How to convince a Christian to vote 3rd party?

Aha! There You said it, "IMPERFECT ABILITY." A trait in humans you acknowledge but apparently can't find room in your heart to forgive.

So you're going to vote for one candidate who has "imperfect abilility" just like the other candidates and who cannot possibly win. Makes perfect sense to me.

I really hope and pray you don't get what you deserve.

 

The point should be that as flaky as Mr. Perot turned out to be(with an inarticulate running mate), he still received 19% of the vote. If he hadn't turned out to be so flawed, he very well might have won the presidency or at least have thrown the election into the House of Representatives.

We should not think that the Demopublicans must be defeated in one blow or else we have failed. I hope that none of us quit after we fail to achieve our goal on the first try. Mr. Perot was flawed and the Reform Party would have had a chance to build on his beginning if they had run a better candidate in 1996.

Also, the Reform Party had no core set of beliefs. It was simply an amalgamation of people disgruntled with the Demopublicans but with no plan of action like the Constitution, Libertarian, and Green Parties have.

Thus, the success that Mr. Perot did enjoy in 1992 should encourage those of us who want to see these United States return to limited, constitutional government.

Mr. Perot showed that the Demopublicans have weaknesses that can be exploited. I suggest we do so.

 

Would Mr. Kerry:

Allow more illegal immigration than Mr. Bush?

Run larger annual deficits than Mr. Bush?

Have more jobs outsourced during his administration than Mr. Bush?

Grow the federal government larger than Mr. Bush?

Attack our individual liberties more than Mr. Bush?

Although there are marginal differences between Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush, in the big picture of things for those of us who long to see a return to limited, constitutional government in these United States, there is simply not a nickel's worth of difference between either of these Demopublicans.

 

If John Kerry Was President

 

Would Mr. Kerry:

Allow more illegal immigration than Mr. Bush?

Run larger annual deficits than Mr. Bush?

Have more jobs outsourced during his administration than Mr. Bush?

Grow the federal government larger than Mr. Bush?

Attack our individual liberties more than Mr. Bush?

Although there are marginal differences between Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush, in the big picture of things for those of us who long to see a return to limited, constitutional government in these United States, there is simply not a nickel's worth of difference between either of these Demopublicans. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't understand what's so hard to understand about Bush Doctrine. We were Attacked on 9/11. We took the fight to the attackers and their friends.

Doing that costs more money than we currently had budgeted to spend.

It's just like you and me. If we have a household emergency we dip into reserve funds. If we don't have any reserve funds we use credit.

And Ken, what Personal Liberties has President Bush taken away from you? I really want to know the answer to this question.

 

I fully support Bush in his efforts to get Osamma and the terrorist that attacked us on 9/11, and your right it requires extra spending in the defense area. The spending that people are so upset about is the un-constitutional, non-defense spending that Bush has called for, pushed through and signed. These spending increases and the increases to the size of the federal government go against everything that conservatives have stood for. One of the presidents I consider to be one of our nations worst, FDR nearly wiped out social spending during WW II, taking the percent spent on Human Resources from 43.70% in 1940 to nearly zero by 1945, just 2.00%, but George W. Bush has increased social spending during the last four years and has become the biggest social spender in history.

The first sign that Bush was not the same as conservatives of the past was when he along with Karl Rove stripped out many conservative issues from the GOP platform in 2000.

 

I fully support Bush in his efforts to get Osamma and the terrorist that attacked us on 9/11, and your right it requires extra spending in the defense area. The spending that people are so upset about is the non-defense spending that Bush has called for, pushed through and signed, that is first and formost un-constitutional. These spending increases and the increases to the size of the federal government go against everything that conservatives have stood for. The first sign that Bush was not the same as conservatives of the past was when he along with Karl Rove stripped out many conservative issues from the GOP platform in 2000. </font>[/QUOTE]Could you be more specific?

 

Overall spending is up by at least 24% since he took office, far more than the 2 percent average annual inflation rate over the same period. According to one recent analysis, the government now spends $20,000 a year for every household in America, the most since World War II.

"Federal spending has risen 24% in three years, much faster than in the Clinton years. That's in Lyndon Johnson territory," said David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute.

In the meantime, the $236 billion federal surplus that Bush inherited in January 2001 has turned into a $500 billion-plus deficit.

