend their time sending letters, protesting etc... or praying? What would Jesus preach from the pulpit? Politics, or the Gospel? What would He be on the streets doing? Handing out party propoganda or giving people the Good News?

There are a number of things, Dominionism is one, which have made the church go away from what it should be doing - yet because it's moved in slowly over time and it appears good and right, it's accepted as being good and right. Like a frog in a slowly heating up pan of water.

[MrJim]

Than I guess the answer really is to isolate His Name and the Faith as far from the political circus as possible. That would only make sense, wouldn't it.

Well, if that's all He wants, I gladly submit because that's what the heart itself would attest to, to simply not be concerned with such things in the first place.

I see it less as isolation as simply being about the Father's work in spite of the the political circus. Brothers and sisters in America tend to identify themselves more with their political affiliations than with the church of God universal. We live in a very corrupted world and it is in everything-and I've little faith in political and corporate machinations~yet as Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. Things could be better, could be worse, but as the elect, as children of the Most High God His work must continue~and there is enough that we are to do without having to immerse ourselves in the system if we are not called to do it.

If you find yourself with two unacceptable choices, look for a third way, it will be there...

[Nadiine]

Um... yes Nadiine... :idea: to spread the Gospel! :)



If people followed the first two commandments then we wouldn't even need politics! Which is greater? Prayer or politics :) Which is done more in the Dominionist agenda?

If Jesus was here as He was 2000 years ago, which would he tell the church to do? Spend their time sending letters, protesting etc... or praying? What would Jesus preach from the pulpit? Politics, or the Gospel? What would He be on the streets doing? Handing out party propoganda or giving people the Good News?

There are a number of things, Dominionism is one, which have made the church go away from what it should be doing - yet because it's moved in slowly over time and it appears good and right, it's accepted as being good and right. Like a frog in a slowly heating up pan of water.
What better way to spread the GOSPEL than to try to elect people who best represent the gospel! I'm sure leaving the secular population to elect people like Nero & other antichrist sympathetics who work AGAINST truth of God isn't the best climate for spreading the gospel as they help promote EVIL....

No we sure can't know who will be the best candidate, but we can know their values and the general positions they hold & if they're open to righteousness.

I vote every election and until God dissallows me from doing so, I'll continue. I'm His vessel and I have a hand in trying to keep out WORSE candidates that I know don't hold Godly values or want conservative judges in place which directly affect this nation.

(where does God tell you NOT to vote??) :scratch:

[MrJim]

What better way to spread the GOSPEL than to try to elect people who best represent the gospel! I'm sure leaving the secular population to elect people like Nero & other antichrist sympathetics who work AGAINST truth of God isn't the best climate for spreading the gospel as they help promote EVIL....

No we sure can't know who will be the best candidate, but we can know their values and the general positions they hold & if they're open to righteousness.

I vote every election and until God dissallows me from doing so, I'll continue. I'm His vessel and I have a hand in trying to keep out WORSE candidates that I know don't hold Godly values or want conservative judges in place which directly affect this nation.

(where does God tell you NOT to vote??) :scratch:

You are falling into the trap that we control our destiny~our Sovereign God appoints rulers, not us.

Funny you should mention Nero...when Paul wrote Romans 13, about submitting to rulers and that they are appointed by God, Nero was Paul's ruler...yet Paul was satisfied to say:

Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Nero was a beast, someone bad enough that within our culture we'd think Paul would be justified in calling for revolution~take Rome for God, pick up your pitchforks~afterall, that's what happened with the American Revolution. Yet that is not what Paul is saying here (and ultimately, since it's scripture, what God is saying).

Since you choose to participate then do so, most do...just understand that God puts in whom God has chosen to put in, and if the "bad guy" gets elected, then that person will be God's instrument to rule this nation.

[MrJim]

(where does God tell you NOT to vote??) :scratch:

Where does God tell you to vote?:P

[Gregged]

What better way to spread the GOSPEL than to try to elect people who best represent the gospel!
Ok... so you elected Bush... How has the Gospel been better advanced because Bush has been in power than if someone else had? Is the world view of Christianity better, worse or the same?


I'm sure leaving the secular population to elect people like Nero & other antichrist sympathetics who work AGAINST truth of God isn't the best climate for spreading the gospel as they help promote EVIL....You know, it (sadly) can often be adversity that people find Christ. What happens when there's been a disaster? What happens when someone's life is threatened and are about to die? Do they cry out to God?

How is Christianity in China under an oppresive communist government? Numbers growing or not? Could it be that China could be the nation with the most Christians?!! Why do long term missionaries who see miracles and people coming to Christ and who come back to their home country, preach against the Western church, to get back to the Gospel? Could it be because they know that the power of salvation is in the Gospel and not in politics?

Do our votes count more than God's will? If your vote is the one that sways the decision does God think "Oh no :( My choice hasn't got in again"? Or does God raise up people up and take others out the picture (Psalm 75:6 For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another)? This is all because God's plans and purposes will be accomplished and prophecy will come to pass. Anything God has said, or says, will not return to Him without it being accomplished!


No we sure can't know who will be the best candidate, but we can know their values and the general positions they hold & if they're open to righteousness.We can? So saying things that aren't quite true, or using language to deceive doesn't happen? :scratch:


I vote every election and until God dissallows me from doing so, I'll continue. I'm His vessel and I have a hand in trying to keep out WORSE candidates that I know don't hold Godly values or want conservative judges in place which directly affect this nation.

(where does God tell you NOT to vote??) :scratch:As for how governments work and whether all that goes on in the government and it's agencies, I think if we see all these things when we get to Heaven, there'll be a few surprises in how these things work and the agenda of some at the top of these institutions! You may be shocked and disappointed if you knew all that goes on - even with Conservatives in places of power :eek: ;) Things may not have been so very different if another party had been in power.

Where did I say God told us not to vote? I don't think I did but please correct me if I'm wrong :) But where does it say we should be involved in all things political? I am saying that the church is too involved in politics when it should be doing what we are told to do!

What did Jesus say? "Go into all the world, be active in politics and spread democracy so the earth is ready for me to return" or "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation"?

[Nadiine]

How? Bush elected conservative supreme court judges who in turn have a conservative bent in their rulings which have a direct effect and rights in this country.

