Posted on 12/06/2011 7:09:02 AM PST by SeekAndFind
It’s up to you now. Use what you know about today’s media. About what sells into the common marketplace.
Same applies. If the candidate doesn’t meet my test, I don’t vote for them.
Lots of people on this site say they won’t vote for Romney, and I’m one of them. I’m deciding whether I could vote for Gingrich if he is the nominee.
That is not completely based on adultery, though that does go to issues surrounding his judgment that are completely valid. In the end, my vote will be about conservatism, and I have serious doubts about Gingrich’s conservatism.
And, save any argument you may have about ‘a third party vote is a vote for Obama’. It’s a vote for the candidate of my choice.
You have it the exact opposite. This very question IS the problem. We now have 32 year old "kids" living in their mom's basement.
OWS is entirely made up of 20+ "kids".
In the time of the revolution people did not die at 35. Do not be silly. Ben Franklin and other lived to be nearly 100. And going back to even ancient times, perhaps centuries. Yet the Jewish traditions were adulthood at 14.
Adolescence is a 20th century psychological invention, intentionally devised to dumb down a society.
The average college graduate today would FAIL the end of year test of the 18th century 1st grader in the New England Primer.
Our low birth rate, declining population, abortion, debt, immigration, 100% of all our problems can be traced back to this 20th century German Socialism called K-12 education.
And we all better be doing some fast growing up or our real children will curse our names as slaves wondering how we ever let things come to this point.
I had to go back and check my post... I said the MIDDLE AGES, as in plague, disease, filth, and pestilence middle ages.
Also, the original article was concerning sexual sins, not older kids living with their parents.
Now that’s out of the way, I don’t disagree with you. Our public schools have actually set progress in this country back more than it has moved us forward. Liberal progressivism and the more recent radical feminist movement have changed the landscape in this country for the worst.
Dennis has forever been preoccupied with sex and adultery. He’s had 3 wives. It must be a subject he has struggled with. He knows that a good person can stray.
Strong bold men often take decades to learn how to tame their libidos. These are sometimes the kind of men we have running for office. Adultery is not good but there are Many sins and no candidates who don’t sin in some way.
We can and have lived with leaders that have been unfaithful to their wi ES. to their wives
Just because all candidates sin, it doesn’t mean all sins are the same. My issue isn’t with Newt Gingrich so much as people who attempt to excuse sin. Plus, Mr. Prager insults Christians by making it look like we’re a bunch of unreasonable, narrow minded, holier-than-thou people. I’m sure there are some very few Christians who would make their decision about Newt based solely on his adultery, but I’ve never met anyone like that.
The Christians I know are generally very thoughtful people who reflect on the serious issues of life and morality. We understand sin and the good and evil forces waging war in men far better than unbelievers who often deny true good or evil even exist. Mr. Prager is ridiculous to suggest that we don’t evaluate the whole candidate, both good and bad, when we vote. Frankly, Newt Gingrich has quite a few problems beyond infidelity.
I haven’t heard in the past Dennis insulting Christians. If he did so here I denounce that. I do think there are some bad things about Gingrich that have nothingbto do with his infidelity, I agree. I personally do not look forward to voting for him.
I wish Cain could have been more forthright. We would have been very forgiving.
Mr. Prager carefully framed his words, but why would he even write an article like this if he wasn’t directing it at religious conservatives who he apparently believes focus too much on a nominee’s sins when voting? Like I wrote, that’s a veiled insult at religious voters for not being able to think beyond our religion. That is pretty much standard boilerplate from some nonreligious conservatives and nearly all liberals who pretty much see religious folk as irrational rubes.
Actually in the Middle Ages, at least in England, once people survived infancy, and women survived child bearing, they often lived to the 70s and even 80s. Barring plagues, of course. I also found that the nobility married very young - mid teens - beacause they were wealthy, but the working class - tradesmen and so on - had to wait until their mid to late 20s because they had to get the money together. A lot of new reserach using contemporaneous documents has turned up in the last decade or more. Very interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.