Poster | Thread | ZekeO Member
Joined: 2004/7/4 Posts: 1014 Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
| Re: Noisy Bush Babies | | Quote:
and so does Michael Peroutka, what is the difference? One difference is this: We mean it.
Are you joining congress? You should be his campaign manager. :-P _________________ Zeke Oosthuis
|
| 2004/8/7 17:00 | Profile | KeithLaMothe Member
Joined: 2004/3/28 Posts: 354
| Re: | | That was a quote from one of his pages, as I thought I marked off, I just didn't want to use [ quote ] tags because it makes it longer. |
| 2004/8/7 17:02 | Profile | earnestlycontend Member
Joined: 2003/11/23 Posts: 69 Flinstone, GA
| Re: | | Hey Bro. Keith, thanks for the good info on a new candidate.
My concern, though, is that a vote for Peroutka is actually a vote for Kerry.
Surely we'd both agree that at least being almost totally against abortion, cloning, stem cell research, and gay marriage is better than Kerry's support for such woeful sin.
What are your thoughts?
Kendal *I'll pray for and about this candidate too! _________________ Kendal Shipley
|
| 2004/8/7 20:44 | Profile | earnestlycontend Member
Joined: 2003/11/23 Posts: 69 Flinstone, GA
| Re: | | by the way, in how many state is Peroutka going to be on the ballot?
is Nader going to be on the ballot in all 50 states? _________________ Kendal Shipley
|
| 2004/8/7 21:26 | Profile | KeithLaMothe Member
Joined: 2004/3/28 Posts: 354
| Re: | | Quote:
My concern, though, is that a vote for Peroutka is actually a vote for Kerry.
This is naturally going to come up, though I don't think it works out mathematically (more like half a vote for Kerry). In either case, the article I pointed to in the first post addresses this, I'll quote from it:
Quote:
Typical conservative rebuttal: This is a common reproof conservatives offer when they discover that I have denounce Bush and I support the Constitution Party candidate for President, Michael Peroutka, the only pro-life, pro-family constitutional Presidential candidate on the ballot in 2004.
A vote for Michael Peroutka is a vote for John Kerry.
If you are shortsighted, pragmatism will dictate that you vote for the least wicked man who will do the least amount of wickedness and destroy the least amount of your freedoms these next four years. I have a good friend who cant stand President Bushs pro-abortion or pro-sodomite leanings or his big-government remedy for every social ill, but he voted for Bush in 2000 anyway because the one thing he feared more than Bush was Gore. But if you vote for the lesser of two evils every four years, the lesser of two evils will inevitably become more and more wicked! If you vote for the most conservative of two liberals every four years, the most conservative liberal will become more and more liberal! Your vision must be greater than the next four years. You need to vote with your grandchildren in mind.
If you always vote for the most conservative of two liberal candidates, then America will always be justifying the murder of preborn children. Always! In 2020, maybe the lesser of two evils is a pro-abortion sodomite who will charge you only 80% for taxes while the greater of two evils is a pro-abortion communist who charges 95%. Where will we draw the line? There must be some issues on which conservatives will not compromise, and the legal killing of children is one of those issues.
I am going to vote to keep my conscience clean first and foremost. That means Im going to vote for the best man for the job and pray in faith (not in unbelief) for a miracle. If more saints did the same, we WILL see our miracle.[1] I am praying, "God give us godly leaders who will outlaw abortion and govern us in accordance with the laws of nature and nature's God." How can I pray this prayer and not act in accordance? Should I pray in unbelief (as evidenced by my vote on Nov.7)? Or should I pray in faith, and act in accordance to my prayers?
Voting for Bush over Gore was not the lesser of two evils, as it has often been said. It was more evil! When the liberal President Bill Clinton tried to shove his socialistic, liberal nonsense down the nations throat, conservatives in Congress and around the nation fought him every step of the way.[2] How can so many of those conservatives live with themselves as they support and vote with President Bush as he does the very same thing they so vigorously opposed with Bill Clinton? It appears that conservatives have unconditional allegiance for their darling, Christian President, regardless of how many babies he kills, how many militant sodomites he appoints, how much of our hard-money he steals and spends on nonsense to which we would not donate voluntarily, how many of our constitutional liberties he rescinds with his anti-terrorism legislation, and how successful he has been in four years at doing what Clinton was unable to do in eight! As Alan Keyes admitted when George W. Bush was chosen to be the Republican nominee, Bush is more dangerous than Clinton! The argument for the lesser of two evils only applies when it truly is lesser; but with the Republican Partys capitulation to Bushs liberal agenda, Bush accomplished much more for the left than Clinton ever dreamed!
