Bearded Weirdo
Inactive
tropicalfish said:Proud to vote for Bush.
[Pol] *IF* your vote weren't "wasted", would you vote for Bush or Kerry?
- Thread starter Dennis Olson
- Start date
Kimber
Membership Revoked
The lesser of two evils is still an "Evil Lite" without the extra calories.
Please, even if you do hate Bush, vote FOR something you believe in. Voting against something is easy. Look at any poll, including this one. No one ever has a majority. Build a spine and support it.
[Edited to add: I have the utmost respect for true believing Communists in Germany in the early 1930s and the same for the Russian Communists in the 1940s. I think their view was wrong, but they had backbone, and believed in something.]
Please, even if you do hate Bush, vote FOR something you believe in. Voting against something is easy. Look at any poll, including this one. No one ever has a majority. Build a spine and support it.
[Edited to add: I have the utmost respect for true believing Communists in Germany in the early 1930s and the same for the Russian Communists in the 1940s. I think their view was wrong, but they had backbone, and believed in something.]
Ladyklr; [font=Verdana,Arial]"Someone who cares about the common folk who make up this country." Do you really believe that brahmin admitted war criminal gigolo chin boy gives two farts about the common folks? Bwa hahahaha!
Dennis, if there were a constitutionalist and I though he or she could win, I would vote for them in a heartbeat. But alas, we have one marginally better than the other.
[/font]
Dennis, if there were a constitutionalist and I though he or she could win, I would vote for them in a heartbeat. But alas, we have one marginally better than the other.
[/font]
Regardless of who one votes for, you had better know the basic philosophy of the party they belong to. Both the Republicans and Democrats may be similar, but they are far different in basic philosophy.
Yes, indeed, I have a great deal of trouble understanding how someone who is so far above the middle class (wealthwise) as Kerry and who is the liberal poster child could possibly know anything about real life.
Someone else made a good point that we may yet get to real hardcore socialism, but it will be somewhat slower with the Republicans than the Democrats.
I used to be an elections official and there's no point in registering to vote, if you don't exercise that right.
Patricia (Oh, yes, has to be Bush.)
Yes, indeed, I have a great deal of trouble understanding how someone who is so far above the middle class (wealthwise) as Kerry and who is the liberal poster child could possibly know anything about real life.
Someone else made a good point that we may yet get to real hardcore socialism, but it will be somewhat slower with the Republicans than the Democrats.
I used to be an elections official and there's no point in registering to vote, if you don't exercise that right.
Patricia (Oh, yes, has to be Bush.)
one party system
The French do everything wrong anyway.
IMHO it's incorrect to say we have to be stuck with the 2-party monopoly forever because having more competing parties is too complicated or will never work.
THe situation is actually worse than a 2-party monopoly - because of de-facto collusion, we really have a ONE party system in America.
Both Dems and Repubs have figured out that most districts have gradually become "uncontestable" - meaning 70-90% of the seats are either solidly Republican or Solidly Dem. So the minority party puts up token candidates and lets the "incumbent" party win.
YOu can see this in 2004 Pres election. RNC and DNC know from polling and from 2000 results which states are "in the bag" and are concentrating fighting for the 16 "swing states".
So far the past decade we have been left largely having "appointed" officials and not even getting the chance to vote for lesser of TWO evils since Reps and Dems are colluding and saying - you get this district, I get this one here, etc.
People not voting their conscience and not having viable Third parties and fairly contested elections is ruining this country. Since the de-facto incumbents are not in fear of losing - they are not responsible to their constituents and the people are getting screwed.
Politics has always been a dirty game, but having some new players gives us a fighting chance of making some difference.
JMHO
The French do everything wrong anyway.
IMHO it's incorrect to say we have to be stuck with the 2-party monopoly forever because having more competing parties is too complicated or will never work.
THe situation is actually worse than a 2-party monopoly - because of de-facto collusion, we really have a ONE party system in America.
Both Dems and Repubs have figured out that most districts have gradually become "uncontestable" - meaning 70-90% of the seats are either solidly Republican or Solidly Dem. So the minority party puts up token candidates and lets the "incumbent" party win.
YOu can see this in 2004 Pres election. RNC and DNC know from polling and from 2000 results which states are "in the bag" and are concentrating fighting for the 16 "swing states".
So far the past decade we have been left largely having "appointed" officials and not even getting the chance to vote for lesser of TWO evils since Reps and Dems are colluding and saying - you get this district, I get this one here, etc.
People not voting their conscience and not having viable Third parties and fairly contested elections is ruining this country. Since the de-facto incumbents are not in fear of losing - they are not responsible to their constituents and the people are getting screwed.
Politics has always been a dirty game, but having some new players gives us a fighting chance of making some difference.
JMHO
Well, from that line of reasoning, anytime you vote for the loser, your vote is "wasted". Philosophically, the best thing for all to do is to vote for whichever candidate on the ballot best reflects your values. IMO, the only wasted vote is the one that is not cast. That goes for everything from Prez to Dogcatcher. If there is noone on the ballot who reflects what you believe, and you feel you could do a better job, then quit your whining and write in yourself.It seems that many of us have been successfully "programmed" to believe that if we don't vote for the major party "candidates"that our vote is wasted.
