If Hillary! had won, it would not have been just because she was a woman.
But if you didn't vote for her, it's because she's a woman.
If The Obama wins, it will not be just because he's a (half-)black man.
But if you don't vote for him, it's because he's a (half-)black man.
I get it now.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Dan,
I still don't get why anyone would vote for either of them, or McCain. But that's just me.
Ricky Rickard, Jr.
Barr/Root '08
So what are we if we don't vote for McCain? :-)
Carl, I have two answers:
1. If the LSM were even-handed, you'd be anti-ageist.
2. Since they aren't, you'd just be an intelligent, responsible, caring American.
Ricky — simple. Because Obama or McCain will be President. Of the two, only one respects some distinctive values Christians care for, to some degree, in any practical way, and might slow or reverse the trend of anti-Constitutional judicial activism.
And, like him or not (and I do not) that is McCain.
Any other vote by a Christian helps Obama.
Since you asked, that's why.
Ricky,
I would concur with Dan on this. I too am no great fan of McCain. But we have to remember that the President also appoints judges to the federal bench.
Federal judicial appointments are lifetime appointments. As I've mentioned in previous posts, with the advances in medical technology, a federal judicial appointment can have implications for generations to come. Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the most liberal justices on the court, was appointed back in 1975 (sadly, he was appointed by Ford - a moderate to liberal Republican - but that is another story).
Justice Stevens is in excellent health (in his 80's) and probably has another good 10 or more years on the court. With the exception of President Bush, it's a throw of the dice whether we get reliable conservative judges, but with democrats, we will always get a liberal judge.
That's why it is important to vote for John McCain. He knows he has to behave himself when it comes to appointing judges.
I would just remind you of a couple of things. The ban on partial birth abortions overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed by the President (I think in 2003) was immediately stayed by the federal courts and not until last term was the stay lifted (by one vote) on the SCOTUS to allow the federal ban go back in place.
Also, in CA, CA voters overhelmingly passed a propostion banning gay marriages and defining marriage between a man or a women (as if we even need to define marriage). That state ban passed by the voters was overturned by the CA state supreme court by one vote. The voters of CA have put forth another proposition which amends our state constitution. If that proposition does not pass CA will be in a unique position to continue to allow gay marriages. I say, unique, because unlike MA, anyone from any state can come to CA and get married and take that marriage license to another state. (MA gay marriage is only legal in MA).
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was overwhelmingly passed by Congess and signed by Clinton. The DOMA allows for states to not recognize gay marriages from other states. That gay couple who got married in CA and goes back to their state can challenge their states and DOMA and ask the federal courts to overturn other states' constitution and the DOMA on the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.
Homosexuals will argue that by trying to use the Full Faith and Credit that since marriage is recognized in every state of the Union regardless of what state you got married, then every state in the Union must recognize their gay "marriage."
Dan is right. A vote for any third party whether it be for the Conservative Party or the Libertarian party which Barr is in, is a vote for Obama. If you live in a battleground state, this is especially important.
You mentioned in one of your posts, way back, that your daughter agreed with you why you cannot vote for Obama. I believe if you share with her this argument, she will agree also. It's imperative (for a proper stewardship of your vote) that you vote for John McCain.
Dan and Carlo,
I have the greatest respect for both of you and your opinions. It was you two (along with others) who talked me off ledge and convinced me of the evil that is Barack Obama. You will not get an argument from me on how evil and how bad it would be if he was elected. However, I am choosing this election cycle to not cast my vote for the lesser of two evils. John McCain, while I am certain he would be right on judges, abortion, and gay marriage, is simply wrong on too many other issues. He is wrong on the war, foreign policy, immigration, the first amendment, the environment, and the economy. I can not justify voting for him. A vote for the lesser of two evils, in my opinion, is still a vote for evil. This election, I am casting my vote for the candidate that I feel that shares my opinion on the majority of issues. I feel that is that is the proper stewardship of my vote. I know you both will disagree with me, and I respect that. And since I live in Ohio, it will be seen as more wrong to vote third party, as Ohio is a battleground state. But as I said, this election I am voting on principle, which is exactly the lesson I want to teach both my daughters. Again, I respect both of you and your opinions, I am just choosing to go a different path.
God Bless!
A couple of my own thoughts:
First, every vote for an unglorified child of Adam is a lesser of X evils.
Second, which is better strategery: to vote for the person who will do 3 things you want him to do? Or the person who will do ZERO of the things you want him to?
Good guy that you are, you may reply, "Well, three, obviously. But I don't know why you're asking; I'm already convinced not to vote for Obama."
But I'm not comparing McCain and Obama. I'm comparing McCain and Barr. Because Barr will accomplish NOTHING that is dear to you.
Because he cannot possibly win.
And only the winner gets anything done.
And by voting for Barr, you're making it likelier that the guy who will do nothing you want, and much that you despise, will win.
Ricky,
I would also point out that by voting for Barr you are still voting for the lesser of evils, instead of two, you are voting for the lesser of 3.
I don't know if you know this, but in the Libertarian platform, they state, "No government interference in 'reproductive rights', including access to abortion.
Let's take away the euphemism of the Libertarian platform and say what they actually mean, which is government will stop being the government by not protecting the most defenseless, the unborn.
The libertarian party would also repeal the laws against prostitution. They would repeal laws against illicit drugs. So, you still are voting for a "lesser" of evils.
The libertarian party is also opposed to all civil rights that regulate the private sector (e.g., the Civil Rights Acts of 64). So, the private sector would be free to not hire somebody based on their race or ethnicity.
So, is it a number count of how many evils? You believe that McCain is wrong on at least the 6 issues you mentioned. My guess is that you believe that the Libertarian party is wrong on the aforementioned issues I mentioned. That would be 4 issues. I'm sure I left some out that you would disagree with the Libertarians.
