A Sea Of Red

Do you guys think they are an invented people?

No. It's just an attempt by Newt to kiss Israel's rear end.

jbock13 wrote:No. It's just an attempt by Newt to kiss Israel's rear end.

Which is a lot better than turning your back on Israel.

wow jbock you deleted that post really fast...that was going to be a windstorm of controversy.

thepostman wrote:wow jbock you deleted that post really fast...that was going to be a windstorm of controversy.

Yeah, I just decided I really didnt care. Wasn't something to argue about.

Why shouldn't we? They are not the Biblical utopia that many Evangelicals like to believe but they are more reliable than other countries in the region. They will look out for their interests first but what country doesn't? What makes them valuable is that more often then not, their interests and our are similar. Should it be a blank check? No.

jbock13 wrote:

thepostman wrote:wow jbock you deleted that post really fast...that was going to be a windstorm of controversy.

Yeah, I just decided I really didnt care. Wasn't something to argue about.

but I wanted something to entertain me this sunday afternoon, haha

TH Spangler wrote:

jbock13 wrote:No. It's just an attempt by Newt to kiss Israel's rear end.

Which is a lot better than turning your back on Israel.

Well, there isnt a candidate who is against Israel. But if we believe in limited government, and Israel's nation sovereignty, then we should not make decisions for them and should not give them the blank check of monetary support. We make them a puppet of ours, which is a slap in the face of christian beliefs

I think there's a difference between supporting Israel and saying everything Israel does is right. Unfortunately, most don't see it that way at all.

Israel is a strong ally, and there is no telling how much they contribute to our intelligence community. We should support all of our ally's, especially the ones in key parts of the world. The great thing about Israel is we always know what they are thinking because they make it obvious.

I agree that supporting them is not the same as condoning all of their actions. They are their own country, so we need to support them but at the same time let them handle their own affairs in a similar manner as we treat Britain or any other strong ally.

BuryYourDuke wrote:Why should we support Israel?

Can you really not answer this on your own or are you trying to set something else up?

Listen to the Prime Minister. Maybe more Americans need to listen to the people who run Israel and not treat them like five year old.

BuryYourDuke wrote:I just always hear Christians say things like "well we have to support Israel!". I'm legitimately curious as to why they think that. So this seemed like a good place to ask.

I'll do the opposing talking point for you BYD. "But BYD, the Bible states that God will bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who curse them."

Now you may rebut that.

I agree with you as you know.

Here's a pretty good explanation. Now ... if you don't believe in the scriptures it might sound stupid to you .

http://www.gotquestions.org/support-Israel.html

That does make some broad assumptions. There is a State of Israel that contains all sorts of people. Do you advocate the opposite of our support? Should we have not come to their aide, albeit relunctantly in their wars of the 40's 60's and 70's? If they are invaded now do you advocate letting them fend for themselves. Theologically it IS difficult to reconcile the Biblical declaration of Gods Chosen people with New Testament salvation.
Perhaps an important distinction is overlooked and people confuse those who call themselves Israelis and those who call themselves Jewish.

BuryYourDuke wrote:That's operating under the assumption that the "Israel" that exists to day, that is to say, the modern political entity known as the state of Israel, is the Israel of the Bible. Pretty horrible assumption since nothing about today's Israel has anything to do with being "God's People". Founded 2,000 years later by people that knew nothing of the Lord. The church is Israel in the new covenant.

If you want to have a discussion about modern Israel's strategic utility as an ally of the U.S. I'm willing to have that. But don't tell me that Christians need to defend some secular nation that persecutes anyone that isn't Jewish because they chose the name Israel less than a century ago.

The church is Israel in the new covenant Not really .... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

LINK http://www.gotquestions.org/Israel-church.html

Here's a better question .... when Ron Paul does not get the nomination will you vote for Newt

As someone who tries to do things out of principle, I will say NO to voting for Newt.

I will never vote for Newt. IF Paul doesnt get the nomination I will be writing his name in.

Four more years .... I hope we can survive it?

TH Spangler wrote:Four more years .... I hope we can survive it?

What would Newt do that is different than Obama?? I mean serious, fundamental differences?

jmdickens wrote:What would Newt do that is different than Obama?? I mean serious, fundamental differences?

Here it is, very different from the progressive agenda .... and I don't want to personalize my vote against Obama ..... but against socialism.

http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/file ... posals.pdf

I hate Paul Ryan's social security, medicare fix, it's not realistic .... to dramatic. Read Newt's. And Ron's is off the chart. It took 40 years to get into this mess ... it will take at least 20 to get out of it.

What makes you think Newt would keep his word to do any of these things?

From the class of 09 wrote:What makes you think Newt would keep his word to do any of these things?

Im sure his spouses can vouch for him. Also, he wasn't a polarizing figure at all as speaker of the house and he has never flip-flopped on an issue....

You Ron Paul supporters who will let Obama in over a Republican really irritate me.

As someone who's pretty sympathetic to him, seems pretty stupid. Do you know Ron Paul is a Republican?

jmdickens wrote:

From the class of 09 wrote:What makes you think Newt would keep his word to do any of these things?

Im sure his spouses can vouch for him. Also, he wasn't a polarizing figure at all as speaker of the house and he has never flip-flopped on an issue....

Let's see: reformed welfare. Helped balance the budget. Was able to work across party lines to get things done.
He DID sell out during the shut down and burned some bridges. But I think that people can learn from their mistakes. I do believe we have a better shot of him doing things closer to conservative values then the current administration.
Finally who is to say ANYONE will do what they say after they get elected? The only thing you can do is hold them accountable when they are in there. I seriously doubt Ron Paul could do better getting his agenda passed then Newt or Mitt.