Ravekid
Veteran Member
ladydkr said:
Wonderfull. With folks like you who think gun control, more taxes, less rights, etc. should be proof that Kerry 'cares about the common folk' we may as well say our final good-byes to the U.S. right now. What Bush couldn't get done, Kerry/Edwards will.
RIP US of A
One thing I would like to see;
All voting districts set up to have the most equal number of people, with the shortest boundary line. Thus no gerrymanders.
That would eliminate schemes to create safe districts all over the place.
Wonder what the effect would be. We might have more voting districts in play and that would be a good thing.
All voting districts set up to have the most equal number of people, with the shortest boundary line. Thus no gerrymanders.
That would eliminate schemes to create safe districts all over the place.
Wonder what the effect would be. We might have more voting districts in play and that would be a good thing.
instant runoff voting
another reform idea would be to implement instant runoff voting ballots.
this means instead of voting for 1 candidate - you vote for your top candidates in order of preference. example.
for Pres of US '04:
1st - Badnarik
2nd - Bush
3rd - Kerry
4th - Nader
5th - <write in>
etc
The person with the most votes still wins but at least with IRV you voted your conscience by putting your 1st choice 1st, 2nd choice 2nd, etc.
Of course - doesn't exactly work for Presidency because of the stupid Electoral college system - and the Electoral system should be scrapped ASAP.
another reform idea would be to implement instant runoff voting ballots.
this means instead of voting for 1 candidate - you vote for your top candidates in order of preference. example.
for Pres of US '04:
1st - Badnarik
2nd - Bush
3rd - Kerry
4th - Nader
5th - <write in>
etc
The person with the most votes still wins but at least with IRV you voted your conscience by putting your 1st choice 1st, 2nd choice 2nd, etc.
Of course - doesn't exactly work for Presidency because of the stupid Electoral college system - and the Electoral system should be scrapped ASAP.
Thomas Paine
Has No Life - Lives on TB
ladydkr said:
Kerry/Edwards? Kerry is a charlatan who crapped all over the Vietnam Vets and is a self admitted war criminal. He is just as wealthy if not more wealty than Herr Bush and has a socialist bent at the core of his beliefs.Hell He's more liberal than Teddy Kennedy. Ewdars is just another liberal, wealthy pretty boy trail lawyer. I'm voting third party this time around becasue neither party has the peopl at the heart of it's concerns.Bush is bad enough with his beneviolent facism, but HKerry is ahas not so beneviolent socialism/communistic tendies at the core of his philosphy. He is as bad if not worse than either Bill or Hill. I would rather see the US split into several smaller countries than have Kerry as president.
As I've said I'm voting third party if the canidate is Wiley E. Coyote.
Trasael Adnepos
Inactive
Careful what you wish for, Thomas. The U.S. is already divided into ten Federal Regions with state boundaries dissolved in certain "managment" documents and "law". I warrant the power responsible for the creation of those Regions will not create governments to your liking. I'm not in any hurry to see the next civil war, (or U.N. "peacekeepers" on our soil), as much as I appreciate all the idealism and zeal expressed on this thread by folks like yourself and Kimber, and desire the restoration of the Republic as much as anyone alive.
What I fail to understand the reasoning behind, is this attitude which supposes that a Kerry/Hillary type administration might wake up America. When fully half of our People are so completely dumbed down and brainwashed, else morally bankrupted, to the extent they would cast a vote for the sorry likes of Gore, does not bode well for any Great Awakening. They didn't wake up at Waco, they didn't wake up when the towers fell, or at scores of other critical warnings, usurpations, and judgments over the past 70 years.
I have long attempted to wake others up, often at the risk of personal security by speaking publicly in electronic media or community halls, or even by litigation, and have come to the opinion that it *IF* the Republic is even recoverable, it is going to take horrendous divine judgment to wake the sleeping giant, (if indeed the giant still lives, and not just a Remnant who love liberty).
The sure knowledge that these severe judgments must now come causes me to pray they may be forestalled. I sincerely hope I am not just growing old and tired, or that the hopes of my children and grandchildren do not cloud my own reason, but even while we must be wise and prepare, I will never and have never hastened the day when open warfare among brothers may well rage in our land again.
I also wonder, from the discussion here, how many even understand the original design of our electoral system for presidential elections. It was not a "winner take all per state" system at all, not was it the mobocracy some here seem to prefer. I get the impression it would please some to abolish the Congress and go to a straight mob vote on national issues.
And no, Kamelot, you don't have to provide your "reasoning". That is your right, but you do have to live with the result of it, so I would encourage you to check your guts and ask them why you prefer a man who may as well be an avowed Communist - who will work overtime to destroy personal liberty, and to make you one of the Borg.
Tras
______________
"They who have put out the people's eyes reproach them of their blindness."
John Milton, 1642
What I fail to understand the reasoning behind, is this attitude which supposes that a Kerry/Hillary type administration might wake up America. When fully half of our People are so completely dumbed down and brainwashed, else morally bankrupted, to the extent they would cast a vote for the sorry likes of Gore, does not bode well for any Great Awakening. They didn't wake up at Waco, they didn't wake up when the towers fell, or at scores of other critical warnings, usurpations, and judgments over the past 70 years.
