I Just Couldn't Do It


PDA






Flyboy
November 2, 2004, 09:41 PM
So, there I was, standing in the carousel, pen in hand, looking over the ballot. State Issues, done. Local races, done. State races, done. US Senate and Representative, done. One more look at the Presidential race...

...and I set my pen down. Walked over to the scanner, put my ballot in the slot, and walked away. I still haven't figured a way to shave with my eyes closed, so I just couldn't bring myself to support either of the candidates.

Yes, either. I can name five--no, six--Presidential candidates this year off the top of my head, but there were only two on my ballot. Welcome to Oklahoma, home of the worst ballot access laws in the country. In Russia--Russia, fer Chrissakes!--it takes 50,000 signatures nationwide to get a party on the ballot (source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1327936,00.html)). In Oklahoma, it takes 51,781 (source (http://www.nota4oklahoma.info/)). Yes, folks, that's right. Oklahoma, in the heartland of the Home of the Free, makes it tougher to get on the ballot than Russia! And in absolute numbers, not just per capita.

Oh, did I mention that write-in votes aren't accepted? There were two signs per booth--eight per four-space carousel--reminding us that we're not allowed to write in a candidate. I thought about doing it anyway, but, given the laws I know about, it wouldn't surprise me but that there was some little hidden law allowing them to declare the whole ballot spoiled if I do. Can't confirm it, but I wouldn't put it past the bastards. So I did the only thing I could do, compatible with my principles: I refused to lend my support to either of the sorry excuses for candidates running on the major ticket.

Any other Okies with clear consciences this year?

If you enjoyed reading about "I Just Couldn't Do It" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sindawe
November 2, 2004, 09:47 PM
But it sounds to me like you made the best of a bad situation. Instead of voting for the 'lesser of two evils", you voted for "None of the above", even if only in your own heart.

GSB
November 2, 2004, 09:48 PM
One assumes you will not bitch whoever is elected then, since you decided not to play the game.

Gifted
November 2, 2004, 10:14 PM
You can't do write-ins? How? I say class action lawsuit.

FeebMaster
November 2, 2004, 10:34 PM
GSB: One assumes you will not bitch whoever is elected then, since you decided not to play the game.

If anyone has no business bitching, I'd think it would be the people who decided to play the game only to wind up upset with the outcome for one reason or another.

Standing Wolf
November 2, 2004, 11:14 PM
If "No one" were a ballot option, I'm sure the nation would vote to do without presidents—and probably be happier, too.

SkyDaver
November 2, 2004, 11:50 PM
You can't do write-ins in NC, either, unless you get enough signatures on a petition.

The number is pretty high. I'm too tired to go look up the requirements right now, but you can find them somewhere if you google for NC statutes, I think.

tyme
November 2, 2004, 11:53 PM
GSB, don't spread FUD. You can define the "game" however you want, but that definition doesn't carry any weight. You therefore do not get to assert that only people who "play the game" can complain about the outcome.

First, it's obvious that Bush will win Oklahoma, so by not voting for a President, Flyboy has increased the number of abstainers. This is tracked by the statisticians. They care about people who went to the polls but didn't vote for president. Those statistics influence future campaigns.

Even people who don't go to the polls end up in a distinct but similar category. And you can bet that future campaigns, just like this campaign and past campaigns, will try to court those voters who haven't voted in the past due to apathy or disgust.

Just about any action someone can take is "inside" the game; even not voting is "inside" the game, since it indicates either apathy or disgust. Everyone can complain about the outcome. The more people who complain, the greater the chance that something will change next election cycle. Even if you voted for Bush you can complain about things, because that vote doesn't mean you support all of his policies. It means on the whole you think he was the best candidate, not that he's perfect. So you can't complain that Bush won, but you can complain about his position on foreign aid. You can't complain about 90% of his platform, but you can complain about his position on abortion.

Flyboy
November 3, 2004, 12:22 AM
One assumes you will not bitch whoever is elected then, since you decided not to play the game.

Oh, you can bet I'll complain. I'll probably complain louder than you. And I'll have every right.

Didn't play the game? Sir, I was involved. I donated financially to my candidate. I went out and donated my time, and my effort, busting hump to gather signatures to get my candidate on the ballot. How dare you presume to call me indifferent. You're right, I didn't "play the game." That's probably because I don't play games on these matters. I am a man of strong conviction, and I refuse to compromise my principles.

You don't list your location; if one lives in a state where his vote might have an effect on the outcome, he has some serious soul-searching to do. He has to decide between voting for the lesser evil--but still evil--or voting for the candidate he supports, accepting the risk that the "cure" might be worse than the disease. I, however, am not bound by such constraints: nothing I could do would change the outcome of this state (Bush, for the record). Consequently, I acted in the manner most compatible with my moral dictates.

