Rick Perry, Barack Obama and the War On Christianity
- Thread starter goodshepard55
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
The religious right is up for grabs and Perry is desperate. FOX News has already picked Gingrich.
Actually, FOX News has NOT picked Gingrich.
Those who actually watch it (me) instead of those who rant about it without watching it (you) can tell you that several have pointed out that Gingrich would be a terrible choice.
He may get the nomination but mainstream American (understandably) won't support him. Obama would win in a landslide.
Sorry to interject facts here, but someone had to.
Those who actually watch it (me) instead of those who rant about it without watching it (you) can tell you that several have pointed out that Gingrich would be a terrible choice.
He may get the nomination but mainstream American (understandably) won't support him. Obama would win in a landslide.
Sorry to interject facts here, but someone had to.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Your right, Gingrich would be a terrible choice; what does this have to do with FOX news?
Conservative Christians will not pick a Mormon or a person who cheated on his wife. That leaves Paul, Bachmann and Perry . Yep, Obama is going to win in a landslide!
There's very few candidates not already in the bed with world Socialism. And looks like world Socialism is the type of system that's going to be the world beast kingdom of Rev.13:1. So it's an easy pick. Just eliminate those speaking against Socialist principles and you can be certain they won't be allowed... to get into that office.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
-- You ARE correct. Obama is going to win by a landslide.
But that doesn't alter the lie you willfully told about FOX News and their preference for Gingrich.
Changing the subject doesn't alter the fact that you claim things that aren't true...at all.
There is a word for that. Three letters....
You wear it well.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
oh brother....
Since when is an opinion a lie? I am just exercising my right to free speech. Here is a quote from an article from the NY Times that promotes the same idea:
“Everything has changed,” said Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas, who traveled across Iowa as an unsuccessful Republican presidential candidate four years ago. “It’s like a town hall every day on Fox News. You hear people talking back to you what you saw yesterday on Fox. I like Fox, and I’m glad we have an outlet, but it is having a major, major effect on what happens.”
"A log compiled by Fox News showed that it had interviewed Mr. Cain 63 times since he announced his candidacy — more than any of his rivals — followed by Mr. Gingrich with 52 television appearances"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/us/politics/presidential-candidates-make-fewer-in-person-appearances.html
I also read that Lawrence Odonnell stated "FOX News has picked Newt as their candidate" - he was also expressing his opinion. It is legal and appropriate to express my opinion on a Christian opinion board.
Right you are the same thing hear in Australia.
Socilism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
avoice
Member
- May 17, 2011
- 168
- 8
- 18
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I dont know what some are watching reading but Fox news has not supported Gingrich at all IMO 90% of their reporting on him has been negative ?
Wake up the Republican party along with Fox news has an arranged marriage with Romney
In case you haven't been listening Ann Colter, S Carolina Governor, Chris Christie just to name a few Christian big name Republicans have all been on Fox throwing support behind Romney a trend that will continue ... And Christians will go along with the program ..because Obama isnt a choice.
Romney will win the nomination easily. Once we get past the early states primary watch Romney take the lead. Its another choice of bad vs worse and we will chose bad because worse is Obama 4 more years of Obama and liberal socialists it wont matter anymore we will not have an America anyone recognizes IMO
Wake up the Republican party along with Fox news has an arranged marriage with Romney
In case you haven't been listening Ann Colter, S Carolina Governor, Chris Christie just to name a few Christian big name Republicans have all been on Fox throwing support behind Romney a trend that will continue ... And Christians will go along with the program ..because Obama isnt a choice.