I have long attempted to wake others up, often at the risk of personal security by speaking publicly in electronic media or community halls, or even by litigation, and have come to the opinion that it *IF* the Republic is even recoverable, it is going to take horrendous divine judgment to wake the sleeping giant, (if indeed the giant still lives, and not just a Remnant who love liberty).
The sure knowledge that these severe judgments must now come causes me to pray they may be forestalled. I sincerely hope I am not just growing old and tired, or that the hopes of my children and grandchildren do not cloud my own reason, but even while we must be wise and prepare, I will never and have never hastened the day when open warfare among brothers may well rage in our land again.
I also wonder, from the discussion here, how many even understand the original design of our electoral system for presidential elections. It was not a "winner take all per state" system at all, not was it the mobocracy some here seem to prefer. I get the impression it would please some to abolish the Congress and go to a straight mob vote on national issues.
And no, Kamelot, you don't have to provide your "reasoning". That is your right, but you do have to live with the result of it, so I would encourage you to check your guts and ask them why you prefer a man who may as well be an avowed Communist - who will work overtime to destroy personal liberty, and to make you one of the Borg.
Tras
______________
"They who have put out the people's eyes reproach them of their blindness."
John Milton, 1642
None of the Above!!!!!
I'm in favor of that "none of the above" and then we start over idea. Then again, I've been in favor of that since I was old enough to think about such things. Actually, I'd vote for anyone at this point that would really do something about being able to obtain medical care without running the constant risk of going bankrupt. I lived in the Caribbean for almost a year and was forced to return to the US because you just can't beat American medicine, and I was sick. But as someone over 50 with multiple medical problems, forced into the most expensive category of insurance in Virginia because of those problems and sitting on a $2500 a year deductible with all pre-existing conditions not covered for a twelve month period, I'm tired of worrying about what's going to happen to what little money I have. Four thousand a year for insurance, 2500 a year in deductible, then a 20 percent co-payment - husband on disability, I can't work, can't collect disability because it's been so long since I was able to work that they won't allow me anything - looks like a sure recipe for disaster and I can't find a single thing I can do about it. Even if I could qualify for Medicare, I'd still be in jeopardy because of the lack of adequate drug coverage and the amount and nature and expense of the meds I take. My insurer in NC told me that my health insurance coverage wouldn't be impacted should I move out of state - but when I bought a house in Virginia, only then did I learn that I had been given incorrect information and would lose coverage. The policy in NC was expensive, but had a $300 deductible and was good enough to keep my head above water even in the face of chronic (and incurable) medical issues. My vote could be bought really easily - just give me adequate medical care and let me keep my assets. The tobacco farm in NC that I inherited is yielding about 2 percent of its value a year, so throw in the tobacco quota buyout and my vote would be a no-brainer! As it is, the farm rent doesn't even cover the cost of insurance and deductible.
I'm in favor of that "none of the above" and then we start over idea. Then again, I've been in favor of that since I was old enough to think about such things. Actually, I'd vote for anyone at this point that would really do something about being able to obtain medical care without running the constant risk of going bankrupt. I lived in the Caribbean for almost a year and was forced to return to the US because you just can't beat American medicine, and I was sick. But as someone over 50 with multiple medical problems, forced into the most expensive category of insurance in Virginia because of those problems and sitting on a $2500 a year deductible with all pre-existing conditions not covered for a twelve month period, I'm tired of worrying about what's going to happen to what little money I have. Four thousand a year for insurance, 2500 a year in deductible, then a 20 percent co-payment - husband on disability, I can't work, can't collect disability because it's been so long since I was able to work that they won't allow me anything - looks like a sure recipe for disaster and I can't find a single thing I can do about it. Even if I could qualify for Medicare, I'd still be in jeopardy because of the lack of adequate drug coverage and the amount and nature and expense of the meds I take. My insurer in NC told me that my health insurance coverage wouldn't be impacted should I move out of state - but when I bought a house in Virginia, only then did I learn that I had been given incorrect information and would lose coverage. The policy in NC was expensive, but had a $300 deductible and was good enough to keep my head above water even in the face of chronic (and incurable) medical issues. My vote could be bought really easily - just give me adequate medical care and let me keep my assets. The tobacco farm in NC that I inherited is yielding about 2 percent of its value a year, so throw in the tobacco quota buyout and my vote would be a no-brainer! As it is, the farm rent doesn't even cover the cost of insurance and deductible.
Ravekid
Veteran Member
Claudia said:
So are you saying that if Kerry or Bush purposed stealing from others in the form of taxes that they would get your vote? This is what is wrong with this country....Me, Me, Me, I, I, I. I feel sorry for these people with illnesses....but I have to wonder if we are just destroying the human race because such folks can live to pass on bad health problems. When do we say enough? When do we help out? Personally I would rather have all Section 8, WICC, AFDC, Social Security Disability (hillbilly welfare), etc. done away with and move that to healthcare. That won't happen though. Seriously, sometimes we can't just demand that someone (be it government or a private company) provide the key to solve all of our health problems. Some problems are in the DNA, and more people have got to accept this. Some problems are caused by eating bad food, not working out, smoking, drinking, etc.. Again, people have got to accept this and understand that life is a set time frame. However, we have so many people demanding a cure all even if the cost is $1,000,000 a treatment. I can't wait till Kerry takes office, hopefully those thinking about going to school, working hard to make $200K will re-think their position. Kerry only wants to punish hard work.