Bush ushered in another big new spending program by signing Medicare legislation that creates a prescription-drug benefit for senior citizens at an estimated cost of $400 billion over the next 10 years, Oh yeah, is actually $534 billion over the next 10 years, $134 billion more than the initial estimate was when Bush signed the bill.

It used to be in the GOP platform to abolish the Department of Education, Bush took that out of the platform made it a top presidential priority, and has increased the DOE budget by 65%.

He is also calling for $500 million in new spending on education and job-training programs to help unemployed factory workers.

These are just a few "specific" examples of Bush's non-conservative spending habits.

 

Hardsheller, have you personally been attacked by Osama bin Laden or any member of
al Qaida? I really want to know the answer to this question.

 

Hardsheller, have you personally been attacked by Osama bin Laden or any member of
al Qaida? I really want to know the answer to this question. </font>[/QUOTE]I think Bush was justified in going after Osama and those who attacked us on 9/11, but I also think he is arogant to think we can win a "war on terror" and "rid the world of evil" by attacking Iraq, Iran and any other country that is not an imminent threat to us. We need to shut down the borders and focus on our defense. 9/11 would have never happend if we would have been using profiling to determine who gets student VISA's and who boards our planes.

 

Hardsheller, have you personally been attacked by Osama bin Laden or any member of
al Qaida? I really want to know the answer to this question. </font>[/QUOTE]Any attack on my country is a personal attack on me.

You saw it on TV just like I did.

Now answer the question - Whose Personal Liberties have been affected? And be specific please.

 

How much of that 24% is due to the War on Terror?

What would you have done to deal with the Health Concerns of our country?

Would you have pulled the plug on the Dept of Education knowing that would have bankrupted the public school systems in this country?

It's easy to criticize when you don't have a better solution. If you have a better solution, run for office.

 

National defense is far from being responsible for all of the spending increases. According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34 percent since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent. Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than 10 years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively.

SOURCE

I wouldn't have created a new un-constitutional welfare program using tax dollars to pay for it. After talking to many of the senior citizens at church, I have found that this new welfare program will do nothing to help them. I had this discussion with someone, they asked me, "What would my grandmother do for her drugs without Bush's plan?", I told him, "It's not the governments responsibility to buy her drugs. If she can't afford them, then it is yours and the rest of your family's responsibility."

I supported the 1996 GOP platform's call for abolishing the Department of Education and ending "federal meddling in schools", and I support the current Constitution Party platform that states, "the United States Department of Education should be abolished".

I don't need to run for office, I am supporting a conservative candidate with a better solution, Micahel Peroutka. You can continue to vote for the Republican Party, so the Republican Party will learn once again that they have your vote no matter what they do. I have heard it said that the definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results.

 

How is it a better to solution to vote for someone who has absolutely no chance of doing anything about the problem? That mindset is so strange to me. How is it better to be able to do nothing, than to be able to do somethign?

 

National defense is far from being responsible for all of the spending increases. According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34 percent since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent. Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than 10 years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively.

SOURCE

I wouldn't have created a new un-constitutional welfare program using tax dollars to pay for it. After talking to many of the senior citizens at church, I have found that this new welfare program will do nothing to help them. I had this discussion with someone, they asked me, "What would my grandmother do for her drugs without Bush's plan?", I told him, "It's not the governments responsibility to buy her drugs. If she can't afford them, then it is yours and the rest of your family's responsibility."

I supported the 1996 GOP platform's call for abolishing the Department of Education and ending "federal meddling in schools", and I support the current Constitution Party platform that states, "the United States Department of Education should be abolished".

I don't need to run for office, I am supporting a conservative candidate with a better solution, Micahel Peroutka. You can continue to vote for the Republican Party, so the Republican Party will learn once again that they have your vote no matter what they do. I have heard it said that the definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results. </font>[/QUOTE]No the definition of insanity is blowing into the wind in hopes of hearing a new tune. Peroutka ain't gonna happen in '04.

 

How is it a better to solution to vote for someone who has absolutely no chance of doing anything about the problem? That mindset is so strange to me. How is it better to be able to do nothing, than to be able to do somethign? </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, and I can sleep at night knowing that I didn't contribute to past four years of federal growth and destruction of conservativism. In 1999 Chuck Baldwin wrote a column titled "Let's Give Truth a Chance to Win", in this column he wrote the following that may help to explain I believe voting for Michael Peroutka is a better solution than compromising my principles and voting for George W. Bush:

Winston Churchill said. "I would rather fail at a cause that will ultimately prevail than to prevail at a cause that will ultimately fail."

My job is to be faithful to truth. It is God's responsibility to take care of the rest. John Quincy Adams said, "Duty is ours; results are God's." Unfortunately, many conservatives are not even giving truth a chance to prevail. They have been duped by the false notion that by compromising truth they will force a winning result. In so doing, not only do those candidates who are faithful to truth not prevail, the beguiled conservative voter sells his soul to deceit and falsehood. In such a state, even if he wins he, and the country, lose.

Let's determine to give truth a chance to win. It just might surprise everyone how many victories truth can still achieve in this great nation if everyone who claims an allegiance to conservative principles will vote according to their conscience and not according to the polling date of the political pundits. It sure feels better. Plus, it allows God to do His part because we have been faithful to do ours. Maybe that's all He is waiting for.

SOURCE

 

You asked for specific examples, I gave them to you. You choose to ignore what Bush and the GOP has done, is doing and will continue to do. I choose not to ignore it and not to support them in their efforts.

 

You asked for specific examples, I gave them to you. You choose to ignore what Bush and the GOP has done, is doing and will continue to do. I choose not to ignore it and not to support them in their efforts. </font>[/QUOTE]No, you have chosen to buy into the arguments of the Bush Bashers instead of listening to the man give his reasons for having done what he has done.

As far as those Senior Citizens in your church - I bet they are for the most part democrats to begin with. And furthermore after their families get through helping them buy their drugs the church should step in if there's additional cost that they cannot bear.

And who is this Chuck guy? And why should we listen to him?

 

I did vote for Bush, I don't like what he has done, and I still sleep at night ... none of which is really the issue.

But the truth will ultimately prevail, not because you cast a vote for someone who will not even show up in the final statistics. Truth will prevail, not because America votes for anyone. Truth will prevail when Christ returns. Until then, we have a duty to do what is necessary to prevent the further decay of America. You cannot do that by voting for someone who cannot do a thing to change. Yes, it is true that Bush is not as conservative as he should be, or as I would like him to be. But he is a whole lot more conservative that John Kerry and he will govern more conservatively then Peroutka, simply by virtue of the fact that he will govern. A vote for Peroutka in this election might as well be a vote for Mickey Mouse. They both stand the same chance of being able to implement their views.

I don't know what God has in store. I am completely confident in his sovereignty and the fact that he is in control. But my conscious will not allow me to cast a vote that will help John Kerry get elected. As much as I don't like Bush and some of his policies, it is far greater to take a vote from Bush to give to someone that will ultimately help Kerry get elected.

In the end, truth will prevail when Christ returns. Until then, we have to exercise good stewardship of our civic responsibility. It comes to my mind that voting for Peroutka is a lot like playing the lottery. You are taking a dollar that could be spent on something somewhat profitable (even if only a candy bar) and instead throwing down the drain in hopes of striking the big one and making life all better. Meanwhile, someone is profiting from your wasted dollar.

 

I haven't chosen to buy into any arguments of the Bush Bashers, there is nothing Bush can say to give a good reason for any of his un-constitutional spending. I called my GOP Congressman to complain about the largest "pork" spending bill that was passed by the House. He tried to comfort me by telling me about the millions of dollars he was bringing to our local economy through this bill, I asked him where in the Constitution does he have the right to take tax dollars from the federal government to wast on our local "pork" projects. I don't have to "buy into any arguments" to see when a politician is acting in an un-constitutional way in an attempt to "buy votes".

The senior citizens I talked to are not democrats and the church does help them when they need it, as it should. Regardless of their political affiliation, it doesn't change the fact that Bush created another welfare program which again is unconstitutional.

Chuck Baldwin is a Baptist pastor from Florida who has recently accepted Michael Peroutka's invitation to join the Constitution Party ticket as the Vice Presidential candidate. You don't have to listen to him if you don't want to. The post above also quoted Winston Churchill and John Quincy Adams, you don't have to listen to them if you don't want to either.