Romney will win the nomination easily. Once we get past the early states primary watch Romney take the lead. Its another choice of bad vs worse and we will chose bad because worse is Obama 4 more years of Obama and liberal socialists it wont matter anymore we will not have an America anyone recognizes IMO
Romney would be a 'friable' choice for the world Socialists over Obama, because just like Obama, Romney will be anyone's dog that'll hunt with him.
avoice
Member
- May 17, 2011
- 168
- 8
- 18
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Maybe but I predict by the time we get past Florida no one will be left in the race except Romney.Gingrich and Paul ..Paul wont even be on the radar after Iowa, he will just be a protest vote Rebulican Party would never nominate a Libertain canidate. Repulicans are scared of Gingrich so its Romney to get the Indepentant and moderate vote. If Im wrong you can call me on it :)
People keep talking about the Republican field of candidates, but I think the entire field on both sides is completely lacking for the past 3-4 elections.
Romney is the establishment candidate, and chances are still strong he will win. He's the guy for pundits at most places like Fox News, National Review, etc. because he represents the most known quantity. Gingrich is strongly disliked because he comes off as a hypocrite in much of what he does. For instance, he was pressed in the last debate the other night about his ties to Fannie and Freddie, he very clearly was a lobbyist for them. Everyone knows it. Notice how no major name is getting behind him.
I'll be honest, part of me would love to see Gingrich take President Obama to the woodshed in debates (because he would) but Romney is the most Presidential out of the bunch. Personality-wise, I feel he has the least likelihood to get mad at someone and make a dumb decision. As far as his bet, who cares? It's not some great surprise that politicians have money.
The Tea Party/etc element is behind Gingrich after jumping from Bachman to Perry to Cain. I've seen this pitched both ways, but you do have to say that the vetting process is working well in one regard. Bachman can't seem to run much beyond saying Obama = bad, Perry is just not the leader we need, and Cain - well Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan is not located on a map (alongside the fact that he should at least be able to discuss Libya with a passing knowledge and I'm not going to touch the other issue...)
As to the whole election, it's pretty much a red herring because we hear each candidate tell us how he or she is going to create jobs, etc as the Executive. In reality, the President sets the tone, but Congress is where the bills are passed. The greater prize is the Senate, and I'm hardly concerned about a second Obama term with that scenario. We need to remind ourselves that we're not electing a dictator or king, and that is part and parcel of the problem.
As for the thread, I try to shy away from going on about "persecution" because we still have many freedoms and this is nothing like what the earliest Christians saw, but I don't think you can plausibly make the statement that there is no an attempt to deny or bury Christianity (and Christians) as much as possible. Take the recent ruling in NY schools for instance. Schools aren't used on Sundays and so the church rents the building for services, yet courts ruled this unconstitutional because other religions were not able to rent the building on other days (simply because the school was in use).
This runs quite contrary to the founders - call them deists or whatever in the particular revision of history you might believe in - who let Christian religious groups use government buildings for meetings. Again, this goes back to the wall of separation moving from no official church being intertwined with the government to no body being able to publicly display religion in an official area.
All this comes together for me under an important point. In our "post-modern" times, we've got to figure out who to adapt to these environments. History is all about various forms of government trying to snuff people out and Christianity is no stranger to it. At some point, it's time for the church to return to innovation. It spread under the Roman Emperors when Christians were killed for crying out loud. Instead of trying to fight the battles where we start calling others names and so on, figure out another way to preach Jesus, because He will always ensure a way. It's one of the reasons Christians lost the culture wars of the past few decades, the most striking pronouncement of this is in the homosexuality arena.
Romney is the establishment candidate, and chances are still strong he will win. He's the guy for pundits at most places like Fox News, National Review, etc. because he represents the most known quantity. Gingrich is strongly disliked because he comes off as a hypocrite in much of what he does. For instance, he was pressed in the last debate the other night about his ties to Fannie and Freddie, he very clearly was a lobbyist for them. Everyone knows it. Notice how no major name is getting behind him.
I'll be honest, part of me would love to see Gingrich take President Obama to the woodshed in debates (because he would) but Romney is the most Presidential out of the bunch. Personality-wise, I feel he has the least likelihood to get mad at someone and make a dumb decision. As far as his bet, who cares? It's not some great surprise that politicians have money.