That's 1 way. He also overrules/vetos bills that liberals would promote which he's against as a conservative.
All these things combined help keep the leadership to a more conservative atmosphere, than having it lean heavily to liberalism which goes against what we know is scripturally right.

Each thing helps keep things from getting more liberal.
(that's my short answer)

In some cases, I'm quite happy some of you won't vote too. My faith is in God either way - I just do what God gives me the liberty to do in a democratic country.
I vote for the person I think is least harmful to God's Word.

[Nadiine]

Where does God tell you to vote?:P
That's my point :P
So why are they telling us NOT to?? as if it's evil? :scratch: :confused:

We're God's servants & vessels down here - He works thru us to accomplish things. In the explanation of his reason for claiming we shouldn't vote, I find it an erroneous position (biblically) becuz I can use that same excuse to sit on my hands & not do ANYTHING down here becuz "God is capable of doing it all Himself".

That may be true, but He CHOOSES to use us in His methods & plans.
:wave:

[Izdaari]

I like Mr. Jim and Albion~. Jim, you shared a very wise perspective in response, and Albion, you are very honest about your views.

This is what I find dangerously wrong with the world today, and coincidentally it's our own country that has become dangerously, suggestively to blame for much of it-You have hoards of Christians out there pouring to voting booths because their pastor says they have to vote anti-abortion, and they're right to do so. At the same time, many of those same people don't understand how to accept the fact that 80% of today's porn stars were molested as children and how it's reasonable to assume that a 15yr old girl having grown up in a single family home that may have been molested as a child having again been raised in a home totally absent of any Christian/Biblical understanding might go forth with having an abortion with little conscious, not to mention understanding of what she's doing.
Well, mccarty, this much I think we can agree on: pastors ought not be telling their congregations how to vote... and that's just as true whether the pastor is of liberal or conservative views. And yes, my experience is that happens at least as much in liberal churches as it does in conservative ones. It ought not to happen at all. Churches have God's work to do, but that work doesn't consist of changing our secular rulers.

But still, I think it's right that Christians should participate in government, since this nation has been blessed with a system of government based on citizen participation. But we should do it with our best judgment as citizens and as our consciences dictate, not because we think we're doing the will of God, and not because we put our trust in government rather than in God.

Now, my understanding of history and economics, and in general of how the world works, and of how God designed humans to function within it, leads me to a different political conclusion than yours, and for that matter to a different one than Nadiine's, but I don't fool myself that by voting a certain way, I'm doing the will of God. I'm simply exercising my best judgment as a citizen. I'm perfectly fine with my Christian brothers and sisters, and also people of other faiths or of none, doing the same, even when their judgment tells them something different than mine.

:groupray:

[Gregged]

How? Bush elected conservative supreme court judges who in turn have a conservative bent in their rulings which have a direct effect and rights in this country.

That's 1 way. He also overrules/vetos bills that liberals would promote which he's against as a conservative.
All these things combined help keep the leadership to a more conservative atmosphere, than having it lean heavily to liberalism which goes against what we know is scripturally right.

Each thing helps keep things from getting more liberal.
(that's my short answer)

In some cases, I'm quite happy some of you won't vote too. My faith is in God either way - I just do what God gives me the liberty to do in a democratic country.
I vote for the person I think is least harmful to God's Word.

I think you should also look, without your political bias or rose tinted glassed, at the number of things that have happened which are not for your good and certainly aren't for the overall good - or decisions where God has been sought either.... Even by Conservatives! :eek: Can you believe it?! ;)




That's my point :P
So why are they telling us NOT to?? as if it's evil? :scratch: :confused:

We're God's servants & vessels down here - He works thru us to accomplish things. In the explanation of his reason for claiming we shouldn't vote, I find it an erroneous position (biblically) becuz I can use that same excuse to sit on my hands & not do ANYTHING down here becuz "God is capable of doing it all Himself".

That may be true, but He CHOOSES to use us in His methods & plans.
:wave:

Oh well... I guess people who live in non-Democratic countries can't be in God's will then, or can't see God working in their country because they don't have (so called) Christian leadership... They can't even hope to be God's hands and feet because they could never get positions in politics. Right? Wrong!!! As I said before, we are God's hands and feet to tell others the Gospel. The Bible doesn't say "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring democracy and a good political manifesto"!!!!!

I wish you would have answered some of the other questions raised in other posts....

[MrJim]

How? Bush elected conservative supreme court judges who in turn have a conservative bent in their rulings which have a direct effect and rights in this country.

That's 1 way. He also overrules/vetos bills that liberals would promote which he's against as a conservative.
All these things combined help keep the leadership to a more conservative atmosphere, than having it lean heavily to liberalism which goes against what we know is scripturally right.

Each thing helps keep things from getting more liberal.
(that's my short answer)

In some cases, I'm quite happy some of you won't vote too. My faith is in God either way - I just do what God gives me the liberty to do in a democratic country.
I vote for the person I think is least harmful to God's Word.

You raise some valid points:

1. Liberty~as I've stated earlier if you feel led to be active in this way then do so~I'm not convinced that it is sin to be engaged in the process, but rather that it really isn't profitable.

2. Stemming the tide of liberalism/Godlessness~one example that is pointed to often is Wilberforce and his work to stop slavery in England~this can be a valid reason, and often I am tempted to vote for a prolife candidate only on that basis.

On these two points you have a valid case for your participation~while I may not agree with it I can't say that it is wrong to participate in the process. Remember though again, that even if your choice doesn't "win", the person elected is still God's appointed instrument of authority, and it's not that Satan won the election instead. Often these elections come across as "God's Man" vs. "Satan's Man" and that isn't the way to approach it. What could be determined (maybe?) is that if one elected is apparently not a preferred choice that perhaps God has some special plans for that official and for the nation...

Beware of the notion that if Christians could elect the "right" person in the White House, and the "right" people in Congress that we could have a literal Kingdom of God here on earth~that is the mentality and theology of some folks out there, and not necessarily Dominion Theology people.

[Albion]

Returning to the topic of the thread...