Thomas Paine
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Trasael Adnepos said:
No mob rule for me, i fully understand why the system was set up like it was. I think the founding fathers were pretty slick and realized man is a herd creature.To prevent the herd from being stampeded to a certain things were designed the way they were.
As to the splitting up of the US I believe it's coming the concepts of multiculturalism and forced diversity and political correctness are engineered to almost garuntee this. Read Thomas Chittum's Civil War II look over the check list in the back of the book of precursors to the balkanization of America. I truely believe in the next 50 years by hook,crook, financial, or political means the US must be destroyed to insure the NWO/One World government agenda is successful.
Personally along with many legal scholars i believe it would be perfectly legla for several states to withdraw from the Union and that this would be best .Instead of them controlling the when and how we would and could. Of course i'm enough of a realist to understand it ain't gonna happen that way.But it would be preferable to living under a president Hillery or even a president Kerry.They are vile human beings who believe in everything this country was brought to life to be against.
BugoutBear
Inactive
Bearded Weirdo said:
That's a darn good question. . .
BugoutBear
Well, got some replies from my post. Not surprised at responses but let me tell you that I am not put off by slams and dunks.
Kerry was not my first choice. I know my history. I started registering voters and doing "patriotic" party work when I was 18. I became a registrar of voters and saw how voting was "libralized" over the years. You used to have to be 21, in the state a year and the county 90 days. No more anywhere! Everyone can and should vote! I had the election in my home for 25 years. I worked on so many campaigns I can't remember whose they were. I've earned the right to believe in the candidate of my choice.
I like liberal benefits: social security, medicare, civil rights, handicapped rights, etc.
As far as taxes are concerned: Most of us are paying more at the local level than we were due to the fact that so little money is filtering down to the locals any more. The Feds keep mandating and mandating i.e. "no child left behind."
Now let me tell you about the real world. A group of people here had a meeting on a Thursday evening and decided we needed a Democratic Headquarters. They had another meeting and when discussing costs and needs and mentioned they needed four telephone lines there was protest as too costly. A lady at the next table got up came over and said "I'll pay for the phones." She wrote out a check for $500. In 4 days they had over $5000. People covered the rent for four months, people gave supplies, people said they'd cover expenses. People came and painted. The headquarters is open.
My 85 year old aunt in Reno told me she is voluteering one morning a week and people are coming out of the woodwork to help.
Everyone I know, see on the street, at the store is ready and willing to turn out to do something. We realize this is a do or die issue. This is not about mundane things like taxes. You really think a $600 refund was a big deal. I don't think so. It is stupid what they did with taxes. It is true that the rich benefited. I should know. I love only paying 15% on my significant dividends from stocks and bonds!
Our freedoms have been limited. i.e. patriot act.
Now let me tell you something else. With a degree in statistics I look at bottom lines. Last fall we had 12,902 registered Demos two weeks ago it was 14,185.
Republicans had 3397 and they now have 3,166. Greens had 674 now 602, minor parties 522, now 523; and DS&non partisens 2212 and now 2272. And the County Clerk is being beseiged by voters who want to vote in November and this is only July!!!! I hear this is happening all over the country!
Bush got fewer votes then the candidate for congress in 15 of our 35 precincts. Republicans did not vote for him!
Anger and committment are the Democratic word of the day. We WILL win in November!
There is real anger out there! See how well Moore's movie did! And people stood and clapped!!!!
So who isn't rich in the Congress and Senate?
Who isn't a lawyer in the Congress and Senate?
Anybody but Bush has got to be better!
Kerry was not my first choice. I know my history. I started registering voters and doing "patriotic" party work when I was 18. I became a registrar of voters and saw how voting was "libralized" over the years. You used to have to be 21, in the state a year and the county 90 days. No more anywhere! Everyone can and should vote! I had the election in my home for 25 years. I worked on so many campaigns I can't remember whose they were. I've earned the right to believe in the candidate of my choice.
I like liberal benefits: social security, medicare, civil rights, handicapped rights, etc.
As far as taxes are concerned: Most of us are paying more at the local level than we were due to the fact that so little money is filtering down to the locals any more. The Feds keep mandating and mandating i.e. "no child left behind."
Now let me tell you about the real world. A group of people here had a meeting on a Thursday evening and decided we needed a Democratic Headquarters. They had another meeting and when discussing costs and needs and mentioned they needed four telephone lines there was protest as too costly. A lady at the next table got up came over and said "I'll pay for the phones." She wrote out a check for $500. In 4 days they had over $5000. People covered the rent for four months, people gave supplies, people said they'd cover expenses. People came and painted. The headquarters is open.
My 85 year old aunt in Reno told me she is voluteering one morning a week and people are coming out of the woodwork to help.
Everyone I know, see on the street, at the store is ready and willing to turn out to do something. We realize this is a do or die issue. This is not about mundane things like taxes. You really think a $600 refund was a big deal. I don't think so. It is stupid what they did with taxes. It is true that the rich benefited. I should know. I love only paying 15% on my significant dividends from stocks and bonds!
Our freedoms have been limited. i.e. patriot act.
Now let me tell you something else. With a degree in statistics I look at bottom lines. Last fall we had 12,902 registered Demos two weeks ago it was 14,185.