So, you are still voting for a lesser of evils.
Dan’s point is excellent as the vote for Barr (again a de facto vote for Obama) renders this all moot. Since it will either be McCain or Obama that will be President, an Obama presidency would not result in 4 issues that you are in disagreement with the Libertarian Party, or 6 issues that you are in disagreement with McCain, but what 14 or 15 issues that you are in disagreement with and NO issues that you are in agreement with.
So, here is my count. A vote for Obama, which you will not do is 15 issues against what you believe and none what you’re for. A vote for McCain is 3 issues that you are for and 6 you are not. A vote for Barr (since it is a de facto vote for Obama) results in 15 issues you are against and none you are for. And let’s say, you decided, that you weren’t going to vote at all, since liberals will vote for Obama, a non-vote by a conservative is a de facto vote for Obama and that leads to 15 issues you are against and none you are for.
Either way, Ricky, a third party vote or a non-vote is a vote for what you don't want.
Dan,
First point taken and noted. Can't argue with you regarding the nature of man. Also, thanks for the complement about me being a nice guy.
Carlo,
I have thoroughly researched the Libertarian position (the exact opposite of what I did with Obama). I also examine Bob Barr's positions. Bob Barr is unapologetically pro-life. Bob Barr thinks, as I do, that gay marriage is an issue that should be left to the states and their voters. Also, I think the smaller government is, the better off we as citizens are. That is just my opinion though.
Dan and Carlo,
Any other year, I would agree with your contention that a third party has no chance. However, this election, you have so many voters that are disenfranchised and unsatisfied with the candidates their parties have chosen, I believe Barr has a real chance. If the rest of the MSM will follow the lead of Glenn Beck and give Barr airtime, you will see more and more people drawn to his opinions. I will do all I can to get Bob Barr as many votes as possible. At the end of the day, I will leave it up to the will of God as to who the next President is. I will give you both the last word on this.
God Bless!
Doesn't matter who anyone votes for...God's will shall be accomplished. We'll have judicial activism on the right or the left as long as we continue to politicize the courts. It may be true that liberals began using the courts to attempt to accomplish their agenda when they could not prevail through the democratic process but it is just as true that conservatives now do the very thing they condemn about liberals...engage in judicial activism! Both parties are despicable embodiments of evil.
We will never end the abhorrence of abortion by electing democrats or republicans, we will only do that by convicting people of sin and turning them on to the Lord of the universe, Jesus Christ. All else is utter futility and spitting into the wind.
SDG
Rob wrote: "We will never end the abhorrence of abortion by electing democrats or republicans, we will only do that by convicting people of sin and turning them on to the Lord of the universe, Jesus Christ. All else is utter futility and spitting into the wind."
My response: I have two comments.
I find these statements coming from you strange given that you do not believe that the Great Commission applies to everyone in the church.
Secondly, your argument is a straw man argument. No one on this blog is suggesting that we will "end" abhorrence through the law.
We understand that even if our laws defends the unborn or punishes murderers or thieves, we understand that the passing of a law does not guarantee people will change their behavior, because behavior flows from the heart rather than from what the community sets up as rules and regulations.
But, the purpose of laws is not to change hearts, but to regulate behavior. Whether one honors their contracts is a moral issue, whether one murders a person is a moral issue, whether one steals someone’s property is a moral issue, whether one operates their car that endangers the lives of others is a moral issue. The issue of abortion is a moral and ethical issue. These all have moral elements. The very essence of legislation is to regulate behavior which is what morality is, not to change sinful hearts.
Ricky,
Thanks for giving me the last words. I do have a couple of things to say on this.
I don't know if you know the history of Barr but he lost his Republican congressional seat in 2002 due to Georgia redistricting. Barr was a target of Libertarian party in their ads because Barr was a proponent of the drug war and fought against legalizing medical marijuana.
He has sinced reversed those positions.
On your argument that Barr has a chance. This may be a little bit before your time that you could vote, but you may remember Ross Perot in the 90's. Ross Perot ran on the Reformed Party ballot.
Now this was prior to Fox News Channel (which didn't start until 1996), but CNN and all the three major networks were pumping up a lot of people and duping them into thinking that Ross Perot had a chance. Which he never did. Ross Perot got 20 million votes in 1992 and you know how many electoral votes he got Ricky? Zero. The media new that, Clinton new that, and even President Bush 1 new that.
I was hoping to get away from ever confessing my naivety in a public forum but I voted for Ross Perot because like you I was really disappointed with the current President Bush 1 then. And to add insult to injury, I voted for him in 1996 even after being warned that it would only elect a democrat and put more liberal judges on the federal bench.
I like to chalk up what I did because I was naive in my early 20s.
But what makes it what Barr is doing despicable is that he knows he can't win the election. If he is as really pro-life as he says he is, then he would know that his candidacy will pull votes from disgruntled or ignorant Republicans handing the election over to Obama whereby Obama will appoint judges who would keep abortion legal and make same-sex "marriages" legal.
Again, there are only two reasons I could think of why Barr is running, he is either a really stupid man, or he is in it for a vendetta or self-aggrandizement since he knows he can't win.
Yes, the Lord's will, will be done. But don't make the same mistake I hear some doing. I know you don't believe this, but I hear stories of professing Christians people going through divorces and they say that well, if it happens then it is God's will. Well, certainly the Lord may have decreed certain things, but His preceptive will is clear.
Anyway, as a collective, the third party vote by believers is a vote for Obama. Please Ricky, don't regret the vote you make and don't let what may happen in my home state in CA on same sex marriages be a reality in your state because a federal court overturns your state's constitution (whatever it has to say on marriage) and overturn DOMA.
Post a Comment