Hey, Big Spender!

Was it wrong for the US to ally itself with the Russians in WWII? They weren't exactly up to our standards, but they were the lesser of two evils, with whom we could join and defeat a common (and greater) evil. After that, we could turn our attention to the lesser evil.

By the same token, if Bush wants to ban only the partial birth abortion, is it not better to save even that tiny minority of lives than to waste a vote and permit a man to win who wants arbortions to be available to every woman at any time for any reason right up until birth?

If we succeed in getting the one tiny bit banned, then we can work on the next tiny bit. That's the way they got it to where it is today; one little bit at a time. That's the way to get it back to where it should be.

The same goes for the economy: One person wants to increase federal spending drastically, and the other wanted to increase it even more. One wanted to support our military and the other wanted to gut it and turn over control to the UN.

 

Bush and Kerry think some abortions should be legal.

Bush and Kerry both support increasing federal spending and socialism. Bush has proven he supports it more than any other president in US history.

Bush and Kerry both support supporting and working through the UN.

hmmmm...

 

Both had the same tie on in the debates.

 

Bush thinks that some abortions should be limited; Kerry thinks they should be unlimited.

Bush at least gives some signs of limiting spending and socialims, while Kerry says he wants more spending and more socialism

When a dam breaks, you don't stop it immediately. You slow the flow until you can do something about stopping it.

Bush ignored the UN and did the right thing in Iraq; Kerry wants to turn sovereignty over to the UN.

 

I would encourage you to check your facts before trying to defend your liberal GOP President!

Bush supports abortions for rape, incest and the life and health of the mother. He used the partial-birth abortion ban as a way to attract votes, knowing that it would never pass the way it was written. While Kerry does support abortions in more cases than Bush, he does opposed partial-birth abortion with exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother. I myself think all abortions should be illegal, no exceptions! So I could never support either of these candidates who have done nothing to stop the murder of 4000+ babies daily in America.

Have you been paying attention for the last six years?? Bush has shown no signs of limiting spending and socialism, he has increased domestic spending and socialism more than any president in US history including Clinton, FDR and LBJ. Yes, Kerry and Hillary want more spending and socialism, but Bush has done most of what they wanted to accomplish in that area for them, after removing most of the conservative planks on spending from the GOP platform in 2000.

If going to the UN Security Council numerous times for permission and putting our troops with UN leaders for "peacekeeping missions" around the world is your definition of "Bush ignored the UN", then I guess your right.

 

Bush and the republicans extended the time allowed to vote and used it to "twist arms" in order to give our sovereignty away...CAFTA/Codex Alimenterius.

 

This is a very harsh, judgemental statememt.

How about this? "A vote for a man who supports gay civil unions is an abomination in the sight of God."

Both of these statements are unjust and judgemental.

What would the two partiests do if your choice was Clinton and Giuliani? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't think it to harsh, and being judgemental is our responsibility, especially in these areas. I actually don't really expect a reasonably conservative candidate from the GOP.

As far a Clinton and Guiliani, I don't know. It gives me a headache. I certainly won't vote for Clinton, and I don't know if I could support Guiliani. I could not vote for McCain.

 

1) That is a false statement that you cannot bind on a fellow believer.

2) You don't decide when I have the freedom to vote for a minor party or independent candidate. I already have that freedom as a U.S. citizen.

I'll say one thing, hillclimber - you are overflowing with hubris. </font>[/QUOTE]Hubris is my speciality, and thank you for noticing. You should receive my posting with the understanding that it is my opinion only and that my intent carries absolutely no intention of imposing my view on anyone, except maybe you Ken, as you seem needy. It is simply giving my opinion

 

This is a very harsh, judgemental statememt.

How about this? "A vote for a man who supports gay civil unions is an abomination in the sight of God."

Both of these statements are unjust and judgemental.

What would the two partiests do if your choice was Clinton and Giuliani? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't think it to harsh, and being judgemental is our responsibility, especially in these areas. I actually don't really expect a reasonably conservative candidate from the GOP.

As far a Clinton and Guiliani, I don't know. It gives me a headache. I certainly won't vote for Clinton, and I don't know if I could support Guiliani. I could not vote for McCain. </font>[/QUOTE]So if it is Clinton/McCain will you vote for Clinton by voting third party or not vote at all?

 

The problem with that scenario is that there is not a hill of beans worth of difference between McCain and Clinton. There is not a lesser of two evils. (Unless, of course, Clinton's recent change of views is more than lip service.)

 

Neither party serves the people or seek to protect the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, they serve the financial elite and seek to undermine the constitution destroy the middle class and the ownership of private property. How can anyone calling themselves an American vote for that in good conscience?

 

The lesser of two evils is still evil. Are we right to vote for evil of any sort?

 

Well Roger, I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain. Sad huh. I believe that Shillary would be horrible, but if we can keep congress republican, she could be kept somewhat at bay. I can simply not support any Clinton, knowing what I do about them. Read, "The Year of the Rat" A fully documented book. I wouud say that even Democrats would dis her if they read it. I actually still don't think she'll win the Dem. primary, if she even runs.

And the lesser of 2 evils is always the case, short of Christ's return.

 

I respect your views hillclimber, but I just can't see the logic of "holding your nose" to vote for a candidate. I have tried every way I might to see how I could vote for McCain or Guiliani in order to oppose Clinton, but I just can't see it.

 

I do not believe we are to vote for the lesser of two evils.

We are not to take pleasure in unrighteousness. Not to have any thing to do with the unfruitful works of darkness.

 

Let me ask you a question: If your options are to either vote for the lesser of two evils or the greater of two evils, which do you choose?

 

Let me ask you a question: If your options are to either vote for the lesser of two evils or the greater of two evils, which do you choose? </font>[/QUOTE]Neither - I vote for a candidate whom I can support.

 

That wasn't the question. Hypothetically, if your two options are to vote for the greater of two evils, or the lesser of two evils, which do you vote for? (And you are required to vote.)

If you're going to get bitten by a poisonous snake, would you prefer the one that will kill you quickly, or the one that will kill you slowly and maybe give you enough time to find a cure?