The Tea Party/etc element is behind Gingrich after jumping from Bachman to Perry to Cain. I've seen this pitched both ways, but you do have to say that the vetting process is working well in one regard. Bachman can't seem to run much beyond saying Obama = bad, Perry is just not the leader we need, and Cain - well Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan is not located on a map (alongside the fact that he should at least be able to discuss Libya with a passing knowledge and I'm not going to touch the other issue...)
As to the whole election, it's pretty much a red herring because we hear each candidate tell us how he or she is going to create jobs, etc as the Executive. In reality, the President sets the tone, but Congress is where the bills are passed. The greater prize is the Senate, and I'm hardly concerned about a second Obama term with that scenario. We need to remind ourselves that we're not electing a dictator or king, and that is part and parcel of the problem.
As for the thread, I try to shy away from going on about "persecution" because we still have many freedoms and this is nothing like what the earliest Christians saw, but I don't think you can plausibly make the statement that there is no an attempt to deny or bury Christianity (and Christians) as much as possible. Take the recent ruling in NY schools for instance. Schools aren't used on Sundays and so the church rents the building for services, yet courts ruled this unconstitutional because other religions were not able to rent the building on other days (simply because the school was in use).
This runs quite contrary to the founders - call them deists or whatever in the particular revision of history you might believe in - who let Christian religious groups use government buildings for meetings. Again, this goes back to the wall of separation moving from no official church being intertwined with the government to no body being able to publicly display religion in an official area.
All this comes together for me under an important point. In our "post-modern" times, we've got to figure out who to adapt to these environments. History is all about various forms of government trying to snuff people out and Christianity is no stranger to it. At some point, it's time for the church to return to innovation. It spread under the Roman Emperors when Christians were killed for crying out loud. Instead of trying to fight the battles where we start calling others names and so on, figure out another way to preach Jesus, because He will always ensure a way. It's one of the reasons Christians lost the culture wars of the past few decades, the most striking pronouncement of this is in the homosexuality arena.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Sorry guys, but this is going to be Obama's second term election. No Christian is going to vote for a Mormon or a man without personal ethics. No conspiracy theorist is going to vote for Romney, either. Sure Obama has lost some of the idealistic liberal voters that put him in the White House, but not enough to lose.
What will be interesting is if Democrats have learned how to rally their base to turn out for the election from Rove. The only reason Bush won a second term was because of a last minute colossal effort by Rove to get the Republican base to show up at the polls.
Traditionally, Democrats have been divided - now it appears that Republicans are divided.
As far as Newt beating Obama in a debate - I agree he is the most qualified out of the pool of candidates to go up against Obama - but only because the others are so woefully inadequate.
What will be interesting is if Democrats have learned how to rally their base to turn out for the election from Rove. The only reason Bush won a second term was because of a last minute colossal effort by Rove to get the Republican base to show up at the polls.
Traditionally, Democrats have been divided - now it appears that Republicans are divided.
As far as Newt beating Obama in a debate - I agree he is the most qualified out of the pool of candidates to go up against Obama - but only because the others are so woefully inadequate.
Romney is the "establishment" candidate. Lot more to the meaning of that than meets the eye.
It's a two-party CONTROLLED system folks. Face it. It's a miracle if any other candidate gets in the White House other than of the Republican or Democrat parties. And today, BOTH of those are controlled by what Georgetown history professor Carrol Quigley called "the establishment." (Quigley himself was an Insider allied with that establishment as he himself admitted in his book Tragedy And Hope).
Lot of the Democrats are fed-up with Obama, even some of them who strongly supported him at the first now turning against his policies. When that starts to happen, it's usually a sign of a new kid coming to town. But the new kid will still be 'in the pocket' strategy of world globalism. You can count on it, because God has already ordained the coming one-world system over all nations.
It's a two-party CONTROLLED system folks. Face it. It's a miracle if any other candidate gets in the White House other than of the Republican or Democrat parties. And today, BOTH of those are controlled by what Georgetown history professor Carrol Quigley called "the establishment." (Quigley himself was an Insider allied with that establishment as he himself admitted in his book Tragedy And Hope).
