sprucegoose: What About Giuliani ?

About Me

Location: MInneapolis, Minnesota, United States

I am now a simple Grandpa who's life is made richer as each grandchild is born. My wife and I have raised five children and the 30 year love labor of raising them has begun to yield sweet fruit..... And then there are fruits of 30 years in ministry ... I am a satisfied old man full of the joy of the Lord.

Friday, October 12, 2007

What About Giuliani ?

Isn't it bad enough that Giuliani is pro-homosexual and pro-abortion ? And then there is this... ! Giuliani in drag.

How any bible believing person could vote for this guy is beyond me.

Notice that the dress he is wearing in the photo is not the same dress he is wearing in the video. He likes to dress up in drag.

Labels: 2008 elections, Giuliani, homosexuality, transvestite

5 Comments:

Anonymous said...: Ick!!!; 4:01 PM, October 12, 2007
Unknown said...: Talk to us more about the 2008 elections and it's candidates..please!; 6:29 PM, October 24, 2007
Anonymous said...: May I present, Pat Robertson's choice for President.; 12:48 PM, November 19, 2007
Anonymous said...: Ok, I have a lot to say. I agree with you for the Republican nomination. But! And I know you don't like "Yeah, but"s... Politics is about the better not the best, especially since the end-times is not Post-Mil. Wouldn't we be obligated to vote for this man dressing up like a woman over the woman who dresses up like a man? ...I mean Bill Clinton's wife.
So, now the best seems to be Thompson but where is he? Where's his determination? Why isn't he beating the pavement? He says he won't change from being mellow, but this is rediculous. Some say there are a lot of good choices in the field this election. But isn't the field more FRAGMENTED than ever, just as the culture is, just as Christianity is. Ah, but the political Left is culturally quite unified. We don't know what is good anymore so we can't choose what is "better", not to mention the "best". Collectively, Americans and Christians separately are stupider and stupiderer. Get in line with Huckabee? Stupid. Trust Guiliani to appoint conservative judges after Bush promised a Scolia and then we had to fight against a Harriet Myers? Stupid. Trust the classic politician Romney? Considering the other factor involved maybe he's the best. At some point we have to choose to win. At what point do we fall on the sword and vote for the best person who will lose? Some have done this for awhile, stupidly. The Constitution Party turned out to be a bad testimony. Politics is not about the best, but about the better. Alan Keyes turned out to be a crazyman. I supported him. I agreed with most of what he said at the last debate. But he comes off as classically mad. Plus I hear he's for "Reparations". This voting your conscience thing is completely misunderstood and lost in the stupidness of Man.

The other factor is to choose to win. So when do we do this? Christians are too *fragmented* to decided together. And too dumbed-down to know any better about the political process, not to mention the importance of taking responsibility to vote and to vote effectively (e.g. within the two-party system).

Thompson seems the best. But pressed to vote today I would vote for Romney, because of the importance of winning. Yes, the compromise must be made. And if you don't understand compromise in politics then you don't belong in the USA as a citizen, or you don't understand distinctions like between the natural and the spiritual. ("You" as in Christian readers.) If there was Christian unity, that would be different. If America *was* a theocracy, that would be different. If it was up to us to bring about a Christian kingdom, that would be different.

Plus, as far as the evidence is, Guiliani is homosexually sympathetic and simply blindly joking by being disgusting like that. (I wouldn't say this or make an argument like this to someone who was going to vote for him.) My point is they're all blindly misguided. Huckabee too.

I have to squeeze in a video game before church. A Dios gringos!; 5:41 AM, December 30, 2007
Anonymous said...: Ok, I want to continue. And I feel obliged to comment more on Huckabee.

McCain? Like Hugh Hewitt says: "Great American, bad Republican, terrible Senator". Thompson? Won't pound the pavement. Guiliani? Only tough (and right) on the tough-guy issues. Although he also seems to be good against taxes. Huckabee? Only tough on the soft-guy issues. Too soft on the tough-guy issues. On taxes, seems good and bad. Spending, good and bad.
No matter what, he will lose. The Left has already given him accolades, so you know they want him to win the primary big-time, so they can crush him and humiliate the Christian and dispense with Christianity forever in the public arena. You might say Bring!..It!..On!.. If he got the War I might say that too. He's soft on security: the border and on the War. This is inexcusable and intolerable.
He's a great communicator, yet his communication shows he's overly Christian. And I say it like that to provoke thought. More accurately, he's overly compassionate. We don't need to continue head-long toward the Nanny-state. We already have the precedents from The New Deal to Katrina. It's socialism. And socialism is not Americanism. A Huckabee is an improper mix. The Church should be able to speak into the State, but having this blurring mix under the banner of Christianity would be bad for the State and bad long-term for the Church. Plus there are instances coming out about Huckabee's ethics.

I'm not thrilled about Romney, that's for sure. As far as I know, he's only flipped (like Reagan), and not flip-flopped like the Left media would have you believe. He's kind of too slick and kind of reactive versus leading.

We have bad choices. It could easily turn out horribly by losing to Bill Clinton's wife. Across the board, people are saying they can't vote for so-n-so. I've heard this substantially about Clinton (woman), Obama (black), McCain (betraying Republican), Guiliani (pro-choice), Romney (Mormon), and Huckabee (Evangelical). When it comes down to the choice between the better of two evils, you better choose the better, or it's irresponsible, because that's the way the system is. And we're not voting for Pastor-in-Chief yadda yadda.

Ugh. I can't believe I will probably vote for a Mormon. Not because he's a Mormon so much as that's what the condition of the country has come to. The distinctions must be understood. The political system must be better understood. And this includes accepting that the status quo is the status quo. The foundation of America is great and if we can get back there, great. All y'all know we can't get back there is we lose to Bill Clinton's wife.

I appreciated James Dobson's comments against Guiliani except he went too far. He said it might be better that Clinton wins because the pro-life movement would be rejuvenated like never before. Dumb! I view that to be self-centeredly blind. As if because he has been in that ministry for decades, the preservation of that ministry is paramount against all else. I want to say "Stupid!" but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and just call that DUMB. Completely unwise. Some crazy ends justifies the means. Let more babies be killed at an increasing rate and maybe beyond the point of no return so that the ministry gets a shot in the arm. Especially because of my mantra: every category gets increasingly fragmented, even Christians. What is required is a shake from God, not fake-shaking manipulation from Man. Planning to let Clinton win, to me, is like playing God, instead of doing the "best" with what one has, which seems to me to be the requirement from God.

Dobson wasn't about to endorse anyone but said Romney was the only one on his "list". That was before the Huckabee Surge. I don't know what to make of this particularly but wanted to share some more info to help fill out some of the political environment.; 3:27 PM, December 30, 2007