Posted on 02/16/2006 7:29:43 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
Danforth would be dangerous if anyone listened to him.
The guy could put Ambien & Lunesta out of business.
Why he was asked to officiate at Reagan's funeral is beyond me...must've been Patty and Ron P's idea.
I appreciate former Senator Danforth's support of Clarence Thomas during the tumult caused by the left throughout the Thomas nomination process, however, he has NEVER been a conservative.
While pro-lifers and some on the Christian Right need to consider more winning and effective strategies, and develop a greater concern for better PR, and I often differ with them in that regard, the positions they take on issues are exactly right and they should be proud of them. As a minister, Jack Danforth should be ashamed of himself.
While I hate McCain and loathe Whitman, is there anything that McCain has ever said, any legislation he has ever voted on or anything in his record that shows him to be anything but a social conservative?
He has voted for every conservaive judge nominated.
I hate McCain almost as much as I hate Hagel, and there is no way Hagel is going to be on Whitmans PAC, but is Hagel somehow more conservative then McCain for not being on that PAC?
I do not believe him to be a bad man, his record stands for itself, but I do believe he has become misinformed.
Either that, or he has changed over the years.
I keep hearing this ridiculous argument that the attempt to save Terri Schiavo somehow hurt conservatives in the public's mind. I have yet to see any hard evidence of this assumption. Just as any false presumption lib/mods make, they believe if they just keep repeating something it's bound to come true.
You're saying this about Paul the Apostle?
Man, you're off your rocker. Paul's words were the words of Christ. Better get to know your Bible better.
When Paul's words are the same as the quotes in the gospels, they are the words of Christ, but redundant.
When they aren't, he was making it up, just like Jimmy Swaggart or Pat Robertson. He has to be, he never met Jesus.
So9
Wrong again...Paul met Jesus in a very powerful way in Acts 9.
See, I knew you didn't know your Bible well.
Really? I seem to recall a dialogue that went something like this:
Voice from Heaven: "Saul, why do you persecute me?"
Saul of Tarsus (Paul): Lord, who are you that you say I persecute you?
Voice from Heaven: "I am Jesus"
If you think Paul's preaching and his inspired epistles came out of "the meanness of his soul" you don't have a problem with the apostle Paul or with Chuck Colson, you have a problem with God and with his holy Word.
The apostle Paul wrote the majority of the books of the New Testament, and he wrote them under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He preached the same message in person that he wrote in his epistles, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is, salvation by grace through faith in the virgin born Son of God Jesus Christ and his atoning death, burial, and resurrection. He also wrote instructions to the local churches, and to pastors, teachers, bishops, deacons, and lay people concerning the proper function and administration of the church and what manner of holy life all those who beieve in Jesus Christ should lead. If you disagree with Paul's writing, you are actually disagreeing with God who insired it.
Really? I seem to recall a dialogue that went something like this:
Voice from Heaven: "Saul, why do you persecute me?"
Saul of Tarsus (Paul): Lord, who are you that you say I persecute you?
Voice from Heaven: "I am Jesus"
So he claimed.
So9
They are for abortion, gay marriage and assorted other goals that are destructive to society.
Well said.
It's possible.
So...when you claim to know the words of Jesus, and know that Paul was not preaching in a way consistent with them, you must be leaving out everything Jesus said in the Gospel of Luke, right? Because after all, Luke was the one who recorded Paul's conversion and missionary journeys.
Please, tell us why Paul is a scumbag, cite specifics, and don't forget to include a reason that the other apostles would embrace a cruel hack who was preaching heresy.
I could easlily and gladly elaborate on the valifdity of Paul's claims and teachings, but I suspect you really have no interest in the truth. Am I wrong?
I think your right, but they argue they are not pro gay marriage.
Some conservatives argue that they only go after "blue" seats held by democrats (I disagree) but never the less, idiots like McCain do have solid pro-family credentials, they have their records, and their words, to back them up, putting in a few bucks to a PAC doesn't knock them off of it, If McCain said anything or voted against anything that was not pro-family, I would love the chance to rip him at it, but he hasn't.
Sidenote: I mentioned Hagel only because Whitman hates and loathes him so much, to show how far to the left she is, she (in her book) makes him to be ultraright wing nut out to destroy her. Some of her remarks are definatly actionable.
I always love it when RINOs bash each other.
Didn't know that Hagel was after Whitman. Probably because McCrazy saw her as a possible presidential threat.
He didn't.
When Hagel does take conservative positions, he does it under the radar (the media likes liberal positions, that gets you on TV, speaking conservative doesn't).
Hagel however, according to Whitman, went after her with a vengence, Al Gore to this very day is still angry that Hagel humiliated him over kyoto (which is when I started following him, he looked good at first until I saw he has no character).
McCain and Hagel are best friends, but I am going to love watching the 2 of them stab each other in the back in the primaries and try and bury each other.
As for Whitman, the enemies she made, cross both aisles and go across the ideological spectrem, as do her supporters. Most of whom think she is a joke.
She thinks Kyoto is such a good idea, UGH.
She said she veoted partial birth abortion ban because it was unconstitutional.
She mentioned just recently that she'd like to see Guliani, McCain, or Ligell (some woman from Hawaii) become president. Methinks Whitman smokes wacky tobaky
It's been two days and you've posted to other threads. And yet you haven't provided any evidence that...
...Colson is a scumbag
...Prison Fellowship is a scam
...Paul was preaching in contradiction to Jesus
...The other apostles would embrace Paul despite him being a cruel heretic.
Gee, you seemed so sure. Surely you have some evidence, right? Or is this a picture of your current position?
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.