He's gonna need a bigger truck for sure... ; )
An oldie: "Chris Matthews Calls Hillary Clinton ‘Dukakis in a Dress’
Posted on 01/12/2008 7:44:27 PM PST by TornadoAlley3
Just days after announcing his campaign was literally moving to South Carolina, Fred Thompson is enjoying a remarkable spike in support across the state and from donors around the country. "From contributors on the internet, to voters packing his South Carolina events, even to pundits praising his debate performance, Fred Thompson is on a roll. We see the fight in South Carolina as critical. And we see Fred in fine fighting form,” declared campaign manager Bill Lacy. Key Stats and Information: The campaign has raised more than $300,000 online just since Fred’s dominating debate performance on Thursday night. Fifty-six percent of all online donors since Thursday night are first-time contributors. We have had 14,296 contributions since the Iowa Caucus with an average contribution of $98.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
He's gonna need a bigger truck for sure... ; )
An oldie: "Chris Matthews Calls Hillary Clinton ‘Dukakis in a Dress’
Why do you think I am bigot? I don’t think people should reject Fred simply because he doesn’t think church is important, but I draw the line at people suggesting that God doesn’t care.
And I don’t really draw that line, so much as interpret the Bible as drawing that line “And do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is”.
I think God will be the Judge of that, not you.
This is a political race, and support is based on political considerations. Religion is not a determining factor.
However, when someone tries to bring God in on one side, it is important to point out the ramifications of that.
There are some basic characteristics of Christianity, and one of them is that we are a fellowshipping religion, one in which the Body is greater than the parts.
I would vote for a guy who is a Christian but does not attend church. Churchgoing is not a qualification or requirement for public office.
But invoking God on the side of a man who does not attend church is what crosses that line, not my pointing out the fact, readily admitted by the candidate, that he does not go to church.
A lot of supporters here think it’s great he doesn’t go to church. I don’t. First because all Christians are called to build one another up to love and to good works, and it’s really hard to do that if you forsake the assembling of yourselves together.
Second because it’s not just him, it’s his wife and two small children, all of whom are missing out on the special blessings that come to those who fellowship together.
God didn’t instituted the church because he thought some people might need it — it’s an integral part of how we are to live in this world.
Once again, this is a religious thing, not a political one — but in this case, the poster MADE it a religious thing.
It was bad enough having supposedly good conservative christians making excuses for why it wasn’t important to join a fellowship of believers — and thus causing their brothers to stumble.
That's comparing apples to oranges. Futures markets generally deal with trends in commodity price that are predicted by perceived market availability up to several months in advance. Political polling, on the other hand, demonstrates trending that turns on events that have already occurred, and their future predictive capacities are even more limited by "market" volatility (i.e. the odds that something completely unexpected to upset the market is much greater in politics than in most commodity markets). This is why I think this InTrade nonsense is just that - nonsense, and have thought so all along.
Some points are more important than how people react to them.
So long as we stay in the political realm, I can vote for a Christian who doesn’t go to church. But don’t ask me to condone those who suggest that God is pleased with it, because that will cause our brothers to stumble. The bible is clear on this point, whether we like it or not.
When you make it religious, it must be answered in religious terms.
Actually, the original poster did, when they “praised God” for the fact that the surge was working, meaning that God was propelling Fred Thompson to victory.
I was just pointing out that the opinion wasn’t supported by the facts.
Actually, the original poster did, when they “praised God” for the fact that the surge was working, meaning that God was propelling Fred Thompson to victory.
I was just pointing out that the opinion wasn’t supported by the facts.
Having said that, I don’t think God is against him either. And in fact, God’s plan could be for Fred Thompson to be President, or not. God does not only ordain his people to be leaders.
Promotion cometh neither from the east, nor the west, nor the south; but from the Lord. God will decide who He wants in office, ultimately, even though we don't know who that may be right now and are each working to get our own guy into the office. You think God was pleased with Bill Clinton? Yet he occupied the office for 8 years. God has His own purposes, and His view is quite a bit wider than yours. Personally, I pray that God will have mercy upon this country and give us Fred Thompson as our leader because, active churchgoer or not (and remember, Reagan was less than faithful to the house of the Lord, too), Thompson is the one major candidate who has the ideology and the substance to stand up for what is right - Romney doesn't, McCain doesn't, Giuliani doesn't, and Huckabee doesn't.