Has anyone else noticed that Huckabee came out of nowhere, won the Iowa caucuses big time, was acclaimed by the pollsters and media commentators...and is now relegated almost to being "yesterday's news," all in two or three days?

He seemed to me to be the forgotten debater in the ABC debates last night, and I can't find a single network commentator today who is not talking as though Romney could win, McCain is positioned to win, or Giuliani will strike back, etc. -- but nary an encouraging word about Huckabee.

There's little interest being shown in him one way or the other, although I did read one article in the paper about how he'd made a few damaging comments or moves at the end of the Iowa campaign that will probably take the luster off his candidacy, and there was one TV commentator who said that he has too little funding to succeed.

How fleeting is political fame!

[Izdaari]

I'm not really paying too much attention to what the "chattering classes" say about Huckabee. They're too out of tune with the voters. But I will be watching the polls (especially Rasmussen and Zogby, the ones with the best records of accurate predictions) and his results in the coming primaries. He likely won't score big in NH, but SC is coming up.

Back to the polls for a sec:

Sunday, January 06, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows John McCain and Mike Huckabee tied in the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination. Nationally, it’s McCain 19%, Mike Huckabee 19%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, Mitt Romney 15%, and Fred Thompson at 13%. Ron Paul attracts 4% support (see recent daily numbers (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history)).Right now Huck is tied for 1st place nationally. Those who discount his chances do so at their peril.

Futures markets are another interesting indicator:

Iowa was the first election test for our new service—RasmussenMarkets.com (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/rasmussen_reports_announces_launch_of_rasmussenmarkets_com). The markets accurately projected Obama and Huckabee as the winners.

Rasmussen Markets data currently shows Obama with a 60.6 (http://rasmussen.intrade.com/aav2/trading/contractInfo.jsp?conDetailID=68180) % chance of winning the Democratic nomination while Clinton has a 37.9 (http://rasmussen.intrade.com/aav2/trading/contractInfo.jsp?conDetailID=68178) % chance.

Among Republicans, the numbers are McCain 33.3 (http://rasmussen.intrade.com/aav2/trading/contractInfo.jsp?conDetailID=68214) %, Giuliani 31.5 (http://rasmussen.intrade.com/aav2/trading/contractInfo.jsp?conDetailID=68217) %, Mike Huckabee 16.2 (http://rasmussen.intrade.com/aav2/trading/contractInfo.jsp?conDetailID=68216) %, Mitt Romney 12.5 (http://rasmussen.intrade.com/aav2/trading/contractInfo.jsp?conDetailID=68215) %, and Fred Thompson 2.7 (http://rasmussen.intrade.com/aav2/trading/contractInfo.jsp?conDetailID=84651) %. Numbers in this paragraph are from a prediction market, not a poll. RasmussenMarkets.com is a “futures market” that harnesses competitive passions to becomes a reliable leading indicator of upcoming events. Using a trading format where traders "buy and sell" candidates, issues, and news features, the markets correctly projected both Obama and Huckabee as the winners in Iowa.Both of the above quoted from http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[twistedsketch]

How? Bush elected conservative supreme court judges who in turn have a conservative bent in their rulings which have a direct effect and rights in this country.

That's 1 way. He also overrules/vetos bills that liberals would promote which he's against as a conservative.
All these things combined help keep the leadership to a more conservative atmosphere, than having it lean heavily to liberalism which goes against what we know is scripturally right.

Each thing helps keep things from getting more liberal.
(that's my short answer)
I'm a conservative and all, but that just doesn't do it for me. What you mention does have some social value, but none of that is spreading the Gospel. Spreading the Gospel and changing the culture is something the CHURCH should do, not the government. In the republican system that we have, electing Christian officials and changing various laws should be a reflection of the change we are making in our society rather than trying to change society from the top down. Furthermore, the Gospel did spread long before the first Christian prefect or governor in the days of the Roman Empire. It's also spreading in non-Christian countries today, where the vast majority of those in power are not Christians. So we have no excuse! We should be converting people like our persecuted brothers and sisters are. Christian rulers are nice to have, but they are not useful for making true converts. Not in a free society.

[Sunrise78]

Beware of the notion that if Christians could elect the "right" person in the White House, and the "right" people in Congress that we could have a literal Kingdom of God here on earth~that is the mentality and theology of some folks out there, and not necessarily Dominion Theology people.

I completely agree with you on this. I think that this is the mentality of a lot of Christians in America, and I think that they misplace their efforts. Jesus Himself said that His kingdom was not of this world (at least not in this present age). God has to change people's hearts - Christianity (or even morality generally) cannot ultimately be legislated if the majority does not want it to be (and I think this is what we are increasingly seeing).

[Simon_Templar]

Christians have a responsability to take care of the trust that God has given us in this nation. We also have a responsability since are part of this nation to do our best to see that it doesn't do evil.

On candidates, My first choices are Fred Thompson and Ron Paul. Huckabee's history shows one of two things, either he is a liberal on many issues, or he is incapable of standing up to a liberal legislature and fighting for his own beliefs... either way it doesn't speak that well for him as president.
The fact that he is endorsed by the NEA and lists the head of the CFR (one of the biggest one worlders) as a foreign policy advisor, also do not bode well.

After watching the debate last night, I have to say they are all talking a great game. If only we could actually trust that they would actually be the men they talk themselves up to be, almost anyone of them would be good.

[Nadiine]

I'm voting Fred Thompson....

2nd choice is Gulliani.

I heard Rush Limbaugh & Thompson define Huckabee's overly liberal fiscal views & principles and I'm not interested.
He may be a Christian, but that doesn't mean he has wisdom to lead while using a liberal worldview.

No thanks.
It's always been my concern that if Huckabee won the Repub. primary, that he'd end up losing to Hillary or Obama becuz he won't win the independant, swing or democratic votes anyways.

To me it needs to be Gulliani or Thompson... or even McCain (3rd choice - altho I dislike him for his need to be liked by everyone. He's more a follower than leader).

[Simon_Templar]

I'm voting Fred Thompson....

2nd choice is Gulliani.

I heard Rush Limbaugh & Thompson define Huckabee's overly liberal fiscal views & principles and I'm not interested.
He may be a Christian, but that doesn't mean he has wisdom to lead while using a liberal worldview.