Republicans had 3397 and they now have 3,166. Greens had 674 now 602, minor parties 522, now 523; and DS&non partisens 2212 and now 2272. And the County Clerk is being beseiged by voters who want to vote in November and this is only July!!!! I hear this is happening all over the country!
Bush got fewer votes then the candidate for congress in 15 of our 35 precincts. Republicans did not vote for him!
Anger and committment are the Democratic word of the day. We WILL win in November!
There is real anger out there! See how well Moore's movie did! And people stood and clapped!!!!
So who isn't rich in the Congress and Senate?
Who isn't a lawyer in the Congress and Senate?
Anybody but Bush has got to be better!
Thomas Paine
Has No Life - Lives on TB
BugoutBear said:That's a darn good question. . .
BugoutBear
Pat Buchcannan and Ron Paul
Thomas Paine
Has No Life - Lives on TB
ladydkr said:
I don't believe anyone here questions your right to may your choice, however the sensibility of that choice was put out for discussion by your post. I have decided to stop voting for the lesser of 2 evils. I deserve better choices as do you and the mainstream parties are not offering them.
At least you admit you are of a socialist bent so many won't even do that.
I agree about unfunded mandates, the federal government shouldn't do that, but I also believe if it is not mentioned in article 1 section 8 of the constituion or elsewhere in the federal government shouldn't be doing it. You see a strong government tends to forget it's there to serve the people not enslave them.
Democrats don't have a corner on this type action. I know lost of republicans who do the same. I know lots of activist types who do the same.This is the political world not the real world. In the real world most of the people I know from storkeepers to lawyers from cops to doctors want the government the hell out of our lives and pocket books. This includes local governments. We do
not want the liberal nanny government proponets telling us how to think or make up our minds.
As I said elsewhere I'd rather suffer under the benevolent facism of Bush then the liberal nanny government kerry will bring.At least Bush will take less of my money and take my rights in smaller increments.
Good for her to be active like that at that age is super. I sincerely hope she enjoys herself.
Hey to me, a middle class copper, a 600 buck tax break is a big deal. Depending on the part of the country that's an after taxes pay check figure. As to dividends on stocks and bonds they should be only profit made should be taxed and that the normal rate for income. You already paid taxes once on the original money/investment. If we didn't have those liberal Benefits , we wouldn't need taxes to be so high anyway.
And Clinton gave us the Assault Weapons Ban, The original Counterterroist law in the 95 Omibus Crime Act, and 8 years of making a shell out of our military and selling our secrets for chinese pay off money.But he felt our pain.
Maybe in your neck of the woods but not around here in mine, Bush isn't well liked but as one old farmer told me the other day, he's voted democrat most of his life but they (the Democrats) left him and people like him behind iin favor of queers and artsy fartsy idiots. his words not mine. Just an old man I talked to in a gun store recently. I got a fly over map that shows Bush got more Electoral votes than than Gore .In a presidential election that's what counts, not popularity.
I agree I'm angry about democrats and we shold commit as many as the asylums will hold
I'm sorry that was one I just couldn't pass up.Yeah and people clapped when the white house was blown up in Independance Day also. No big deal, Moore twist facts and out right lies so much in his so called documentries it's really funny to hear people rave about him then slam Rush Limbaugh.They are cut out of the same cloth just on equeal sides.Both want the common man to indentify with them, both act as they could walk on water, both are living tributes to PT Barnum.
Anyone but a liberal that is.
Kimber
Membership Revoked
ladydkr,
I don't whether this is short for Lady Doctor, I'll assume it is.
You're upset with lawyers in Congress and you want a plaintiff lawyer as VP? Have you checked your malpractice premiums recently?
And as for "societal benefits": I sometimes love and sometimes hate Walter Williams, but he's right about this. You want organized theft. If a majority voted to rape someone, would that be OK? Why is taking my money any different?
The "common good", if you're going to argue this non-constitutional argument, means "public goods", roads, police, etc. An expense for all. Not an expense to buy votes.
David
I don't whether this is short for Lady Doctor, I'll assume it is.
You're upset with lawyers in Congress and you want a plaintiff lawyer as VP? Have you checked your malpractice premiums recently?
And as for "societal benefits": I sometimes love and sometimes hate Walter Williams, but he's right about this. You want organized theft. If a majority voted to rape someone, would that be OK? Why is taking my money any different?
The "common good", if you're going to argue this non-constitutional argument, means "public goods", roads, police, etc. An expense for all. Not an expense to buy votes.
David
auxman
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit...
Would You Vote For Nero Or Caligula As "The Lesser of Two Evils"?
02/07/2004
Would You Vote For Nero Or Caligula As "The Lesser of Two Evils"?
by Chuck Baldwin
Constitution Party Vice Presidential Nominee
I constantly hear Christian conservatives say they must vote for "the lesser of two evils." This mostly translates into a vote for a pseudo-conservative Republican who, once elected, implements the same basic policies that just about any Democratic candidate would have implemented.
However, rather than admit there is virtually no difference between a pseudo-conservative Republican and an openly liberal Democrat, Christian conservatives continue to argue the benefits of voting for "the lesser of two evils."
