http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/27/9751161-transformation-perry-now-opposes-all-abortion-even-in-rape-or-incest-cases
Pandering, pandering......PANDERING!
Pandering, pandering......PANDERING!
Anyone here buying this?
- Thread starter aspen
- 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!
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 13
- 0
- 66
I think he should stay on the real issues. What is it with Politicians dividing the people over emotional issues and letting the real stuff that needs attention go? I think this issue right then and there tells his worth --- cookie cutter politician like all the others and nothing will ever change for the better.
I would not vote for Perry, for a litany of reasons.
I do think that anyone complaining about 'pandering' is crying crocodile tears unless they are willing to acknowledge the rampancy on both sides of the aisle.
Let's keep with Abortion:
- Ted Kennedy used to be rabidly pro-life.
He sited his Catholic Faith and the values instilled in him by his parents.
Later in life that OBVIOUSLY changed.
He gave a litany of reasons for the change - still claiming to be a staunch Catholic - but it came down to him wanting to continue to be elected and remain in office and his Liberal MA constituency were predominantly pro-abortion.
And of course you have Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi both claiming to be staunch Catholics but both rapidly pro-abortion, receiving a rating of 100% from NOW and NARAL.
They are typical hypocritical politicians, though so I expect no less from them.
I do blame the weak priests and bishops who continue to allow them to receive communion.
Those clergy are not living up to the standards and requirements of their own faith - just like Boxer and Pelosi.
As for other political flip-floppers, our current Commander-in-Chief has a long track record of it.
This UTube video chronicles many of them:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft_Mb-4nXJk
If that isn't enough for you, simply Google or Bing his name and 'flip-flop' or 'flip-flopper'
Many of the articles are from those on the left angry because he did not keep the promises he made on their positions during the campaign.
Is he alone at this? Absolutely not.
As I said earlier, this is common on both sides of the aisle.
That is why someone complaining about people in only one party rings hollow.
I do think that anyone complaining about 'pandering' is crying crocodile tears unless they are willing to acknowledge the rampancy on both sides of the aisle.
Let's keep with Abortion:
- Ted Kennedy used to be rabidly pro-life.
He sited his Catholic Faith and the values instilled in him by his parents.
Later in life that OBVIOUSLY changed.
He gave a litany of reasons for the change - still claiming to be a staunch Catholic - but it came down to him wanting to continue to be elected and remain in office and his Liberal MA constituency were predominantly pro-abortion.
And of course you have Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi both claiming to be staunch Catholics but both rapidly pro-abortion, receiving a rating of 100% from NOW and NARAL.
They are typical hypocritical politicians, though so I expect no less from them.
I do blame the weak priests and bishops who continue to allow them to receive communion.
Those clergy are not living up to the standards and requirements of their own faith - just like Boxer and Pelosi.
As for other political flip-floppers, our current Commander-in-Chief has a long track record of it.
This UTube video chronicles many of them:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft_Mb-4nXJk
If that isn't enough for you, simply Google or Bing his name and 'flip-flop' or 'flip-flopper'
Many of the articles are from those on the left angry because he did not keep the promises he made on their positions during the campaign.
Is he alone at this? Absolutely not.
As I said earlier, this is common on both sides of the aisle.
That is why someone complaining about people in only one party rings hollow.
I am just calling it when I see it. It looks like people are seeing Perry for what he is, which it good. I have friends who are conservative evangelicals who only vote for candidates that are the most pro-life and I am glad to see that they are in the minority. And Foreigner - perhaps you should take your own advice?
th1b.taylor
Active Member
I find it strange for anyone claiming the name of Christ to use the standard I used as an atheist. If I, like Defense Lawyers, would, when no argument could be made for the cause, seek to destroy the messenger. You just flipped that "funding of porno" comment out there with no0 proof what-so-ever. As for his position on the issue of abortion, I and millions of others have been guilty of praying for that change.
Now, why would I, personally, pray for such a thing? I'm not one that as ever been found outside the clinics where the murders take place. I do however pray without ceasing and do as a result, always, see God answering my prayers. And, alas, He has again.
For the God Follower, the return of this nation to the position of followingGod is the issue.
Not everyone is as in the dark as you. I suggest you do a little research there, Sparky, before jumping in.
...Maybe it’s time for Ben Bernanke to actually be concerned about Rick Perry’s warnings that things are going to get ugly. Or, at least, perhaps the head of the Fed might want to ask for clarification:
Is that “Big Tit Brotha Lovers 6”-ugly or “Bisexual Barebacking Vol. 1”-ugly?