Lot of the Democrats are fed-up with Obama, even some of them who strongly supported him at the first now turning against his policies. When that starts to happen, it's usually a sign of a new kid coming to town. But the new kid will still be 'in the pocket' strategy of world globalism. You can count on it, because God has already ordained the coming one-world system over all nations.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
I agree that dems are disillusioned with Obama - kind of hard not to be if you bought his rhetoric during his campaign, but I really think a lot of the same dems blame congress for most of the gridlock and believe he is sincere. I think many of the Clinton supports are certainly disappointed, but not enough to pass up voting.
I agree that the 'establishment' is the law of Washington. Anything to be re-elected.
Glad there is more to hope for than politicians.
avoice
Member
- May 17, 2011
- 168
- 8
- 18
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Its a sad state of affairs when we move toward socialism and the Brits who live it, are the ones who are realizing you need Christian values
Stand up for Christian values, says Prime Minister Cameron
December 16, 2011
The London Daily Standard reports: “David Cameron today attacked a ‘slow-motion moral collapse’ in Britain and called for a revival of traditional Christian values.
In a keynote speech, he condemned a growing ‘do as you please’ culture in which people, including political leaders, increasingly feared criticising the bad choices of others.
‘Whether you look at the riots last summer, the financial crash and the expenses scandal or the on-going terrorist threat from Islamist extremists around the world, one thing is clear,’ said the Prime Minister. ‘Moral neutrality or passive tolerance just isn't going to cut it anymore.’
Addressing Church of England members at Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford, he went on: ‘Put simply, for too long we have been unwilling to distinguish right from wrong. 'Live and let live' has too often become 'do what you please'.’
Mr. Cameron, whose speech marked the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, said people should openly proclaim the explicit values of Christianity…”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/politics/article-24022432-stand-up-for-christian-values-says-cameron.do
Stand up for Christian values, says Prime Minister Cameron
December 16, 2011
The London Daily Standard reports: “David Cameron today attacked a ‘slow-motion moral collapse’ in Britain and called for a revival of traditional Christian values.
In a keynote speech, he condemned a growing ‘do as you please’ culture in which people, including political leaders, increasingly feared criticising the bad choices of others.
‘Whether you look at the riots last summer, the financial crash and the expenses scandal or the on-going terrorist threat from Islamist extremists around the world, one thing is clear,’ said the Prime Minister. ‘Moral neutrality or passive tolerance just isn't going to cut it anymore.’
Addressing Church of England members at Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford, he went on: ‘Put simply, for too long we have been unwilling to distinguish right from wrong. 'Live and let live' has too often become 'do what you please'.’
Mr. Cameron, whose speech marked the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, said people should openly proclaim the explicit values of Christianity…”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/politics/article-24022432-stand-up-for-christian-values-says-cameron.do
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Since when does socialism and Christianity have to be separate? BTW, we are farther from socialism than we have been in 100 years.
What "gridlock"? Really no such thing, except finger-pointing by today's media against the 'few' conservatives that still exist that want to actually do something about the national debt instead of just talk about it. The Republicans agreed to the Dem's wish for raising the cap on the debt, which certainly does not reveal a gridlock. And talk about gridlocks, I recall the gridlocks the Democrats did during Reagan's administration when he was trying to get the economy back on track. Fact: both parties are guilty in playing that. The media is a pro-rep for the Democratic party. Yet many Republicans vote a liberal agenda too. That's why the two-party system is nothing but a ho-ax.
But both parties... are on the very same ultimate goal. Otherwise the Republicans would have never agreed with the Democrats to raise the debt ceiling, even temporarily.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
The same lobbyists own both sides. I also think that there really is only a few choices that can be made at this point of our history and they are all bad so dems and reps have switched from creating innovative laws to blaming each other for the unpopular legislation.
Similar threads