No thanks.
It's always been my concern that if Huckabee won the Repub. primary, that he'd end up losing to Hillary or Obama becuz he won't win the independant, swing or democratic votes anyways.

To me it needs to be Gulliani or Thompson... or even McCain (3rd choice - altho I dislike him for his need to be liked by everyone. He's more a follower than leader).
Gulliani's campaign strategy is backfiring big time, he's dropped like a rock in the polls.

Its probably also a combination with the fact that he always just says the same things over and over.

[Albion]

I'm voting Fred Thompson....

2nd choice is Gulliani.

I heard Rush Limbaugh & Thompson define Huckabee's overly liberal fiscal views & principles and I'm not interested.
He may be a Christian, but that doesn't mean he has wisdom to lead while using a liberal worldview.

No thanks.
It's always been my concern that if Huckabee won the Repub. primary, that he'd end up losing to Hillary or Obama becuz he won't win the independant, swing or democratic votes anyways.

To me it needs to be Gulliani or Thompson... or even McCain (3rd choice - altho I dislike him for his need to be liked by everyone. He's more a follower than leader).

Very interesting, Nadiine. That is just about identical to the way I see it at this time.

With Fred Thompson, at least we vote our principles. With most of the others we have to compromise them somewhat, but with Huckabee I can't think of a single thing that recommends him which one of the others doesn't also have but better.

[Nadiine]

Very interesting, Nadiine. That is just about identical to the way I see it at this time.

With Fred Thompson, at least we vote our principles. With most of the others we have to compromise them somewhat, but with Huckabee I can't think of a single thing that recommends him which one of the others doesn't also have but better.
:thumbsup:

My family members feel the same too (also Christians).
With Thompson I agree with you, we have the least to compromise.
I dislike Gulliani's liberal social views, but I see nothing that's going to change anyways as far as social - his hawkishness is necessary for the times we live in & He's experienced in it as well.

I personally like Thompson so much tho (I mean as a person), that I actually DREAD if he wins becuz the office is SO hard on anyone - they age so fast; it must take such a toll.
I wish the office on noone, but we do need someone.

[Nadiine]

Gulliani's campaign strategy is backfiring big time, he's dropped like a rock in the polls.

Its probably also a combination with the fact that he always just says the same things over and over.
Ya... it's a shame too. I really do like his politics & attitude so much.
He's also got tons of good experience. I wouldn't mind him - Huckabee... sad to say, I want him out and FAST.
I had no idea he was so fiscally liberal till I heard Rush & Fred the past 2 days. I almost croaked when I heard all that.
:swoon:

I can't put trust in people - so my prayer is that God give us a good leader as He sees fit.
:bow: :prayer:

[Albion]

:thumbsup:

My family members feel the same too (also Christians).
With Thompson I agree with you, we have the least to compromise.
I dislike Gulliani's liberal social views, but I see nothing that's going to change anyways as far as social - his hawkishness is necessary for the times we live in & He's experienced in it as well.

I personally like Thompson so much tho (I mean as a person), that I actually DREAD if he wins becuz the office is SO hard on anyone - they age so fast; it must take such a toll.
I wish the office on noone, but we do need someone.

Unfortunately for Thompson, he has the look of an old man. He's younger than Ron Paul and McClain, of course, yet far fewer people are making old guy jokes about McCain or saying he's too old. And Fred's not much older than some of the others; he just has that look.

As for Huckabee, what I'd like to know from anyone is this: What does he have, other than a sense of humor, that cannot be found in one or more of the other candidates? And note that when it comes to endorsements--which ought to count for something among us Conservatives--he doesn't have them. Oh yes, he has the endorsement of the founder of the Minutemen, but that man even admits that Huckabee's not on the same page with him, just willing to listen (?).

Human Events magazine endorsed Thompson. National Review endorsed Romney. Bay Buchanan works for Romney. Mary Matalin works for Thompson. Sen. Brownback endorsed McCain. And Huckabee? Oh yeh, Chuck Norris. Rudy Giuliani even got Steve Forbes' nod on account of conservative economic policies.

[Nadiine]

Unfortunately for Thompson, he has the look of an old man. He's younger than Ron Paul and McClain, of course, yet far fewer people are making old guy jokes about McCain or saying he's too old. And Fred's not much older than some of the others; he just has that look.
LOL, well I just learned something new... I had no idea Thompson was younger than the other 2!!!
(yep, he DOES look about as old as Moses... poor guy).

His wife is alot younger and I've seen her interviewed a few times, she's got a wonderful presence about her; very mature, very balanced. I was so impressed with her character. (the wife is very important too... I remember John Kerry's wife during his campaign... what a nitemare! I was just appauled at her big yap & lack of control of her emotions).

As for Huckabee, what I'd like to know from anyone is this: What does he have, other than a sense of humor, that cannot be found in one or more of the other candidates? And note that when it comes to endorsements--which ought to count for something among us Conservatives--he doesn't have them. Oh yes, he has the endorsement of the founder of the Minutemen, but that man even admits that Huckabee's not on the same page with him, just willing to listen (?).
Well, he seems to be the one that's most "Christian"... like it actually means something to him & he's not afraid to promote Christ.
(this always backfires in this country tho becuz they lose the swing & independants who lean moderate)...

Errgo, my push for Thompson, Gulliani or McCain - the others are more apt to swing their way if they dislike Hillary or Obama (whichever gets in).

Thanks for the posts, interesting. :wave:

[Simon_Templar]

Huckabee is a great speaker and a great politician. If you just listen to him in the debates and on forums, he sounds great.

the problem comes when you look at his record, and compare what he says with reality.

[Simon_Templar]

I actually really like Ron Paul. Of all the candidates, he and Fred Thompson are the only two who stand on their convictions. All the others adjust to fit what they think the public opinion wants to hear.

Ron Paul is probably the best candidate in terms of domestic and economic policy. He is about the only one who is talking about the real situation of our economy. He has a lot of good points on foreign policy as well, but unfortunately he presents an image of isolationism and passivism, which despite his good points is dangerous.

The irony is its the very fact that he is unapologetic about speaking the truth regarding our economy and domestic policy that has gotten him marginalized as the kooky candidate.