It turns out that those are just two of the titles that have been released by Movie Gallery, at one time the largest domestic distributor of pornography in the country. Oddly enough, it turns out that Texas governor and GOP presidential hopeful Rick Perry has invested quite a pretty penny into the porn-pushers.
Yes, that’s bible-thumpin’, Jesus lovin’, conservative-minded, prayer rally holdin’, Bernanke-threatenin’ Rick Perry. The same Rick Perry that had told a few hundred Republicans in June to "speak with pride about our morals and our values and redouble our effort to elect more conservative Republicans."
Politician, presidential candidate and . . . pornographer?
A recent report reveals that Perry invested upwards of $10,000 into Movie Gallery stock, whom, while releasing a bit more family-friendly titles, also helped bring pictures like “Teend Never Say No” to a broader audience by releasing them to their rental stores.
...And that’s not even the big finish. It has also been unearthed that Perry signed onto a bill as Texas governor that would protect porno companies from facing “tort suits” for putting products across state lines. That meant higher profits for porn, higher profits for Movie Gallery and, thus, higher profits for Perry.
Perry’s initial investment in Movie Gallery occurred in 1995, but today there is no telling if and how much the governor has tied to the smut sellers. In 1998, Perry moved his investment to a blind trust, meaning the hard investment info is now sealed. Why would he make such a move? It may or may not have had something to do with the American Family Association asking federal investigators to probe into Movie Gallery at that time.
http://rt.com/usa/ne...rry-porn-movie/
Good for you. Not certain what exactly that has to do with the constitutionality of the government exercising control over the physical bodies, or the personal decisions, of the citizens though.
See above.
You mean like back when the FF had slaves? Or indiscriminately murdered the Natives? Or perhaps you mean when the FF made it perfectly clear that no religion would dominate/control/ dictate etc. governmental policies?
Back on the topic....There's a lot more about Perry to be concerned with than porn and abortion...
He was chairman of Al Gore's Texas campaign
Perry granted taxpayer subsidized in-state college tuition rates to illegal aliens in Texas
Perry opposed the use of e-verify
Perry also called for...And I quote... a "... free flow of individuals between these two countries who want to work and want to be an asset to our country and to Mexico".
http://derailamnestydotcom.blogspot....s-illegal.html
Like I said...Do some research.
Not that I am into defending Perry, but.....
"He was chairman of Al Gore's Texas campaign"
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/sep/07/debra-medina/debra-medina-claims-rick-perry-was-democrat-and-al/
Here is an opposing viewpoint on "Perry granted taxpayer subsidized in-state college tuition rates to illegal aliens in Texas"
http://www.redstate.com/tex_whitley/2011/09/23/rick-perry-is-right-on-in-state-tuition-for-immigrants-in-texas/
Regardless on the information provided in these links, I think Perry is like most politicians, an opportunist. And I think Christians have been prey for these type for the past 30 years.
"He was chairman of Al Gore's Texas campaign"
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/sep/07/debra-medina/debra-medina-claims-rick-perry-was-democrat-and-al/
Here is an opposing viewpoint on "Perry granted taxpayer subsidized in-state college tuition rates to illegal aliens in Texas"
http://www.redstate.com/tex_whitley/2011/09/23/rick-perry-is-right-on-in-state-tuition-for-immigrants-in-texas/
Regardless on the information provided in these links, I think Perry is like most politicians, an opportunist. And I think Christians have been prey for these type for the past 30 years.
Your links aren't "defending" they're confirming.
It does show that Perry supported Gore, but he wasn't his campaign manager. As far as the second link - it provides a rationale for his beliefs. I know what you are saying though - the guy certainly has a flexible character and that is putting it as Christianboard friendly as I can possibly be. :)
Getting back to the original point.
Perry - whom I will not be voting for - may have been pandering.
But as you can see by my last post, it is far from an unusual event for politicians and is hardly restricted to a single political party.
To be "shock, shocked that gambling is going on here" by the actions of one party's candidate, but not by another's, smacks of, well....
Perry - whom I will not be voting for - may have been pandering.
But as you can see by my last post, it is far from an unusual event for politicians and is hardly restricted to a single political party.
To be "shock, shocked that gambling is going on here" by the actions of one party's candidate, but not by another's, smacks of, well....
I am hardly shocked at the candidates - I AM shocked at the voting power of the religious right, based on their willingness to throw out all issues besides abortion.
Absolutely! And the worst part is that abortion is already legal and these people are still crusading for it at all costs. Frankly, I think they are more guilty of selling out than the religious right.
See I don't see it that way aspen. I go a little more Freudian and believe that it's ultimately a deeper power struggle based on worldview.