I would be remiss to mention that many Christian Bush-supporters are not ignorant or naive about the President's liberal tendencies. They hate government-sanctioned child-killing and sodomy and they are aware of Bushs grave shortcomings in these areas, but they believe that promoting godliness in government is a matter of "incrementalism" - a gradual shifting of policies and legislation to the right. The conservative "incrementalists" condemn my approach as an "all-or-nothing" mentality that is doomed to obscurity and failure. I have two comments about the philosophy of incrementalism when it comes to President Bush. First, if Bush is "incrementally" taking us anywhere, it's to the left. The same goes with the Republican party as a whole: they are "incrementally" taking conservativism to the left - we are not taking them to the right. Under G.W. Bush and a Republican dominated Congress and Senate, there are more babies dying at the expense of the taxpayers, there are more sodomite proponents of gay marriage being elevated to positions of government leadership, the central government is getting larger and the Constitutional rights are being undermined even more than under Clinton. Conservatives have been betrayed by Bush's rhetoric, and have not judged him by his fruit.
Compromise has its place in politics, but Christians can never compromise Thus saith the Lord. When God forbids murder, we cannot overrule him. It is usurpation and idolatry to think that man even a universal democratic consensus of men can overrule God and tolerate legal child-killing. On issues of principle, Christians, constrained by conscience, must draw a line in the sand and say, "No! I'm not going to compromise the Word of God!" If we can compromise to support a Presidential or Congressional candidate who supports the killing of innocent preborn children in some instances, then what won't we compromise on? Would we compromise to support a candidate that supported the killing of Jews, or the elderly and infirmed? Would we compromise to support the "incremental" abolition of kidnapping and enslaving blacks? Would we compromise to support a candidate that supported the killing of Christians? I dont think we would compromise to support a Republican candidate who endorsed the slaughter of Christians, and if not, do we love our neighbor as ourselves if we compromise to support a candidate who endorses the slaughter of our preborn neighbors? I fear for the professing Christians who compromise to vote for a President whom they know justifies abortion and who doesn't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned. Will they look down at their hands on Judgment Day to see them stained with innocent blood? Will they hear, "Inasmuch as ye did it not to the least of these, ye did it not to me"? (Matthew 25:45)
Quote:
Surely we'd both agree that at least being almost totally against abortion, cloning, stem cell research, and gay marriage is better than Kerry's support for such woeful sin.
Bush's stance on abortion is not acceptable, I cannot in good conscience support any candidate who thinks it is [b]ever[/b] ok to murder an innocent human being. The sixth commandment is absolute. Voting for Bush would be a sin for me (voting for Kerry would be worse, but one does not choose the less grievous of two sins, one refuses to sin).
Quote:
What are your thoughts?
I think that Bush might actually do more damage than Kerry could, because his positions are not exactly conservative and the mass of the people who normally oppose the liberal agenda would be more likely to "sleep" under Bush because most of them think they would have a good, reliable conservative in charge and wouldn't have to fight him every step of the way. If Kerry wins, more would fight for a truly conservative/Christian agenda.
Also, if Kerry wins, and this nation does go further down the tubes as a result (and I have little doubt that it would, apart from an act of God), it will be clear to more that there are serious problems with the nation and that truly conservative politics (like those in the CP platform) are the best political way to address them.
Of course, politics are not and can never be our salvation. Only Jesus can save us, now or ever. The church has a lot of repentance to do, particularly over how our shamefully poor job at being fathers is filling the ranks of the militant homosexuals (who cannot reproduce on their own). No amount of political action, money, and harassing our congressmen will change the fact that a lukewarm church is being rightly judged for its failure to obey, and part of that judgment (as indicated in Romans 1) is a proliferation of homosexuality. As Credenda/Agenda put it, we're far too ready to say "Here is evil, let us condemn it," and far too reluctant to say "Here is evil, let us confess it."
Quote:
*I'll pray for and about this candidate too!
I'm glad to hear that. Let us keep President Bush, Senator Kerry, and other national leaders (of our nation and others) in our prayers as well, as we are commanded to. |
| 2004/8/7 22:57 | Profile | earnestlycontend Member
Joined: 2003/11/23 Posts: 69 Flinstone, GA
| Re: | | In how many states in Peroutka going to be on the ballot? _________________ Kendal Shipley
|
| 2004/8/8 22:15 | Profile | KeithLaMothe Member
Joined: 2004/3/28 Posts: 354
| Re: | | Sorry, forgot to answer that: in the 2000 election the CP (running Howard Phillips) was on the ballot in 41 states, with 7 more taking write-ins (I think that's what they did). This time around it looks like considerably less than that, but the article they have up on it isn't finished. I suppose it could be the new campaign finance reforms making it even harder for the other parties.
The Lord's will be done. |
| 2004/8/9 1:35 | Profile | Denny Member
Joined: 2004/7/7 Posts: 199 Virginia
| Re: Article on President Bush | | Check out [url=www.bushrevealed.com]www.bushrevealed.com[/url]
The information on this site is true and documented.
"You shall know the truth and the truth ......" _________________ Dennis Green
|
| 2004/8/9 10:10 | Profile | InTheLight Member
Joined: 2003/7/31 Posts: 2850 Phoenix, Arizona USA
| Re: | | I think Greg Koukl has some valuable things to say on this subject, please prayerfully consider the following clips from an article he wrote about third-party voting in the previous election ;
"Since there is no middle ground on abortion–"choice" always means a dead child–then it's critically important we make decisions at the polls that go beyond token moral gestures (something that looks right, but has no impact). We must make choices that have the greatest chance of actually saving children.
The question we're faced with is this: If we were forced to choose between looking virtuous but having no further effect, or appearing ignoble but accomplishing some good, which path should we take? When we must choose one or the other, are we obliged by God to [i]make a moral statement or to have a moral impact?[/i]
"Here's an example of what I mean. Judie Brown has vigorously opposed legislation targeted narrowly at partial-birth abortion. She's against the prohibition not because she is pro-abortion, but because she is pro-life. As President of the American Life League, Brown asserts that such "incrementalist" solutions "set aside millions of children scheduled for death," the 99% of abortions that don't use that procedure. As Brown sees it, this is an issue of conscience. A mere ban on partial-birth abortion doesn't go far enough. She can't get behind any legislation that allows a single child to be killed. Anything short of the full pro-life position is an unacceptable compromise. In this case, however, "voting one's conscience" actually causes much more harm than good. Instead of saving 1% of future victims of abortion, Judie Brown's approach saves none."
"In other words, it's better to choose someone who is committed to eliminating some of the evil, than contributing to the victory of one who is not committed to eliminating any of the evil but, on the contrary, will promote it. This is not a compromise. This is good moral thinking."
"Let me state it plainly: If you are pro-life and intend on casting a "conscience vote" for a third party candidate, you might as well be voting for Al Gore. It will have the same ultimate impact on the safety of the unborn. If you sleep more comfortably at night because you've voted your principles, then I believe your conscience is misinformed. You've chosen to make a moral statement instead of choosing to have a moral impact. As one pundit put it, it's better to have a second class fireman than a first class arsonist. There is no victory nor honor in voting for the first-class fireman who had no chance of winning when, in the end, your "conscience vote" actually counted for the arsonist."
You can read the entire article at the following link;
[url=http://www.str.org/free/solid_ground/SG0009.htm]What's Wrong with the "Conscience Vote"[/url]
In Christ,
Ron _________________ Ron Halverson
|
| 2004/8/9 20:48 | Profile | Denny Member
Joined: 2004/7/7 Posts: 199 Virginia
| Re: | | by earnestlycontend on 2004/8/7 21:26:19
"by the way, in how many state is Peroutka going to be on the ballot?"
ANSWER 40 if things work out, but probably 39, 38 would be the least it appears now. _________________ Dennis Green
|
| 2004/8/9 22:01 | Profile |
|