Will Mark Foley Bring Down The Repulican Party

But as even other Republican leaders have said, Hastert knew aboiut Foley, and had more than enoiugh evidence to warrant an investigation. Yet he chose to protect Foley.

Blaming the voters, many of whom did not know what Foley and Hastert did, is wrong. Blame the people who did it. Granted, the voters should be careful who they vote for. But how would they have known?

 

Baloney, your buddy Clinton and his democratic hoard of thieves are about equal to this present group. Another person buying into the facade of a gap between the democrats and republicans.

 

I still don't understand how you can believe your job loss is due principally and directly to who is occupying the White House. Jobs have been lost--and created--since this country began. Does the President affect that ratio? Sure. But there are ten thousand forces that cause your job to cease--just one of them is the President. Perhaps a course in Basic Economics would be helpful.

And the above comes from someone who is not a straight party voter.

 

At the risk of marginalizing myself by my silly concern for truth, I again say we should withhold judgment until we know what Hastert and others actually knew. I realize it won't hold as much election day punch, but it will protect what's left of the integrity of some here who constantly rush to judgment unburdened by facts.

 

If it wasn't public, then it's hard to blame people for that. But most sources are reporting that several media agencies sat on the story. But also the average voter can't tell you who the vice president and secretary of state are. I guess we will just have to see how all of this folds out.

 

I agree with Saturn, what a refreshing perspective and you hit the nail solid on the head. We elect representitives that are not looking out for the country as a whole, they are there for their "interest" and if you can benefit from anything then that is good too. I really think we need to reform our style of government.

 

The style of government isnt the corrupting factor. And changing it will not protect from corruption. We should elect christian men with godly biblical principles. We exclude God and biblical principles and then we get surprised that government is corrupt. One example of a godly politician is State Senator Daniel Webster of Florida. They are out there.

 

So far, that hasn't been a problem, Larry.

 

I guess I was referring more to the tactic's that allow crap to make it through. Like riding $1 mil for a museum in the desert on the back of a good bill. Even Mr. Webster will have to bend his Godly stand to be effective in that zoo of back scratchers.

 

Knowing him personally I doubt that.

 

Sure it has. You seem simply too devoted to half truths and mistruths to notice it. This is another prime example. Why not wait until we know? Perhaps you are worried that you will miss a chance to jump on the Republicans (who deserve it in many cases ... we simply do not know yet if this is one of them).

If you can list anything untrue that I have stated as fact, then I will apologize. You have never done that that I can recall. You routinely state as fact things that are merely your (mostly uninformed) opinion. This is a key example.

 

While one can only say Amen to electing Christian men and women, the fact is the infrastructure and ties to other power bases is so beyond hope there is no reforming republicans and democrats. A person with good intentions elected only to enter the power base of either party will more than likely end up like the rest.

 

My concern over this thought process is that you have to leave God out of the process. If you will remember Joseph found his way into government and was a very effective leader in a secular government. And it was because he refused to allow his biblical principles be compromised. Daniel is another fine example of this very thing.

So the idea that a christian should not be involved in government is refited by scripture. God can, has, and does use godly men in government. These two examples alone also refute the notion that to have a governement filled wioth godly men who govern with godly principles will lead to a theocracy. It simply isnt true. We need to trust God instead of worring about mistrusting men.

 

Conservative Cokie Roberts nails it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH_k6a3_5c8&eurl

Now here is a conservative that is showing accountability...thank you you win the honest broker of the day award.

 

It could lead to a cleaning out of the party. That would be nice, get some conservatives back in.

The Studds episode actually strengthened the dems, so it's hard to tell. I haven't heard any conservatives stick up for Foley.

Time will tell. I really don't think Americans want democrats in power right now. They've got work to do. Who knows, if the dems stop taking Soros & daily Kos money I might even go back to voting for them......

 

I cannot believe what I just read. Did you actually say that somehow God is involved in the present state of affairs of our government? Tell me Rev, just which of the two parties would a Holy God choose to work through? The two governments you cite above obviously had some rement of morality left in them. Maybe they took pride in what they did. Maybe they saw a lofty goal and were trying to reach for it. I am not worried about mistrusting men, I want to get rid of them. But then again, I dont feel lead to be a republican apologist. (or democrat for that matter). A Christian not being involved in government was never presented. Changing both parties for another was. Read the posts.

 

So let me get this striaght. You think God is not soveriegn in our governement?

 

If you mean that everything that happens in our government is what God wants to happen, no!

If you mean that God has the ability to control what happens in our government, yet He allows people to make choices, yes!

 

God is sovereign over everything. That has nothing to do with looking for Godly qualities in a government that has none.