Also, while he speaks accurately, he isn't the best communicator. He puts too much confidence in the intelligence and common sense of his audience :)

[twistedsketch]

The irony is its the very fact that he is unapologetic about speaking the truth regarding our economy and domestic policy that has gotten him marginalized as the kooky candidate.
No, it's his hardline anti-War On Terror stance. If he was more like Giuliani or McCain on this issue, he would be nigh-unstoppable.

[Simon_Templar]

No, it's his hardline anti-War On Terror stance. If he was more like Giuliani or McCain on this issue, he would be nigh-unstoppable.
that makes him unpopular with neo-cons and many conservatives, however, its when he talks about the fact that our economy is about to collapse and that our nation is bankrupt, and the north american union etc, that people roll their eyes and dismiss him out of hand.

[Albion]

No, it's his hardline anti-War On Terror stance. If he was more like Giuliani or McCain on this issue, he would be nigh-unstoppable.

I think there's a lot of truth to that analysis.

He wouldn't even have to have been a supporter of the war in the first place, but just not saying what he is about the current situation overseas (need to have no presence at all in the Middle East, Iran was probably right and we the liars in the recent speedboat confrontation, there's no reason to think an Iran with a nuclear bomb would pose any thread to peace, etc.).

[Izdaari]

I voted for Ron Paul in 1988 when he ran on the Libertarian Party ticket. If his foreign policy stance were not so radical, I would support him, since I think he's really the only one telling it like it is on domestic issues. But his extreme foreign policy is a deal breaker; it seems naive and dangerous in today's world.

[rrguy]

I thought that about Ron Paul at first. Yet he is the only one bringing up the issues where we are getting in over our head!! He is about choosing your battles vs getting involved realize you had incorrect info & are into never ending expensive battle. If you realize the Middle east is not the USA yet that there are people who would react the same way if they did the same to us!! The more you review our history of giving weapons to are now enemies & creating enemies its hard to argue we got involved where it suited us but left countries like Rwanda have thousands KILLED??? I was proud to serve our country yet what most people don't realize what its like being in Iraq as a member of the Military.

[rrguy]

It scares me so many candidates have received gifts in the $100,000 & the giver receive some favor of course unrelated? UHH OK SURE?? How can you trust them not to sell out Yelling I am a Christian or not once they become a President?? Ron Paul has not thats why he brings up lost jobs to Importing, The only one raising the point of the lost value in the $ & borrowing money from China?

[rrguy]

I think there's a lot of truth to that analysis.

there's no reason to think an Iran with a nuclear bomb would pose any thread to peace, etc.).


I did not hear him say that? He replied the situation would be evaluated.

[Albion]

I did not hear him say that? He replied the situation would be evaluated.

You didn't say so, but I think you are referring to the South Carolina debate of the other night. I was not speaking only to what was said there. The comment about Iran is (as I recall) what he said in an earlier speech or debate.

[salida]

Huckabee isn't my choice because he isn't conservative enough and he will give illegals benefits like he did in Arkansas. No Thanks!

[Vambram]

Huckabee isn't my choice because he isn't conservative enough and he will give illegals benefits like he did in Arkansas. No Thanks!
Huckabee is more conservative than any other Republican currently still in the mix for the nomination. As for the benefits given to illegal immigrants in Arkansas when he was the governor there, well, in your opinion, what would be the Christian thing to do for the children .... children of those illegal immigrants?

[twistedsketch]

that makes him unpopular with neo-cons and many conservatives, however, its when he talks about the fact that our economy is about to collapse and that our nation is bankrupt, and the north american union etc, that people roll their eyes and dismiss him out of hand.
Those neocons and conservatives you speak of make up the base of the Republican vote. A candidate that speaks to true conservative values across the board would be hard to beat. While it was very close with Bush, remember he did get re-elected. This would not have happened had the conservatives stayed home. Also, his domestic message speaks to core conservative principles - small government, free markets, national sovereignty, federalism, Constitutional rights, and the sanctity of life. If you speak to those values, you will draw people in to at very least considering your stances. I think there are enough right-leaning voters in this country that would give his views a chance if not for his foreign policy. Furthermore, it would not be hard for him to garner one-issue Christian votes in the general election since he is pro-life and has a traditional understanding of the First Amendment.

I think there's a lot of truth to that analysis.

He wouldn't even have to have been a supporter of the war in the first place, but just not saying what he is about the current situation overseas (need to have no presence at all in the Middle East, Iran was probably right and we the liars in the recent speedboat confrontation, there's no reason to think an Iran with a nuclear bomb would pose any thread to peace, etc.).
Right. Who knows, if he ran in the year 2000, he might have been elected. Enough people were sick of Clinton's foreign policy, and we thought we had no enemies to crush.

[twistedsketch]

Huckabee is more conservative than any other Republican currently still in the mix for the nomination. As for the benefits given to illegal immigrants in Arkansas when he was the governor there, well, in your opinion, what would be the Christian thing to do for the children .... children of those illegal immigrants?
His record of spending and commutations indicates otherwise. And what he did for those children wasn't necessarily the Christian thing to do for them. At least not as Christian as what Giuliani did for the illegal children in New York City.

[rrguy]

You didn't say so, but I think you are referring to the South Carolina debate of the other night. I was not speaking only to what was said there. The comment about Iran is (as I recall) what he said in an earlier speech or debate.

Well from all that I have seen him speak, including you tube, I have not heard that? He did mention we will be broke either way if we don't change our policy. I have heard what he said close to that & I thought he explained he does not see them as a any of a bigger threat than some of the other countries. If you think about it Russia is just as capable of selling what it has to anyone. With our track record we are probably at the top of the list as a threat to the middle east.

[Vambram]

His record of spending and commutations indicates otherwise. And what he did for those children wasn't necessarily the Christian thing to do for them. At least not as Christian as what Giuliani did for the illegal children in New York City.
Huckabee's record of state spending while governor actually shows a success, because the state HAD to raise more money when federal money was greatly reduced. The voters in Arkansas and the people of Arkansas knew that there were legitimate services that the government needed to raise money for, and highways and roads that needed to be fixed. Well, guess what, Huckabee's administration did just what the people of his state wanted, raised up enough money through taxes, and then did good and proper spending with that money to fix problems in the state.