Question: if these same Christian conservatives had the opportunity to vote for Nero or Caligula, for whom would they vote? Would they vote for Nero because he slaughtered fewer Christians than Caligula? Would they overlook the murder of the Apostle Paul because in the grand scheme of things, Nero is not regarded as bloodthirsty as Caligula?
Philosophically, the above scenario is not much different from the logic used by Christian conservatives today who choose to overlook the violent injustices to the Constitution, the continued destruction of unborn babies, and the utter contempt for less government that are routinely demonstrated by recent Republican presidents. Their only argument for the continued support of such people is, "They are the lesser of two evils." Therefore, I suppose we would hear Christian conservatives say, "Vote for Nero; he is the lesser of two evils."
When Christian conservatives attempt to defend G.W. Bush, they usually point to his signing a partial birth abortion bill as some great accomplishment which sets him apart from pro-abortion Democrats. But does it, really? I think not.
In the first place, the ink had not even dried on the paper when a federal judge struck down the partial birth abortion bill as "unconstitutional." Has anyone heard anything about it since? Has President Bush used his bully pulpit to protest the court's decision? Has he petitioned Congress to impeach the judge or to at least exercise their constitutional authority under Article II, Section 2, to limit the court's jurisdiction in this matter? No.
Does anyone believe that President Bush and the Republican members of Congress who supported the partial birth abortion bill really believe that a federal court would not declare it to be "unconstitutional?" They expected it, and they planned to do nothing about it. Therefore, the net result is, not one single baby has been saved because President Bush signed a partial birth abortion bill.
What people need to understand is that the purpose of the partial birth abortion bill was never to save babies' lives, it was only to dupe naïve conservatives into believing that President Bush achieved some great victory for the pro-life cause. And it worked.
Let me put it to you another way. Suppose there is an island with five bridges connecting it to a mainland. One bridge is located in such a place that fewer than 2% of all traffic to the island crosses over it. Suppose the president publicly states that he is opposed to traffic crossing any of the bridges, and to show his commitment to opposition to bridge crossing, he shuts down the bridge which carries 2% of the traffic volume and leaves the other four bridges which carry 98% of the traffic volume intact.
Furthermore, this outspoken opponent to bridge crossing president stands back and does nothing as a judge comes in afterward and reopens that one bridge, even though he and his fellow opponents to bridge crossing in Congress have the authority to close, not only that one bridge, but all the bridges. Would anyone take him seriously when he later repeated his assertion that he was opposed to bridge crossing?
This is exactly the way President Bush has treated the abortion issue, and Christian conservatives continue to call him a "pro-life" president. Talk about gullible!
Furthermore, the life issue is only one of many issues in which the difference between Mr. Bush and just about any liberal Democrat are about as substantial as the difference between Nero and Caligula.
For example, both President Bush and most Democrats say they oppose homosexual marriage but support "civil unions" for homosexuals. Both Bush and most Democrats explode federal spending. Both Bush and most Democrats support the Clinton gun ban. Both Bush and most Democrats support granting illegal aliens some form of amnesty. Both Bush and most Democrats support the creation of an Orwellian-style police state via the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the passage of The USA Patriot Act.
The main difference between pseudo-conservatives such as G.W. Bush and liberal Democrats is that Bush professes to be conservative while most Democrats profess to be liberal. So, which is "the lesser of two evils?" The one who tells you he is a liberal and means it, or the one who tells you he is a conservative and doesn't?
Choosing between a phony conservative Republican and an honest liberal Democrat is no choice at all. One may as well argue the benefits of voting for Nero over Caligula. No, the only choice is to vote for a true conservative. If one cannot be found in the Republican Party, try looking to a minor party. The Constitution Party comes to mind. If enough conservatives would vote their conscience, the Constitution Party would not be a minor party, and we wouldn't be left choosing between Nero and Caligula as "the lesser of two evils."
Chuck Baldwin is the Founder and Pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida and host of the Chuck Baldwin Live radio show --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Baldwin Live Website: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com
link
02/07/2004
Would You Vote For Nero Or Caligula As "The Lesser of Two Evils"?
by Chuck Baldwin
Constitution Party Vice Presidential Nominee
I constantly hear Christian conservatives say they must vote for "the lesser of two evils." This mostly translates into a vote for a pseudo-conservative Republican who, once elected, implements the same basic policies that just about any Democratic candidate would have implemented.
However, rather than admit there is virtually no difference between a pseudo-conservative Republican and an openly liberal Democrat, Christian conservatives continue to argue the benefits of voting for "the lesser of two evils."
Question: if these same Christian conservatives had the opportunity to vote for Nero or Caligula, for whom would they vote? Would they vote for Nero because he slaughtered fewer Christians than Caligula? Would they overlook the murder of the Apostle Paul because in the grand scheme of things, Nero is not regarded as bloodthirsty as Caligula?
Philosophically, the above scenario is not much different from the logic used by Christian conservatives today who choose to overlook the violent injustices to the Constitution, the continued destruction of unborn babies, and the utter contempt for less government that are routinely demonstrated by recent Republican presidents. Their only argument for the continued support of such people is, "They are the lesser of two evils." Therefore, I suppose we would hear Christian conservatives say, "Vote for Nero; he is the lesser of two evils."