If you were supporting any other candidate, you wouldn’t think it offensive at all if a poster suggested God was against your candidate, and for their candidate?
The original statement was a religious one, and I answered it from a religious perspective.
It is presuming too much to presume that God is actively working for Fred Thompson’s election. I wouldn’t presume that God was working for Huckabee, or for my choice either.
I think my statement sounds too much like I think God would oppose him. That was a mistake, because it’s obviously not what I think. I’m working on an apology and explanation which should appear shortly.
Many people have rightly expressed disgust with this statement.
I apologize. Words matter, and in this case my choice of words was offensive.
I do not think God is working against Fred Thompson. I wouldn't presume to know which candidate God has chosen to be our nominee, or who God has planned to be our next President. God has placed people of faith, and people without faith, into positions of leadership.
When I said "really is interested", I was trying to say that it was presumptuous to assume God was supporting one candidate. I thought it was a cute justaposition of "interested", with the Fred's statements about church showing his interest.
But the phrase "really is interested" is much more often interpreted as a statement of opposition ("Im not really interested in your opinion", for example). It wasn't what I meant, but a simple proof-read would have corrected that mistake.
Again, I apologize for the inference that God opposes a candidate. My point was the opposite -- that it was wrong in a political forum to suggest, as the original poster's words suggested, that God had chosen sides against all the other people's candidates.
Given Huckabee's attacks on many of the other candidates with his suggestion that he is God's chosen, I was too ready to object to such a claim by others.
I previously answered this post to you with a post that was rightly found offensive, and wanted to apologize personally.
In addition, I want to apologize for assuming a specific interpretation of your post, and responding to it without explaining my interpretation. It made it more personal than I like to be.
I interpreted your words as suggesting that God was supporting your candidate, and opposing all our other candidates. If that was your intent, I would object.
However, you may not have been thinking that at all, and may have simply felt led to praise God for your own answered prayers, without thinking about what that meant regarding other candidates or the claims of God to be supporting a specific candidate.
So again, I apologize.
Yes it is. Once in a while, what looks like a good turn of a phrase has a much more obvious and offensive meaning. This is one of those times.
No. I perceived a religious claim in a political forum, and responded with an inartful turn of the phrase which was offensive.
I would point out though that anybody who says “Praise God” in response to knews about a specific politician winning or gaining ground is making the claim that God is on their candidate’s side.
Since two posters did that here, and none of the respondents to me have made any responses to their claims of knowing God’s will, I think to some degree the angst being expressed is because of how I said what I said, not because they object to claiming God is for or against a candidate.
In fact, God may be for or against a candidate, but I don’t see how claiming God is for one candidate is less offensive than saying God wouldn’t be pushing that one specific candidate over others.
If God is to be praised for Fred Thompson’s rise in a poll, it suggests that God is working against the other candidates, including Duncan Hunter for example.
Having said that, I apologize for my offense. I have also apologized to the original poster, who may not have thought of the inference of their claim of praise to God.
In fact, I’m almost certain they did not, in the same way a football player might praise God for a victory, and not mean that God was working against the other team.
So I take it you have delineated which House is God’s and all those who are not into YOUR house of God are damned.
Somehow I think God’s plan is somewhat larger than your understanding.
'Right With God' But Not Churchgoer Says Thompson
Asked about his religious beliefs during an appearance before about 500 Republicans in South Carolina yesterday, Fred Thompson said he attends church when he visits his mother in Tennessee but does not belong to a church or attend regularly at his home in McLean, Va., just outside Washington.
Attending church is not required to be a Christian, or to be elected President.
But I do think it is presumptuous to suggest that God has chosen as specific candidate. I interpreted the original post in that way (probably in error, and I have apologized for that), and in my attempt to say so in a clever choice of words, I offended many people, for which I also apologize.
I don't speak for God, but the Bible does say "do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together", and it does make it clear the church is God's instrument, and that we are one body and we need to fellowship with one another, rather than try to go it alone.
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.