Quote of the day

I’m a fundie, and that puts me to the right (biblically) of probably anyone on this board. If anyone here would have opposed Romney’s presidency for theological reasons, it probably would have been me.

However, I did not oppose Romney b/c of his Mormonism; that issue was irrelevant.

I opposed him b/c his conversion to conservatism, given his track record, seemed just a little too “nick of time” for my comfort.

I did not trust the man to have kept any promise he gave to the base, just as I never trusted Huck or McCain…they all had too much stink of political slime and untrustworthiness about them.

Might Mitt have surprised us all and been a second Reagan? Maybe…McCain sure wouldn’t have been, as we all knew. Ditto Huck. I doubt Romney would have been much different, though. We’ll never know.

But, honestly, I know no genuine conservative – much less a sola scriptura believer – who opposed Romney because he’s Mormon.

splink on February 8, 2009 at 9:50 AM

Every one of you had a chance to become teachers,

I did.

where you could have stood up to the leftist thugs in the teacher’s lounge

I do. Now only the few likeminded conservatives speak to me at all in the hall, or say “G’morning,” even after I say it first. Which I fully expected, and accept fully.

We opposed Margaret Sanger’s brutal eugenics agenda which she conned you protestants into supporting. She even called you useful idiots behind your backs. But you protestants fell for the con job that you were getting good old conservative self-determination when you started slaughtering your babies in the womb.

jeff_from_mpls

Make blanket statements much?

splink on February 8, 2009 at 12:56 PM

Michael Steele says it nicely in his proposal to the GOP…

This is the first line of rule #3

3)The GOP must recognize that it is NOT a church, court or a censorship board. The party or members of the party have no right or business to JUDGE the lifestyles of other members, except for criminal activity.

That sounds good on paper, but watch how it flies.

It’s easy for libs to be a cohesive force: whatever differences they may have, they still have no core integrity in the sense most inhabitants of Christendom would define the term. All the ethics and morality of the lib is ultimately man-derived and man-serving, thus forever changeable as situations warrant.

Yet, despite this, they have now proven with Obama that they all can still subscribe to a common (if invariably selfish and power-hungry) goal when they have to. This explains why that sad lot of backstabbing, greedy, lying hypocrites – emotional children who are individually devoid of common decency (find me one that opposes murdering babies in the womb) – can unite as one world-changing force and call themselves moral when they do it. They just did exactly that, after all.

OTOH, those of us on the other side try, to varying degrees, to live out what we believe to be true. Just as libs do. Difference is, each of us is captive to our conscience, which each of us believes to have been informed by God. So when we disagree – as most of us here will continue to do – there’s no common ground on which to set aside our differences, as libs can. There’s no gray for us, whereas their entire universe is gray.

That’s why conservatism isn’t working, and ultimately won’t work. Not because it will have failed due to some internal flaw – no, it works when it’s left alone. It will fail because its adherents are captive to his or her own conscience before God, and cannot “agree to disagree” even if it’d be politically expedient to do so. So politically, that’ll kill us.

But at least we have our integrity, for whatever it’s worth.

splink on February 8, 2009 at 1:14 PM