When Christian conservatives attempt to defend G.W. Bush, they usually point to his signing a partial birth abortion bill as some great accomplishment which sets him apart from pro-abortion Democrats. But does it, really? I think not.
In the first place, the ink had not even dried on the paper when a federal judge struck down the partial birth abortion bill as "unconstitutional." Has anyone heard anything about it since? Has President Bush used his bully pulpit to protest the court's decision? Has he petitioned Congress to impeach the judge or to at least exercise their constitutional authority under Article II, Section 2, to limit the court's jurisdiction in this matter? No.
Does anyone believe that President Bush and the Republican members of Congress who supported the partial birth abortion bill really believe that a federal court would not declare it to be "unconstitutional?" They expected it, and they planned to do nothing about it. Therefore, the net result is, not one single baby has been saved because President Bush signed a partial birth abortion bill.
What people need to understand is that the purpose of the partial birth abortion bill was never to save babies' lives, it was only to dupe naïve conservatives into believing that President Bush achieved some great victory for the pro-life cause. And it worked.
Let me put it to you another way. Suppose there is an island with five bridges connecting it to a mainland. One bridge is located in such a place that fewer than 2% of all traffic to the island crosses over it. Suppose the president publicly states that he is opposed to traffic crossing any of the bridges, and to show his commitment to opposition to bridge crossing, he shuts down the bridge which carries 2% of the traffic volume and leaves the other four bridges which carry 98% of the traffic volume intact.
Furthermore, this outspoken opponent to bridge crossing president stands back and does nothing as a judge comes in afterward and reopens that one bridge, even though he and his fellow opponents to bridge crossing in Congress have the authority to close, not only that one bridge, but all the bridges. Would anyone take him seriously when he later repeated his assertion that he was opposed to bridge crossing?
This is exactly the way President Bush has treated the abortion issue, and Christian conservatives continue to call him a "pro-life" president. Talk about gullible!
Furthermore, the life issue is only one of many issues in which the difference between Mr. Bush and just about any liberal Democrat are about as substantial as the difference between Nero and Caligula.
For example, both President Bush and most Democrats say they oppose homosexual marriage but support "civil unions" for homosexuals. Both Bush and most Democrats explode federal spending. Both Bush and most Democrats support the Clinton gun ban. Both Bush and most Democrats support granting illegal aliens some form of amnesty. Both Bush and most Democrats support the creation of an Orwellian-style police state via the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the passage of The USA Patriot Act.
The main difference between pseudo-conservatives such as G.W. Bush and liberal Democrats is that Bush professes to be conservative while most Democrats profess to be liberal. So, which is "the lesser of two evils?" The one who tells you he is a liberal and means it, or the one who tells you he is a conservative and doesn't?
Choosing between a phony conservative Republican and an honest liberal Democrat is no choice at all. One may as well argue the benefits of voting for Nero over Caligula. No, the only choice is to vote for a true conservative. If one cannot be found in the Republican Party, try looking to a minor party. The Constitution Party comes to mind. If enough conservatives would vote their conscience, the Constitution Party would not be a minor party, and we wouldn't be left choosing between Nero and Caligula as "the lesser of two evils."
Chuck Baldwin is the Founder and Pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida and host of the Chuck Baldwin Live radio show --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Baldwin Live Website: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com
link
Bearded Weirdo
Inactive
<b>"Chuck Baldwin is the Founder and Pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida and host of the Chuck Baldwin Live radio show."</b>
His short bio forgets to add that he is the Vice Presidental candiate of the Constitution Party.
His short bio forgets to add that he is the Vice Presidental candiate of the Constitution Party.
What I find fascinating is that about 40% of members would vote "alternatively", if they felt their vote wasn't wasted. Do you folks think that a 40% swing in the electorate just MIGHT have influence on the elections? Especially since Bush II only won by a few thousand votes? This is how THEY KEEP CONTROL people, by making you believe that only one of the "major candidates" is a viable option. WE MAKE THAT HAPPEN. Remember Reagan's anti-drug message? It applies to the vote as well:
Just say NO....
is a viable option. WE MAKE THAT HAPPEN. Remember Reagan's anti-drug message? It applies to the vote as well:Just say NO....
Please...!!
"I like liberal benefits: social security, medicare, civil rights, handicapped rights, etc.
As far as taxes are concerned: Most of us are paying more at the local level than we were due to the fact that so little money is filtering down to the locals any more. "
That's the kind of attitude that has brought illegals streaming across from Mexico, and has brought this country to its knees.
Your highest taxes should be, in order:
1. Local taxes
2. State taxes
3. Federal taxes
"I like liberal benefits: social security, medicare, civil rights, handicapped rights, etc.
As far as taxes are concerned: Most of us are paying more at the local level than we were due to the fact that so little money is filtering down to the locals any more. "
That's the kind of attitude that has brought illegals streaming across from Mexico, and has brought this country to its knees.
Your highest taxes should be, in order:
1. Local taxes
2. State taxes
3. Federal taxes
Tras (and Jed),
You know I respect you both, and rarely disagree with you, but I think you've both swallowed the kool-aid.
That option has specifically and repeatedly proven itself to NOT be viable. What is it they say about someone who keeps repeating the same process and expecting a different result?
As the Libertarians say, “There isn't a dime's worth of difference" between the two major parties.