[Simon_Templar]

Its not popular among conservatives and particularly neo-cons, and I don't agree with it 100% but the fact is Ron Paul has a lot of good points on foreign policy that need to be considered.

I don't think the US deserved to be attacked in 9/11 or that our support of Israel brought it on us etc. However, the facts remain that we have created many of our own problems through meddling and trying to play too many puppets. Thinking that we can control everyone and everything and that we should.

I think that we absolutely should continue to support Israel as our ally. However, Ron Paul raises another good point, are we really that good of an ally when we give 3 times as much aid to Arab states, avowed mortal enemies of Israel as we do to Israel, and we constantly pressure and meddle in Israel's afairs trying to force them to follow our foreign policy?

I have no problem taking out Iraq, however, it is a very good question why we are literally bankrupting our country and continuing to lose lives there? The neo-cons have made it a near treasonous action to suggest that we are not going to accomplish how we have defined success in Iraq, but the fact is its very unlikely that we will. Even if we do get a stable government in place, its almost certainly going to tople or be voluntarily replaced with an Islamic regime the shortly after our forces leave. That is of course assuming that the minute we leave Iran and Turkey don't simply section up Iraq and take it for themselves which is also a very real possability.

Neo-cons are not only destroying the republican party and conservativism in america, they are in very real danger of bringing this country to its knees simply because of foolishness and lack of understanding.

John McCain made the statement in the last debate that its not our military presense there which is the issue but the number of casualties. He compared it to s. korea. This made it fairly clear to me that he realizes the fact that american military presense there will be required very long term in order to maintain any kind of stability once it is achieved, IF it is achieved.

The problem is we simply can't afford it. Here again we go back to Ron Paul. He was absolutely right in saying that in short order all of these questions are going to be moot because we are simply going to run out of money. Our economy right now is on the edge and if we don't stop spending like a drunken sailor, within a matter of years, it will collapse.

Its to the point already where the economic problems looming within the next 3-5 years are so bad that I'm not sure its even possible to avoid an economic melt down.

Its very hard to predict even the near future with any accuracy, but if things continue as they are, I expect that within 5 years we will see a significant economic restructuring which will be precipitated by a meltdown of our economy.
Again, if things don't change, that will probably be the final impetus which establishes the north american economic union and issues a new currency similar to the Euro.

I don't mean this in a conspiratorial sense exactly, I'm not suggesting that there is a group of all powerful people controling everything in the world... but the fact is that history moves with purpose. People sometimes direct it, or try to, but it isn't random.
I don't know how to phrase it exactly, but I think that we are being manuevered in such a way that we as conservatives are actually going to be responsible for our own downfall.
If a raving liberal was in office, we would never have supported things like the patriot act, or the vast expansion of powers involved in things like the homeland security department. Even the language involved is right out of 1984.
When the oklahoma city bombing occured I remember many conservatives talking about how the government could and might use such disasters as excuses to remove liberties and to expand their powers. Now I find that it is conservatives who are doing and calling for those very ideas.

I'm not suggesting that our government was responsible for 9/11, nor am I suggesting that we should do nothing about it. I do think, however, that we need to take a long hard look at what we are doing and start exercising some understanding about our situation.

Honestly, though, I don't think we will and my personal opinion is that we conservatives will tie our own noose simply for lack of understanding.

[Simon_Templar]

RE: Huckabee

To me the issue is not even that the people in the state wanted to raise taxes.

There are plenty of democrats around who want to raise taxes (and looking at Huckabee's state from his own mouth 90% of the elected officials are democrats). Even if the people wanted, getting someone in the white house right now who simply goes along with what the legislature wants or what even the people want could be an utter and complete disaster.

The fact is that the vast majority of the people in this country do not understand our economic situation, or most of the other situations we are in for that matter. Whoever is elected is going to have to deal with a democrat majority for at least half of his first term, probabably more.
If we don't get someone in there who will fight tooth and nail to oppose the democrats and instead get them to do what he wants, there is a good chance that it will have serious reprecussions for us as a nation.
Wether you think Huckabee is a moderate to liberal on the role of government in solving problems and in spending and taxing is largely irrelevant. The facts show that he did those very things. Wether he did them willingly or grudgingly doesn't help him.
On the one hand it makes him either moderate/liberal himself, on the other it makes him incapable of standing up to the legislature and the democrats. Neither one is good for the future of the country.

[Vambram]

RE: Huckabee

To me the issue is not even that the people in the state wanted to raise taxes.

There are plenty of democrats around who want to raise taxes (and looking at Huckabee's state from his own mouth 90% of the elected officials are democrats). Even if the people wanted, getting someone in the white house right now who simply goes along with what the legislature wants or what even the people want could be an utter and complete disaster.

The fact is that the vast majority of the people in this country do not understand our economic situation, or most of the other situations we are in for that matter. Whoever is elected is going to have to deal with a democrat majority for at least half of his first term, probabably more.
If we don't get someone in there who will fight tooth and nail to oppose the democrats and instead get them to do what he wants, there is a good chance that it will have serious reprecussions for us as a nation.
Wether you think Huckabee is a moderate to liberal on the role of government in solving problems and in spending and taxing is largely irrelevant. The facts show that he did those very things. Wether he did them willingly or grudgingly doesn't help him.
On the one hand it makes him either moderate/liberal himself, on the other it makes him incapable of standing up to the legislature and the democrats. Neither one is good for the future of the country.
So then, if you were the governor of Arkansas, in a state which had lots of problems that needed money to fix those problems... such as roads and highways badly in need of repair, then how would you, Simon_Templar, find the money to pay for those problems to be fixed??

[Simon_Templar]

So then, if you were the governor of Arkansas, in a state which had lots of problems that needed money to fix those problems... such as roads and highways badly in need of repair, then how would you, Simon_Templar, find the money to pay for those problems to be fixed??
There are more ways than just raising taxes to get more revenue and to make money available in the budget.

The fact is that Huckabee in his campaigns for governor ran on promises to lower or eliminate certain taxes and then when he was elected, he immediately went back on the promises he made during his campaigns, and opposed the very tax cuts he said he'd make. This happened more than once.

People who defend Huckabee talk only about the roads and a little about the schools. Well the fact is he increased spending on a lot more than just the roads and the schools.

Under Huckabee (and often with his support) welfare spending in Arkansas nearly doubled, while transportation and education spending only increased about by half.
Further, under his governorship the number of participants in welfare programs balooned, while Huckabee opposed propositions to ID welfare recipients in order to prevent illegal aliens from receiving welfare as unchristian and inhumane.

Whats worse is that he is pretty much lying about all this now.

As far as I can tell, Huckabee appears to be Jimmy Carter part II, with the exception that Huckabee is smarter and a better speaker.

[LonesomeTexan]

to be completely honest with yall, I've lost all hope that a conservative will win in 2008. None of the top tier candidates running are true complete conservatives. I reckon I will throw my vote away by voting Alan Keyes, but I don't really care. When I look my maker in the face, he is the only candidate I could vote for with a clear conscience. I do believe we are quickly approaching the end times. I only hope that Jesus returns soon. Our world is heading down the drain. I can see it clearly, yet people think I'm the crazy one.

[Albion]

I reckon I will throw my vote away by voting Alan Keyes, but I don't really care. When I look my maker in the face, he is the only candidate I could vote for with a clear conscience.

and him you'll have to write-in.

Otherwise, I think a lot of people agree with the basics of what you wrote in your post about the current situation.

[Simon_Templar]

to be completely honest with yall, I've lost all hope that a conservative will win in 2008. None of the top tier candidates running are true complete conservatives. I reckon I will throw my vote away by voting Alan Keyes, but I don't really care. When I look my maker in the face, he is the only candidate I could vote for with a clear conscience. I do believe we are quickly approaching the end times. I only hope that Jesus returns soon. Our world is heading down the drain. I can see it clearly, yet people think I'm the crazy one.
I think that Fred Thompson and Ron Paul are both good conservative candidates, even if I don't agree with them on everything.

However, neither one has a very good shot at this point.

[twistedsketch]

Its not popular among conservatives and particularly neo-cons, and I don't agree with it 100% but the fact is Ron Paul has a lot of good points on foreign policy that need to be considered.
Ron Paul does have some good points, and I had more credence for them before 9/11. But even before then, I believed that non-interventionism was something we needed to phase into. Ron Paul just wants to yank us to where he wants us to be - which is interesting, given that even he believes we should phase out of big government on the domestic side. But we must remember, this is 2007, not 1999. It's one thing to order an immediate pullout of troops fighting a fight that isn't our fight - from Kosovo, for example. It's another completely to immediately pull out of a fight that IS our fight - a fight with religious extremists who have declared a holy war on our country, and who have struck it. The only acceptable way to bring our troops home is in victory and with honor. Before we can even think about switching to non-interventionism, we must break our terrorist enemies.

Another point about Paul's foreign policy, which is minor - Withdrawing from the UN is a stupid idea. I don't like the UN, it is certainly corrupt and in many ways useless. But it's not going away, and it will still be there in New York City doing and failing to do the same things as it is now. And the way elections in our country go, we will surely elect a liberal Democrat who will bring us back into the UN with our tails between our legs. And you can be sure we will not have the power and influence then that we do now. We will not be let back on the Security Council. China, Russia, and the European Union have too many big plans for that.

[JPPT1974]

Huckabee I think seems to be the real deal!

[Simon_Templar]

Ron Paul does have some good points, and I had more credence for them before 9/11. But even before then, I believed that non-interventionism was something we needed to phase into. Ron Paul just wants to yank us to where he wants us to be - which is interesting, given that even he believes we should phase out of big government on the domestic side. But we must remember, this is 2007, not 1999. It's one thing to order an immediate pullout of troops fighting a fight that isn't our fight - from Kosovo, for example. It's another completely to immediately pull out of a fight that IS our fight - a fight with religious extremists who have declared a holy war on our country, and who have struck it. The only acceptable way to bring our troops home is in victory and with honor. Before we can even think about switching to non-interventionism, we must break our terrorist enemies.

Another point about Paul's foreign policy, which is minor - Withdrawing from the UN is a stupid idea. I don't like the UN, it is certainly corrupt and in many ways useless. But it's not going away, and it will still be there in New York City doing and failing to do the same things as it is now. And the way elections in our country go, we will surely elect a liberal Democrat who will bring us back into the UN with our tails between our legs. And you can be sure we will not have the power and influence then that we do now. We will not be let back on the Security Council. China, Russia, and the European Union have too many big plans for that.
I would like victory with honor as much as the next patriot. However, I think we need to face up to the fact that the victory conditions we have set for ourselves are unrealistic.

The Iraqi people are not going to become a little america no matter how long we stay there.

The neo-con movement in the US has foist upon us the myth that freedom and democracy will some how magically change people into westerners. This just isn't going to happen.

We MIGHT succeed in setting up a relatively stable government. The chances that it will last once we leave are almost nil.

Same thing in afghanistan. We can depose the taliban and give the country back to the people, and in very short order, its going to be pretty much the same as it was before.

The problem here is that democracy, and "freedom" don't change people. They don't make people good, and they won't transform people magically into westerners, or into our allies.

Conservatives keep talking about victory with honor, and staying the course, but to what end? What IS victory at this point?

One of the critical rules of war, which I had hoped we had learned from Vietnam, is that you never get involved in a war that doesn't have clearly defined, achievable objectives.

When you go to war without them, it invariably becomes a interminable mess that ends badly. It also becomes an excuse for a government to expand its powers and do a great many things that we would normally never allow.

[Albion]

Huckabee I think seems to be the real deal!

If you like him, that's great. It's your choice, after all. But please, "the real deal?" This guy changes his stances according to how the winds blow, and won't even admit it when challenged. At least Romney (who has become somewhat famous for changing) admits to changing his mind, and we can believe his explanations or not.

[rrguy]

Ron Paul does have some good points, and I had more credence for them before 9/11. But even before then, I believed that non-interventionism was something we needed to phase into. Ron Paul just wants to yank us to where he wants us to be - which is interesting, given that even he believes we should phase out of big government on the domestic side. But we must remember, this is 2007, not 1999. It's one thing to order an immediate pullout of troops fighting a fight that isn't our fight - from Kosovo, for example. It's another completely to immediately pull out of a fight that IS our fight - a fight with religious extremists who have declared a holy war on our country, and who have struck it. The only acceptable way to bring our troops home is in victory and with honor. Before we can even think about switching to non-interventionism, we must break our terrorist enemies.

Another point about Paul's foreign policy, which is minor - Withdrawing from the UN is a stupid idea. I don't like the UN, it is certainly corrupt and in many ways useless. But it's not going away, and it will still be there in New York City doing and failing to do the same things as it is now. And the way elections in our country go, we will surely elect a liberal Democrat who will bring us back into the UN with our tails between our legs. And you can be sure we will not have the power and influence then that we do now. We will not be let back on the Security Council. China, Russia, and the European Union have too many big plans for that.


Good point, but I think he has expressed that he will do things as soon as possible & mentions things won't happen in 24hrs etc.. Is what I got from him? He said himself that we need to evaluate the situation before we go to war. Its hard to argue we had all the correct information taken into account when we have gotten involved in the past. Ironic now how Christians are in danger now more than ever in Iraq & no one is protecting them?

The UN, right now we don't have any more say than some of the so called radical countries. Not sure if being involved in a corrupt org is good or not? I hear your point.

[rrguy]

If you like him, that's great. It's your choice, after all. But please, "the real deal?" This guy changes his stances according to how the winds blow, and won't even admit it when challenged. At least Romney (who has become somewhat famous for changing) admits to changing his mind, and we can believe his explanations or not.

I can't argue there. Like the one woman interviewed. Reporter mentioned you are still undecided? Of course I am the candidates seem to be just as undecided? lol

[rrguy]

I would like victory with honor as much as the next patriot. However, I think we need to face up to the fact that the victory conditions we have set for ourselves are unrealistic.

The Iraqi people are not going to become a little america no matter how long we stay there.

The neo-con movement in the US has foist upon us the myth that freedom and democracy will some how magically change people into westerners. This just isn't going to happen.

We MIGHT succeed in setting up a relatively stable government. The chances that it will last once we leave are almost nil.

Same thing in afghanistan. We can depose the taliban and give the country back to the people, and in very short order, its going to be pretty much the same as it was before.

The problem here is that democracy, and "freedom" don't change people. They don't make people good, and they won't transform people magically into westerners, or into our allies.

Conservatives keep talking about victory with honor, and staying the course, but to what end? What IS victory at this point?

One of the critical rules of war, which I had hoped we had learned from Vietnam, is that you never get involved in a war that doesn't have clearly defined, achievable objectives.

When you go to war without them, it invariably becomes a interminable mess that ends badly. It also becomes an excuse for a government to expand its powers and do a great many things that we would normally never allow.

Amen to that. How does the Military feel? Must mean something when Ron Paul has the most Military contributions?

[Izdaari]

Some time has passed since this thread started. And realistically, both parties are down to two finalists. On the Republican side, only McCain and Romney have much of a shot at it. On the Democratic side, either Clinton or Obama will be the nominee. That's not official yet, but it might as well be. For Giuliani, Huckabee, Paul or Edwards to stage a comeback is technically possible, but it would take a miracle. Well... we believe in miracles, but they don't usually happen in politics.

I would rank those four in this order of preference:

1) Romney
2) McCain
3) Obama
4) Clinton

What do you think?

[JPPT1974]

This is where I would rank them
Seemingly that Huckabee is playing
Under the radar now:

1. Clinton
2. McCain
3. Obama
4. Romney

[Albion]

Some time has passed since this thread started. And realistically, both parties are down to two finalists. On the Republican side, only McCain and Romney have much of a shot at it. On the Democratic side, either Clinton or Obama will be the nominee. That's not official yet, but it might as well be. For Giuliani, Huckabee, Paul or Edwards to stage a comeback is technically possible, but it would take a miracle. Well... we believe in miracles, but they don't usually happen in politics.

I would rank those four in this order of preference:

1) Romney
2) McCain
3) Obama
4) Clinton

What do you think?

I think your analysis is right, but since 2, 3, and 4 are not acceptable to me, and 1 is unlikely to get the nomination now...what are people like us to do?

[Izdaari]

I think your analysis is right, but since 2, 3, and 4 are not acceptable to me, and 1 is unlikely to get the nomination now...what are people like us to do?
At this point, I would recommend continuing to support Romney. McCain has the advantage for sure, but Romney still has a realistic shot at it. It's too soon to give up.

A further note: With one exception, my order of preference is from most conservative to least conservative. That exception is Obama, who is more liberal than Clinton, but whom I still prefer over her. Why this exception? Because IMHO Obama is sincere and idealistic, though too liberal by far and too inexperienced. Clinton is the Don of the Clinton "Arkansas Mafia", essentially evil incarnate. I see Clinton as ruthless and paranoid in a Nixonian way, capable of doing the greatest harm to the country. Obama OTOH I actually like, if only he weren't so darn liberal.

[Albion]

At this point, I would recommend continuing to support Romney. McCain has the advantage for sure, but Romney still has a realistic shot at it. It's too soon to give up.

A further note: With one exception, my order of preference is from most conservative to least conservative. That exception is Obama, who is more liberal than Clinton, but whom I still prefer over her. Why this exception? Because IMHO Obama is sincere and idealistic, though too liberal by far and too inexperienced. Clinton is the Don of the Clinton "Arkansas Mafia", essentially evil incarnate. I see Clinton as ruthless and paranoid in a Nixonian way, capable of doing the greatest harm to the country. Obama OTOH I actually like, if only he weren't so darn liberal.

Once again, there's nothing in your post that I'd disagree with, although I guess it's safe to say that I seriously doubt that Romney can get the nomination now. Of course, if he does, that settles a lot.

Incidentally, I wrote earlier (post #90) that anyone interested in Alan Keyes as one poster suggested would have to write him in on the ballot, and I was wrong about that. He is a candidate for the Republican nomination although the media seldom report it or his votes. While it was necessary to write him in, I believe, in SC, he is on the ballot in most of the Super Tuesday states voting February 5. And there is a movement to have him run as an independent after the major party primaries have ended.