Election 2004

LexingtonPethead · Post by **LexingtonPethead** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:43 pm

I checked out Peroutka and the Constitution Party, and I wholeheartedly agree with most of their positions since I've always considered myself to be more conservative than most.

But I sharply disagree with their position on the war on Terror and the War in Iraq (which was an extension of the war on terror).

Basically, I feel Peroutka is way off on these two issues. We can't simply turn our backs to people who want to kill us. I really don't want to open that can of worms, so I won't. But just wanted to point that out.

micah · Post by **micah** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 12:43 am

Ok, yeah, but if we had been taking a more "stay out" position all along, we wouldn't have a lot of people wanting to kill us.

LexingtonPethead · Post by **LexingtonPethead** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:42 am

I doubt it. What they hate is our freedom and prosperity. Disconnecting from other countries wouldn't have made this invisible to the outside world.

Also, please be careful with taking that position on the war on terror. It postulates that America is responsible for what terrorists do, and of course, that's ludicrous. TERROROSTS are responsible for what terrorists do, and no one else.

President Bush had it right last night.

MichaeLeah · Post by **MichaeLeah** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:57 am

It is a bad idea to vote for someone in one of these small parties. Every vote to a non-Republican conservative functions as a vote for a democrat. If you vote for a small party you are throwing your vote away. Strategize!

LexingtonPethead · Post by **LexingtonPethead** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:04 am

I agree. These conservative factions need to come home to the Republican party. If they do, we can perhaps end up with a more conservative nominee with mass appeal. I think this is the best way to go about it.

micah · Post by **micah** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:31 pm

The Republicans need to come up with a good candidate then.

If we're going to keep voting for them, no matter how liberal they become, because "they're better than the Democrats," then both parties will keep taking the country farther and farther into the gutter.

Voting for a third party may or may not help the "more evil" person win this time, but in the long term it's probably the only way to fix things.

Besides, maybe a Kerry presidency is what America needs for people to realize how bad liberals really are.

LexingtonPethead · Post by **LexingtonPethead** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:04 pm

micah wrote:If we're going to keep voting for them, no matter how liberal they become, because "they're better than the Democrats," then both parties will keep taking the country farther and farther into the gutter.

That's a good point, Micah. The Republican party is definitely more liberal than it was, say, during the Reagan era. And that's disappointing.

micah wrote:Voting for a third party may or may not help the "more evil" person win this time, but in the long term it's probably the only way to fix things.

I know you mean this as a metaphor, though I think you could have chosen a better one. No rational person could call George W Bush evil and have any credibility in doing so. I believe Bush is an evangelical Christian who sincerely loves the Lord and follows Christ as best he can. There are accolades of Bush sharing the gospel with individuals, literally winning souls for Christ. Evil you say? I think not.

micah wrote:Besides, maybe a Kerry presidency is what America needs for people to realize how bad liberals really are.

I assume that's a joke.

You see, that's what people said when Clinton got elected the first time, and Republicans thought people would see their mistake, and that they would easily reclaim the presidency in '96. Then Clinton won his second term, and it proved there are tons of voters out there who would rather believe cleverly crafted lies and and throw morality out the window. The results of 8 years of liberalism has caused untold damage to our American heritage, our families, our Christian heritage... damage that may take an entire generation to repair. You surely can't be serious about adding 4 more years of liberalism on top of that. So I'll laugh with you on this one.

separateunion · Post by **separateunion** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:44 pm

The Republicans could have easily won the 96 election if they had picked a halfway decent candidate. By nominating Dole, the Republican Party acted as if it was throwing the towel in and wasn't even trying to win the presidency.

LexingtonPethead · Post by **LexingtonPethead** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:20 pm

separateunion wrote:The Republicans could have easily won the 96 election if they had picked a halfway decent candidate. By nominating Dole, the Republican Party acted as if it was throwing the towel in and wasn't even trying to win the presidency.

This is true. Plus, Clinton didn't even win the majority vote (am I explaining that right?). Of course he got more votes than anyone else because he won, but it wasn't by a clear majority.

I think as it came time to nominate a candidate in '96, Republicans felt Dole was the rightful heir to the nomination, like it was his turn to run, regardless of his chances of winning. By the time Dole was nominated, I don't think Republicans were expecting a win in '96, even though Dole should have been the winner by default because Clinton was such an abomination. It was almost a given that many would vote for Clinton no matter what he did or didn't do.

Today the democrats are at it again with lies and double standards that are so obvious. Yet, if Republicans once again assume people are smart enough to know the difference, we'll be uttering the words "President Kerry" in 2005. A lot of people actually like being stupid and ignorant whether they realize it or not. So we can't get comfortable and think Bush is going to win based on morals and principle.

rlima · Post by **rlima** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 7:43 pm

The Bible says in Romans 13.1, 2 (NIV): "everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that wich God has established. The Authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves". I want to know is, if Kerry wins the election, will the Bush-supporters pray for him or just continuing blaming him as a "liberal" or another adjective at hand? Will the Bush supporters submit themselves under government authority, even when this government doesn't fit into their religious aspirations? Or will commit rebellion, doing sin against God's Word? This is what I want to know if Kerry wins the election, because there are so many people who supports Bush until death that I want to see their faces in case of Democrat victory.

Shell · Post by **Shell** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:04 pm

That's a valid question my friend, but I have one for you too: Are we just supposed to sit by and watch our leaders break God's laws and not say anything? But yes, I would pray for him.

Oh, and by the way, Kerry is a liberal. Big time.

Just thought I'd throw that in.

rlima · Post by **rlima** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:56 am

I understand the Church is the Body of Christ, not the Structure (in a sense of a human thing) of Christ. So, if a leader breaks God's law, it's only his fault, or is our fault too, when we are so admired about his religious words that we forgot to admonish him prophetically according to the Scriptures? Remember the prophet Jonah, at the chapter one of his book: when the ship was about to sink, and the sailors tried to find the responsible, he said: "I am the one". We must repent and say "I am the one" who forgot to pray, to admonish by the Word, to live by the Word. If the world is corrupted, it's the Church's fault, because we are at our comfort zone and forgot to live by the Word. And to live by the Word does not mean to repeat some Christianese speech (remembering Steve Taylor

!), but means to be sault of the earth and light of the world.

Shell · Post by **Shell** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 7:16 am

Steve Taylor. He was very, very good.

I went to several of his concerts in the late 80s/early 90s and I really liked him.

"I Want To Be A Clone" is classic stuff.

gman · Post by **gman** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:26 am

I believe the passage in Romans that has been quoted may not necessarily refer to a specific government or leaders, but rather the institution of government itself coming from God. Remember that there was a time early on in the Old Testament where you didn't have a human government. It also talks in Romans about not letting those in power get away with evil.

Shell · Post by **Shell** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 10:58 am

Good point. God was the Israelite's leader until they started complaining about wanting a human king, and that's when there were kings of Israel. They had some big problems after that too. Be careful what you wish for....

The Petra Zone

Election 2004

....

Ah...

romans

...

Who is online