As long as you allow TPTB to select your options, the game is rigged. None of them care which candidate is voted for, as long as the either/or charade is promoted and people are persuaded by the populist media to at least choose one side or the other.
The only things that voting either Republican or Democrat absolutely guarantees are that we will get more of the same; that we will be told we "chose" our president and if we didn't like the outcome we should vote for the "other" side next time; and that we will be told a vote for any other party is just a "waste."
Voting against someone is a reactive vote. Voting against someone is an act of fear. Voting against someone is surrender to the "higher powers."
Voting for someone is a proactive vote. Voting for someone is an act of courage. Voting for someone tells the "higher powers" we won't go quietly.
You either have principles or you don't. You act either with or without compromise.
-------
Kimber,
Stick to your guns!
You know I respect you both, and rarely disagree with you, but I think you've both swallowed the kool-aid.
That option has specifically and repeatedly proven itself to NOT be viable. What is it they say about someone who keeps repeating the same process and expecting a different result?
As the Libertarians say, “There isn't a dime's worth of difference" between the two major parties.
As long as you allow TPTB to select your options, the game is rigged. None of them care which candidate is voted for, as long as the either/or charade is promoted and people are persuaded by the populist media to at least choose one side or the other.
The only things that voting either Republican or Democrat absolutely guarantees are that we will get more of the same; that we will be told we "chose" our president and if we didn't like the outcome we should vote for the "other" side next time; and that we will be told a vote for any other party is just a "waste."
Voting against someone is a reactive vote. Voting against someone is an act of fear. Voting against someone is surrender to the "higher powers."
Voting for someone is a proactive vote. Voting for someone is an act of courage. Voting for someone tells the "higher powers" we won't go quietly.
You either have principles or you don't. You act either with or without compromise.
-------
Kimber,
Stick to your guns!
Markus Archus
Veteran Member
Please note when evaluating the results - the counts will be one vote off. I meant to click "Yes - Bush" but I clicked "Yes - Kerry" by mistake and didn't catch myself in time. May God have mercy on my soul.
I am not voting against Kerry (well, I should say, I'm not JUST voting against Kerry), I am voting for Bush. He hasn't been perfect, and I'm annoyed no end at what he has done regarding immigration, but on balance a good president who deserves reelection.
I am not voting against Kerry (well, I should say, I'm not JUST voting against Kerry), I am voting for Bush. He hasn't been perfect, and I'm annoyed no end at what he has done regarding immigration, but on balance a good president who deserves reelection.
Markus, I corrected your vote in the totals.
Markus Archus
Veteran Member
Thanks, I'll sleep much better tonight.
MinnesotaSmith
Membership Revoked
Ladydkr...
"one who has more than his and his friends' pocketbooks in mind"
FYI: If any of the guys in Congress is into money, wouldn't a guy who married a billionairess for it qualify? (I've seen pics of Kerry's wife; she's not even average.) Edwards? The ambulance chaser? These guys make Bush's and Cheney's oil connections look angelic.
I'm voting Constitution Party, FWIW.
"one who has more than his and his friends' pocketbooks in mind"
FYI: If any of the guys in Congress is into money, wouldn't a guy who married a billionairess for it qualify? (I've seen pics of Kerry's wife; she's not even average.) Edwards? The ambulance chaser? These guys make Bush's and Cheney's oil connections look angelic.
I'm voting Constitution Party, FWIW.
MinnesotaSmith
Membership Revoked
Claudia...
Why do you think you have the right to force other people to pay for your medical care, a private matter if there ever was one? Would it be OK if I made you sell your farm to pay for my house rent for the next few years? Theft works both ways; when it's legal, practically everyone becomes a victim and a thief. Then, noone works anymore BC there's no point (it'll all be stolen), and the nation is left peeing on its foot. That's not a solution, not pragmatically nor morally.
Why do you think you have the right to force other people to pay for your medical care, a private matter if there ever was one? Would it be OK if I made you sell your farm to pay for my house rent for the next few years? Theft works both ways; when it's legal, practically everyone becomes a victim and a thief. Then, noone works anymore BC there's no point (it'll all be stolen), and the nation is left peeing on its foot. That's not a solution, not pragmatically nor morally.
Ravekid
Veteran Member
ladydkr said:
Lucky for us, those who believe in freedom (a 180 from social security, medicare, civil rights, etc), the assult weapons ban will expire before then....at least we might have a fighting chance before Kerry does us all in!!!!
PS: I am not advocating violence of any sort. I am sure billionaire boy JKF and his butt buddy John the Ambulance Chaser will be very receptive to the serfs when we voice our complaints.
I am not really sure why you are here? Are you hear to rat those of us who have supplies out to FEMA?
I can see it now: "I know Ravekid is so and so and lives at this address. He has plenty of supplies. I think a FEMA re-distribution vehicle should be sent to his home. I mean it's about being FAIR to everyone!!! Lawqush Jones has every right to have 4 bastard kids, live on Section 8, and be given some of Ravekids preps." This is the John Kerry USS of A, meaning the United Socialist States of America. What Bush started Kerry will finish.
ladydkr said:
And Kerry is any better? From his own website:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/crime/
"As President, I will fight to preserve and strengthen the assault weapons ban."
Like I said before....what Bush started, Kerry will finish.
Last edited: