Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Aha! There You said it, "IMPERFECT ABILITY." A trait in humans you acknowledge but apparently can't find room in your heart to forgive.
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.
Would Mr. Kerry:
Would Mr. Kerry:
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.
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?
Hardsheller, have you personally been attacked by Osama bin Laden or any member of
Hardsheller, have you personally been attacked by Osama bin Laden or any member of
How much of that 24% is due to the War on Terror?
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.