-
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!
Who are you voting for?
- Thread starter Enoch
- Start date
I'm voting for Kerry, right after I vote against him. 
D
dianetavegia
Guest
George W. Bush
The Galatian
Active Member
Peroutka. And I don't give a leaping lagomorph over who thinks it's wrong.
T
TaterTot
Guest
Goerge W. !!!!!
The Galatian
Active Member
Well, yes. That's the point of voting. You try to vote for the right candidate.
I can respect your opinion, but I will still think you are wrong if you vote for Bush or Kerry.
Pennsylvania Jim
New Member
Peroutka!
bb_baptist
New Member
Since I live in NY (safe Dem. state), I'll vote for Michael Peroutka.
I would vote for George W. Bush if I lived in one of the swing states.
I would vote for George W. Bush if I lived in one of the swing states.
RockRambler
New Member
But doesn't Peroutka have some clouds over him like:
1)got nailed for a DUI in 1991 (15 years after Bush's)
2)transferred parental responsibility for his two teenaged stepdaughters to the state of Maryland's foster care system in the early 1990's, despite the Constitution Party's platform, which says "parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children"
3)has, according to the stepdaughters, cut them off from all contact with their mother
4)has a stepdaughter who, in a sworn statement, cited "several occasions when my stepfather would mash my face into the floor, sit on me to restrain me, push me against a wall, and pull my hair while demanding that I call myself a 'slut.'"
5)may have engaged in illegal political donations, including donating money to campaigns in his children's names to skirt donation laws
6)is an anti-free market protectionist
And if he had even a reasonable chance of being elected, wouldn't these areas have been explored more (for better or for worse) by the media?
1)got nailed for a DUI in 1991 (15 years after Bush's)
2)transferred parental responsibility for his two teenaged stepdaughters to the state of Maryland's foster care system in the early 1990's, despite the Constitution Party's platform, which says "parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children"
3)has, according to the stepdaughters, cut them off from all contact with their mother
4)has a stepdaughter who, in a sworn statement, cited "several occasions when my stepfather would mash my face into the floor, sit on me to restrain me, push me against a wall, and pull my hair while demanding that I call myself a 'slut.'"
5)may have engaged in illegal political donations, including donating money to campaigns in his children's names to skirt donation laws
6)is an anti-free market protectionist
And if he had even a reasonable chance of being elected, wouldn't these areas have been explored more (for better or for worse) by the media?
So far the only people who have "explored" these smears have been one liberal news rag and the disgruntled conservatives who can't debate the issues.
You broke one issue into three on your post. hmmmm. I would remove any children from my home if they became a threat to the rest of my family as well. His wife, the girls mother, made the descision, Peroutka stuck with his wife. The allegations by the daughter were proven to be false, and she has since admitted to lying.
I won't sink to your level and start posting all the "dirt" on Bush. I would rather focus on the issues and leave the mud slinging to the kids in the playgrounds.
Try again when you have something to debate.
You broke one issue into three on your post. hmmmm. I would remove any children from my home if they became a threat to the rest of my family as well. His wife, the girls mother, made the descision, Peroutka stuck with his wife. The allegations by the daughter were proven to be false, and she has since admitted to lying.
I won't sink to your level and start posting all the "dirt" on Bush. I would rather focus on the issues and leave the mud slinging to the kids in the playgrounds.
Try again when you have something to debate.
RockRambler
New Member
JGrubbs...please don't be so quick to assume things that are not there. I was asking a question(s). These are legitimate areas that have been raised by some sources, and since I don't know much about Peroutka, I was seeking more information. If you have some links that disprove these accusations, please post. Notice I said if he had even a reasonable chance for election these charges would have been explored FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE.
Again, I'm just asking questions, not trying to debate the merits of the man. What are his qualifications to be President of the United States? And is there proof one way or another about these allegations?
If you think I'm a Bush supporter, you got the wrong one. I would be the first in line to sign up with a legitmate third-party candidate that could be elected. I wouldn't turn around for the difference between Democrats and Republicans. I've been a lobbyist and businessman too long, cause I've seen behind the scenes too much to have confidence in either one.
Again, I'm just asking questions, not trying to debate the merits of the man. What are his qualifications to be President of the United States? And is there proof one way or another about these allegations?
If you think I'm a Bush supporter, you got the wrong one. I would be the first in line to sign up with a legitmate third-party candidate that could be elected. I wouldn't turn around for the difference between Democrats and Republicans. I've been a lobbyist and businessman too long, cause I've seen behind the scenes too much to have confidence in either one.
He has posted links to the smear article on his site, and also gave his explination, his wife's explination, and invited anyone who had any questions to contact his office.
I appologize for being soe "quick to assume", but so far the only peopl who have even brought that issue up have been those who were simply trying to use the liberal news source to smear Mr. Peroutka.
His qualifications to be President of the United States are that he understands the US Constitution and will work to resotre our Constitutional Republic. Most people think you have to be a career politician to qualify for president, our founding fathers would have be against that concept.
I appologize for being soe "quick to assume", but so far the only peopl who have even brought that issue up have been those who were simply trying to use the liberal news source to smear Mr. Peroutka.
His qualifications to be President of the United States are that he understands the US Constitution and will work to resotre our Constitutional Republic. Most people think you have to be a career politician to qualify for president, our founding fathers would have be against that concept.
RockRambler
New Member
JGrubbs, what is the link to his website? Honestly, I had never heard of him until I visited this site.
And I agree that you don't have to be a career politician to be President...just look at George W. Bush and John Edwards. One served six years as governor and the other served six years as a U.S. Senator before being named to the national ticket.
And I agree that you don't have to be a career politician to be President...just look at George W. Bush and John Edwards. One served six years as governor and the other served six years as a U.S. Senator before being named to the national ticket.