The "right" argument is that life is given from God (see the Declaration for a precedent) and that is ultimately a bow to God as Creator. In effect, the argument is that we don't have that right to take life because that's not our lane. On the "left" side, the ability to control life is the ultimate in personal freedom. It allows unrestricted access to a life of sex (ultimately) without ever fearing any consequences other than the almost uncontrollables(and there are always medicines for those). Bypass God and humans become the sole arbiters of life and death.
Abortion has grown for me with my wife now pregnant with our first child. I've seen images and seen my child yawn at times where some states consider it still ok to abort. (We don't take grandma out back with a shotgun when she gets too old and to be too much of a drain on the family bank account.)
Do people pander on both sides who might not care/think about it as much? Sure.
I think many would be fine with cases of rape, incest, clear and present danger to the mother etc. based upon clear grounds, but
The "right" argument is that life is given from God (see the Declaration for a precedent) and that is ultimately a bow to God as Creator. In effect, the argument is that we don't have that right to take life because that's not our lane. On the "left" side, the ability to control life is the ultimate in personal freedom. It allows unrestricted access to a life of sex (ultimately) without ever fearing any consequences other than the almost uncontrollables(and there are always medicines for those). Bypass God and humans become the sole arbiters of life and death.
Abortion has grown for me with my wife now pregnant with our first child. I've seen images and seen my child yawn at times where some states consider it still ok to abort. (We don't take grandma out back with a shotgun when she gets too old and to be too much of a drain on the family bank account.)
Do people pander on both sides who might not care/think about it as much? Sure.
I think many would be fine with cases of rape, incest, clear and present danger to the mother etc. based upon clear grounds, but
I would love to comment on this further. It sounds like you have a real heart for life at conception, And as a new father, you can see the precious gift that God gives to some couples when you look at the images of your unborn child. There are life changing events that occur in common, the birth of a child is certainly one of these events that many people experience. For me, life is precious, whether it is at conception or on death row.
Conversely, I have seen the other side of the abortion issue, first hand - and regardless of the rhetoric (the way some abortion supporters behave almost appears that they are advocating it for every couple), most supporters of abortion are in favor because of the consequences for the life of the mother (dangerous birth situations) or the quality of life for the baby (terminal illness) or the future of the child (as an unwanted child)
I think we all need to realize the complexity of the issue of abortion rather than assuming that advocates for abortions are godless murders and, on the other side that pro-life advocates are people who only care about preserving a minority moral code, want to control the body of people they do not know, or only care about the fetus until it is born. As I see it, both sides care a lot about the people involved.
I believe the abortion issue is the end result of a rupture in the fabric of our society. Therefore, I choose to fight abortion by petitioning to change the laws for adoption. I am a huge advocate for adoption and I not only sit on the board of an adoption agency, I have participated in the lobbying of 2 adoption laws at the state level.
I do not judge people who choose to fight to change the laws of abortion head on, but I believe targeting the problem of adoption in our country is the best place for me. Also, I am a supporter of restricting the laws for abortion. Unfortunately, at this point in our history, I do not believe a complete ban on abortion serves mothers or children. It is my hope, through the work of private and government social service safety nets that we will get to a place where we can handle a complete ban. Universal healthcare would go along way to fight the need for abortion.
[email protected]
Choir Loft
Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman are both Dominionists. That is to say that they support the alleged theology of Dominionism (google it). I say alleged because it purports to be a Christian religious ideology except that it doesn't support the basis premise of Jesus' teachings, principally those respecting human rights.
Dominionism in general and Perry/Bachman in particular supports torture of POW's as well as elimination of human rights for the aforementioned human beings(1). That means illegal detention without trial, denial of access to legal counsel or outside communications, holding for indeterminate periods of time and personal abuse in the form of torture both physical and mental. In addition, the principles of Dominionism imply the extension of these activities throughout the political system of the united States. Unfortunately this has already succeeded in large part due to the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act, both of which have effectively destroyed constitutional law in America.
Christian Dominionists, while superficially well meaning, have same motivations and goals as the Christian community in the early days of NAZI Germany....to support a fascist(2) government, to suppress ideology not compatible with their own, and to extend their hegemony throughout the globe by persuasion if possible and by force if necessary.
Arguments about abortion rights are only a side issue when compared to the withering destruction of all rights of all citizens in America - including but not limited to the followers of Jesus Christ.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-==-=
(1)
Apart from spiritual and moral motivations to provide decent treatment of POW's, the uSA was a participatory signee of the 1929 Geneva Convention in which America gave its word to treat POW's decently - meaning to allow outside communication, to provide good living conditions and to NOT TORTURE. If right and wrong are not the issues here, then a treaty ought to be.
(2)
"Fascism is the merger of corporate and government powers."
- Benito Mussolini
Similar threads
