Why I'm voting Democrat this time

[Judy McDonald]

NOT!

I'm voting Democrat because English has no place being the official language in America.

I'm voting Democrat because it's better to turn corn into fuel than it is to eat.

I'm voting Democrat because I'd rather pay $4 for a gallon of gas than allow drilling for oil off the coasts of America.

I'm voting Democrat because I think the government will do a better job of spending my money than I could.

I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, I know the Islamic terrorists will stop trying to kill us because they'll think we're a good and decent country.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe people who can't tell us if it will rain in two or three days, can now tell us the polar ice caps will disappear in ten years if I don't start riding a bicycle, build a windmill or inflate my tires to proper levels.

I'm voting Democrat because it's alright to kill millions of babies as long as we keep violent, convicted murderers on death row alive.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe businesses in America should not be allowed to make profits. Businesses should just break even and give the rest to the government so politicians and bureaucrats can redistribute the money the way they think it should be redistributed.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe guns, and not the people misusing them, are the cause of crimes and killings.

I'm voting Democrat because when someone with a weapon threatens my family or me, I know the government can respond faster through a call to 911 than I can with a gun in my hand.

I'm voting Democrat because oil companies' 5% profit on a gallon of gas are obscene, but government taxes of 18% on the same gallon of gas are just fine.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe three or four elitist liberals should rewrite the Constitution every few months to suit some fringe element that could never get their agenda past voters.

I'm voting Democrat because illegal aliens are not criminals, are not sucking up resources through government aid, hospital services, education, or social services, but are just people trying to make a better life by coming to America illegally. We can't blame them for that, can we?

I'm voting Democrat because now I can now marry whatever I want, so I've decided to marry my horse.

Makes ya wonder why anyone would ever vote Republican, doesn't it? :laughing

[Hans Deventer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU

[Don Engie]

I'll ask you here since I received no response on the other post. Are their any issues that are "deal breakers" when supporting a candidate? Are there any moral lines we are not willing to cross? Curious as to any response. Thanks, In Christ,

[Tonya Sneed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU

This is about as exaggerated as the original post -- but the video made me chuckle.

The thing is, the Democrat and Republican politicians actually AGREE on most of the topics mentioned in both Judy's and Hans' posts. They're far more alike than different.

[Gary Swartzlander]

I'll ask you here since I received no response on the other post. Are their any issues that are "deal breakers" when supporting a candidate? Are there any moral lines we are not willing to cross? Curious as to any response. Thanks, In Christ,

If there are then I suspect we should all just stay home and not bother going to the voting booth. That would seem the case at all levels.

[Hans Deventer]

This is about as exaggerated as the original post

Sure it is. That is the very reason why I posted it.

[Hans Deventer]

I'll ask you here since I received no response on the other post. Are their any issues that are "deal breakers" when supporting a candidate? Are there any moral lines we are not willing to cross? Curious as to any response. Thanks, In Christ,

I'm sorry, Don, I guess people don't react to the question because it smells like one issue voting and people slowly tend to back off from that.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

I'll ask you here since I received no response on the other post. Are their any issues that are "deal breakers" when supporting a candidate? Are there any moral lines we are not willing to cross?

No. (Of course there are moral lines we are not willing to cross, but not in the context of the question you are asking.)

No matter how bad a candidate is, if the other candidate is worse we should vote for the first candidate.

Hypothetical scenario:

Candidate A says: "Let's execute the 10% poorest people and the 20% oldest people to provide economic relief to the rest of us."

Candidate B says: "Let's execute the 20% poorest people and the 30% oldest people to provide economic relief to the rest of us."

Both are horrendously immoral, but given those choices, I'd cast a vote for Candidate A.

I will ultimately cast my vote pro-life.

Of course by "pro-life," I do not simply mean abortion (as so many do). True pro-life must include abortion, war, social justice, poverty, capital punishment, AIDS, climate change, etc. I will end up voting for whichever candidate I believe will do the best job of saving and improving life on this planet--not just U.S.A.--regardless of whether or not I disagree with one or more of their specific views. (Or if stuck with it, whichever candidate will do the least harm...)

Wilson

[Bruce Carriker]

Wilson, thank you for enunciating what it means to be "pro-life.":fav18

[Wilson L. Deaton]

... because it smells like one issue voting ...

Yeah, apparently he is wondering if a Christian could ever truly vote for someone who isn't 100% dedicated to dealing with climate change. I wonder that myself, sometimes. :basic05

Wilson

[Bruce Carriker]

Yeah, apparently he is wondering if a Christian could ever truly vote for someone who isn't 100% dedicated to dealing with climate change. I wonder that myself, sometimes. :basic05

Wilson

I thought he was wondering if a Christian could vote for someone who isn't 100% dedicated to caring for the poor, the sick, the widow, the orphan, and the alien in our midst. :basic03

[Billie Goodson]

I thought he was wondering if a Christian could vote for someone who isn't 100% dedicated to caring for the poor, the sick, the widow, the orphan, and the alien in our midst. :basic03

What if one considers all of the above tasks the responsibility of the church and not the government?

[Wilson L. Deaton]

What if one considers all of the above tasks the responsibility of the church and not the government?

If that is the case then one can still say that one very effective tool at the church's disposal is to use enlist the help of government throught its influence with the government (including voting).

Why would the church ever vote for a government that is working against its mission?

Wilson

[Bruce Carriker]

What if one considers all of the above tasks the responsibility of the church and not the government?

What Wilson said. I can't say it any better.

[Dale Cozby]

[B]
Why would the church ever vote for a government that is working against its mission?
Because the church can't even agree what its mission is maybe?

[Heidi Anderson]

What if one considers all of the above tasks the responsibility of the church and not the government?

And at last count...the church has failed miserably at this. We don't actually believe the words of Jesus...therefore, why would we actually do them?

And...I'm voting democrat for all the reasons Judy mentioned. For real!!

[Cindi Hammons]

So, what viral email did you get this post from?

[Don Engie]

I'm sorry, Don, I guess people don't react to the question because it smells like one issue voting and people slowly tend to back off from that.

It could be that, or it could be that answering it would make us all question rather we are supporting people who value things that God does not. Just a thought.

[Don Engie]

No. (Of course there are moral lines we are not willing to cross, but not in the context of the question you are asking.)

No matter how bad a candidate is, if the other candidate is worse we should vote for the first candidate.

Hypothetical scenario:

Candidate A says: "Let's execute the 10% poorest people and the 20% oldest people to provide economic relief to the rest of us."

Candidate B says: "Let's execute the 20% poorest people and the 30% oldest people to provide economic relief to the rest of us."

Both are horrendously immoral, but given those choices, I'd cast a vote for Candidate A.

I will ultimately cast my vote pro-life.

Of course by "pro-life," I do not simply mean abortion (as so many do). True pro-life must include abortion, war, social justice, poverty, capital punishment, AIDS, climate change, etc. I will end up voting for whichever candidate I believe will do the best job of saving and improving life on this planet--not just U.S.A.--regardless of whether or not I disagree with one or more of their specific views. (Or if stuck with it, whichever candidate will do the least harm...)

Wilson

You can vote for whomever you would like, as can I, the question I asked was a serious one, becasue it seems to me that the church- yet again- is unwilling to stand up for it's convictions. If we have any convictions left at all. If something is wrong , then it is wrong 100% of the time. When we live in a world on convienience where our absolutes changes based on what we get out of it- to me that is a dangerous place. Yes the issues you raise are important issue for us as christians to take seriously - I would say except climate change, but that is just me-, but how can we vote for ANY cnadidate who supports abortion? By the way pointing to other wrongs does not take away the importance of takeing a stand on the one issue. If I am making my choice based on one issue - that being abortion-, then so be it. Each of us will make that choice. My concern was with the direction we head when we start to compromise our beliefs as Christians. I would think most Christians would be against innocent lives being taken - in whatever form that takes. I understand this is a hard topic, but shouldn't we as Christians take on the hard issues? I wont post anything else about this , I guess I will just fall in line and ask questions about the GA and the problems with the way we do our budgets. I'm sure those are far more important then having a real discussion on important issues, which everyone says they want,have but no one has.

[Jon Twitchell]

Don,

I guess the question is... How do you decide which "One Issue" is the most important issue?

I am no longer convinced that a Republican president will be able to manipulate the overturning Roe v. Wade, through Supreme Court appointments or anything else. I believe that this is no longer a political/judicial/legislative battle for Christians to fight, but a heart issue. Our goal has been to eliminate abortion through the laws and the courts-- perhaps our goal ought to be to minimize abortion through introducing people to the God who loves them and is the pinnacle of pro-life. Maybe we ought to be minimizing abortion through better support of crisis pregnancy centers, adoption of unwanted babies, and social services (including health care?) for people in poverty.

If I am right (that no president is going to be able to reverse Roe v. Wade), then are there other issues that we have neglected in favor of this single issue?

[Eric Vail]

I'm voting Democrat because I think the government will do a better job of spending my money than I could.


I've been away from Naznet for a while. I was wondering if these statistics have been discussed on here yet. I was shocked at the side by side comparisons.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/08/velshi.candidates.and.income.taxes.cnn?iref=videos earch

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/11/ac.tax.plans.cnn?iref=videosearch

[Wesley Anderson]

You can vote for whomever you would like, as can I, the question I asked was a serious one, becasue it seems to me that the church- yet again- is unwilling to stand up for it's convictions. If we have any convictions left at all. If something is wrong , then it is wrong 100% of the time. When we live in a world on convienience where our absolutes changes based on what we get out of it- to me that is a dangerous place. Yes the issues you raise are important issue for us as christians to take seriously - I would say except climate change, but that is just me-, but how can we vote for ANY cnadidate who supports abortion? By the way pointing to other wrongs does not take away the importance of takeing a stand on the one issue. If I am making my choice based on one issue - that being abortion-, then so be it. Each of us will make that choice. My concern was with the direction we head when we start to compromise our beliefs as Christians. I would think most Christians would be against innocent lives being taken - in whatever form that takes. I understand this is a hard topic, but shouldn't we as Christians take on the hard issues? I wont post anything else about this , I guess I will just fall in line and ask questions about the GA and the problems with the way we do our budgets. I'm sure those are far more important then having a real discussion on important issues, which everyone says they want,have but no one has.

I agree that we should always be against innocent lives being taken. The inconsistency that I see is that Republicans are not against innocent lives being taken- they are against babies' lives being taken. There are innocent lives being taken by poverty, AIDS, war, and a host of other things that don't gather the same enthusiasm as the abortion issue.

Is abortion a terrible evil? I think so. But I also think that there are plenty of other terrible evils and that we have to have a more holistic understanding of what it means to be "pro-life."

[Cindi Hammons]

If something is wrong , then it is wrong 100% of the time.

So, if a woman is raped or a victim of incest, you believe it should be wrong for her to obtain an abortion?

[Herb Newell]

So, if a woman is raped or a victim of incest, you believe it should be wrong for her to obtain an abortion?

I think you know the answer...

As a practical measure If you and I could agree that only victims of rape or incest could choose abortions we would reduce the total to 1 - 3% of current abortions. I'd make that deal in a second.

If you and I could just agree to bring the 30 year old Row V Wade standard for viability up to current medical standards we would reduce abortions by as much as 2/3. As a practical measure I would agree to that as well.

But even as we make those deals -- You and I still must realize that it's baby's that we're allowing to die...

So of course -- I just don't care about those women -- Wrong! I work in compassionate ministries every day with homeless families, mostly young women and their children. Have done that for 20 years. I am often conflicted. But in the end I just don't feel it would be compassionate to forget about the babies. Do you?

[Don Engie]

Don,

I guess the question is... How do you decide which "One Issue" is the most important issue?

I am no longer convinced that a Republican president will be able to manipulate the overturning Roe v. Wade, through Supreme Court appointments or anything else. I believe that this is no longer a political/judicial/legislative battle for Christians to fight, but a heart issue. Our goal has been to eliminate abortion through the laws and the courts-- perhaps our goal ought to be to minimize abortion through introducing people to the God who loves them and is the pinnacle of pro-life. Maybe we ought to be minimizing abortion through better support of crisis pregnancy centers, adoption of unwanted babies, and social services (including health care?) for people in poverty.

If I am right (that no president is going to be able to reverse Roe v. Wade), then are there other issues that we have neglected in favor of this single issue?

Jon I really appreciate your post. Although I did include reference to abortion, my deeper question was - as a Christian- where do we draw the line? The issue of abortion is a very personal one to me. My mom had an abortion before my dad and her knew each other. I have lived watching her struggle with this her whole life. I know- and she knows- that Christ can take away her pain, but this is something she can't escape. I have a hard time understanding as a Christian how we could support ANY candidate - either side- who supports ANY act against the poor, and defensless. Thanks again Jon. I know I may have got a little passionate in my previous post, but hopefully that is a good thing:o

[Don Engie]

I agree that we should always be against innocent lives being taken. The inconsistency that I see is that Republicans are not against innocent lives being taken- they are against babies' lives being taken. There are innocent lives being taken by poverty, AIDS, war, and a host of other things that don't gather the same enthusiasm as the abortion issue.

Is abortion a terrible evil? I think so. But I also think that there are plenty of other terrible evils and that we have to have a more holistic understanding of what it means to be "pro-life."

I am not "in favour" of taking advantage of people suffering from AIDS, poverty, or do I enjoy the idea of war, but none of those issues are in contrast to our positions as Christians. What I mean is , I could have posted something saying we should do more to help AIDS victims - which I do believe, and no one would have thought anything about it. I could have posted something about the necessity of helping the poor- Which I also believe- and everyone would have rallied to my call. But the moment I raise the issue of how we justify our support of EITHER side when they support abortion, and I get accused of not being consistant on ALL the issues involving life. God is for life in every sence, as am I, where is the conflict. I feel as if people who are not that concerned with the issue of abortion, or too afraid to voice their opposition- automaticlly assume that I- as someone opposed to abortion- must also hate people with AIDS, love to see people die in war, and would love to fry a criminal on death row. How could one make that leap? My concern is on consistancy , as it appears yours is as well. Just my thoughts. Thanks for your post!:basic01 In Christ,

[Don Engie]

So, if a woman is raped or a victim of incest, you believe it should be wrong for her to obtain an abortion?

You know as well as I that the women who are raped and victims of incest consist of a very small percentage of the women who obtain an abortion. Do I think it is wrong to kill a baby? Yes I do. Do I understand the desire to abort a child conceived out of rape and incest? Yes I do. Ultimately God gives all of us grace and mercy in situations where we are put in such a situation. I have a 4 year old girl, and another baby girl due in october. I could never imagine not having either one of them in my life, nor could my wife. As a society we have come to conclude that they are merily a by product of our rights as citizens - specifically women's rights. I do not see that in scripture. He see in scripture that God knew us before the foundations of the world. That he knit us together while we were in our mother's womb. That is a picture of a detailed process in which God designed each of us in his image. So, were the babies aborted not included in this designed plan? I don't think so. I think we have moved so far morally as a nation - and even as Christians- that we could ever justify this act. God help us! Thanks for your post. In Christ,

[Cindi Hammons]

I think you know the answer...

No Herb, I did not know the answer. You stated something about 100% and then proceeded to talk about abortion...thus my question. Your patronizing response lets me know that there will be no dialogue on this issue, so I will resign myself from it.

[Cindi Hammons]

I understand what you are saying. I just have a problem with this "clause" that is always added to the anti-abortion platform....you know, the "except for in cases of" clause. If abortion is murder, then there is NO "except for" exception. This is why I asked the question in the first place. The discussion was about 100% and then went on to talk about abortion...this is what sparked my question.

Thanks for the response.

[Don Engie]

I understand what you are saying. I just have a problem with this "clause" that is always added to the anti-abortion platform....you know, the "except for in cases of" clause. If abortion is murder, then there is NO "except for" exception. This is why I asked the question in the first place. The discussion was about 100% and then went on to talk about abortion...this is what sparked my question.

Thanks for the response.

Cindi, I appreciate your response. God Bless you! In Christ,

[Wesley Anderson]

I am not "in favour" of taking advantage of people suffering from AIDS, poverty, or do I enjoy the idea of war, but none of those issues are in contrast to our positions as Christians. What I mean is , I could have posted something saying we should do more to help AIDS victims - which I do believe, and no one would have thought anything about it. I could have posted something about the necessity of helping the poor- Which I also believe- and everyone would have rallied to my call. But the moment I raise the issue of how we justify our support of EITHER side when they support abortion, and I get accused of not being consistant on ALL the issues involving life. God is for life in every sence, as am I, where is the conflict. I feel as if people who are not that concerned with the issue of abortion, or too afraid to voice their opposition- automaticlly assume that I- as someone opposed to abortion- must also hate people with AIDS, love to see people die in war, and would love to fry a criminal on death row. How could one make that leap? My concern is on consistancy , as it appears yours is as well. Just my thoughts. Thanks for your post!:basic01 In Christ,


I'm wondering exactly where I said (or even implied) that you either "take advantage" or "hate" people with AIDS, the poor, etc. I truly don't believe that of you, or any Republican or Democrat for that matter (for the most part). I only see one person on this thread who made that leap, and it wasn't me...

I think we are at an impasse here because of one statement that you made. Regarding issues like poverty, you said that "none of those issues are in contrast to our positions as Christians." I couldn't disagree with you more, which is why we will obviously be unable to have a discussion on this topic that gets either of us anywhere. I'm not sure that there is any issue more central to the message of Christ than caring for the people on the fringes of society.

Granted, I would include unborn babies in the group of defenseless people that we should take care of.... but I dont think they are any more valuable than the other people in that group- and I'm not sure the life of a baby is any more valuable in God's eyes than a 65 year old man that is starving to death on a street corner. The baby is almost certainly cuter though :)

[Herb Newell]

No Herb, I did not know the answer. You stated something about 100% and then proceeded to talk about abortion...thus my question. Your patronizing response lets me know that there will be no dialogue on this issue, so I will resign myself from it.

Cindy

I am very sorry if I've offended you. It was not my intention to patronize you, but I agree that what I wrote was patronizing.

I'm relatively new to Naznet, so I took the time to look back over some of my other posts, and in too many of them (particularly on political issues) there is a negative edge. I definitely have to step back a bit and work on that.

Again, sorry
Herb

[Jon Twitchell]

Herb,

I just wanted to chime in and say, "Welcome to NazNet!"

Glad you've joined us, I look forward to your perspective, and hearing more about how God is continuing to use you in compassionate ministries.

[Cindi Hammons]

Herb, thank you for your response. I really appreciate it.

[Barbara Moulton]

Cindy

I am very sorry if I've offended you. It was not my intention to patronize you, but I agree that what I wrote was patronizing.

I'm relatively new to Naznet, so I took the time to look back over some of my other posts, and in too many of them (particularly on political issues) there is a negative edge. I definitely have to step back a bit and work on that.

Again, sorry
Herb

Wow! I wish every newcomer to NazNet (and even some of us oldtimers) had the same attitude Herb.

Because of the restrictions of this means of communication, misunderstandings can easily happen. I type something and, in my own mind it seems quite clear. But then I realize I didn't come across the way I wanted when someone responds.

The problem is that, at this point, it is easy to go into defensive mode , which only causes the situation to accelerate.

To have the sensitivity and Christian maturity to go back and review what you wrote, to see if you bear some responsiblity for the problem...well, that's really refreshing to read.

Thank you for beginning my day with a blessing.

And welcome to NazNet!

Barbara
Moderator