Further, if you'd been arsed to read the links (notably the second), you might have seen that there was a method to my madness. This was a protest (non)vote; tomorrow, the NOTA4Oklahoma group will be requesting the tally of "undervotes" as part of their formal protest against legislative disenfranchisement. You might also have noticed their plan to take it up in a ballot initiative. There's also talk of a lawsuit (as somebody else pointed out). You would have discovered that, had you followed the links. I swear, this place gets more like Slashdot every day.

Thank you to the people who have expressed their support of my decision. I assure you, I did not come to it lightly, and probably would have acted differently if my vote had been valuable.

rbrowning
November 3, 2004, 01:18 AM
I had to pick from 7 presidental canidates this morning here in MI. Not that any of them looked all that great, but some did look REALLY bad!

Carlos
November 3, 2004, 01:21 AM
Flyboy, "I approve your message".

I voted for W. I was torn.

My own brother told me last night that my car will not darken his driveway again.

I said "fine!!!"

Destructo6
November 3, 2004, 01:44 AM
You don't list your location; if one lives in a state where his vote might have an effect on the outcome, he has some serious soul-searching to do. He has to decide between voting for the lesser evil--but still evil--or voting for the candidate he supports, accepting the risk that the "cure" might be worse than the disease. I, however, am not bound by such constraints: nothing I could do would change the outcome of this state (Bush, for the record). Consequently, I acted in the manner most compatible with my moral dictates.
"My vote didn't matter," is a poor argument for not casting a vote. You have both a right and a responsibility to vote: you failed.

docbones
November 3, 2004, 01:50 AM
What your inaction supported! (http://keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3674)

Docbones

one45auto
November 3, 2004, 01:51 AM
Sorry my friend, but you fumbled the ball - big time. Fortunately others picked it up and ran with it so you'll still get the Super Bowl ring in spite of everything.

FeebMaster
November 3, 2004, 01:55 AM
You Republicans are hilarious. Not voting for a candidate is at least as valid a choice as voting for some jackass you don't even agree with. In any case, it looks like your boy has just about got it wrapped up, so try not to get your knickers in too big of a twist over all of the non-voters out there.

Dionysusigma
November 3, 2004, 02:03 AM
This situation bugged me too. I seriously wanted to leave it blank, but somehow couldn't. I put in the line for Bush with a rather disgusted feeling... To be perfectly honest, I don't blame you one bit. Being given two bad choices is not a choice at all. I assume you wanted to vote for Badnarik; myself, Peroutka.

People like us wanted to be able to pick either the prime rib or the filet mignon... but were given the choice of steak tartar or haggis.

Thank God it won't be our last meal, though.

Hawkmoon
November 3, 2004, 02:07 AM
My own brother told me last night that my car will not darken his driveway again.
I assume, then, that you'll turn on the headlights the next time you visit?

Silent-Snail
November 3, 2004, 02:11 AM
For years I've heard people prattle on about how if you dont vote you cant complain. To this I say Blarg. The only ones who cant complain are those who got what they wanted. I'm not talking about a particular candidate, but about what happens after the office has been taken. "You made your bed now lie in it.", is something I try to live by. Sad that I belong to a minority with this view. BTW I did vote and I'm not tellin who for :neener:

Cortland
November 3, 2004, 02:54 AM
Tear your ballot into little bitty pieces and set the mess afire for all I care.

As long you don't live in Ohio!

:D

Barbara
November 3, 2004, 04:52 AM
I didn't know how I would vote until I got in the booth, and the president was the last vote I made.

It was a gut wrenching decision for me. I made the right decision, though, when it came down to it.

Anyone who participates in the process does their duty..and it sounds like you did more than most. Complain away. ;)

Tharg
November 3, 2004, 05:43 AM
Some would say the lesser of two evils

Some would say "the state would have been won by X anyway"

Some would say that "thier vote doesn't matter"

thankfully - there are those who DO think thier vote would matter, and that one person's seemingly adroit platitudes are less evil, and that even if "X" might be a winner - i'm gonna vote anyway.

because if they didn't - the vote wouldn't matter... since the few people who took the time and energy to go DO it... made the decision for them.

I'm not saying yer wrong - especially w/ the stuff you provided in links/futher explanation... hey .. its your right to vote... (and thus to NOT vote) I'm just saying that when you don't vote... what gets handed to you is what you effectively voted for... On my ballot that one independent was there... and i dind't care for him - so he did not get my vote... (Starts w/ a B - i suck at spelling to begin with - so don't expect me to spell his name, i've heard about him from posts around here... )

a LOT of this boils down to ... somehow... instead of people running for president because they wanted to do more for thier country.... it became a career option. Career poli's are always lookin for the CEO position that CAN change hands every four years.... in the end - a LOT of money changes hands to make the general public vote for one or the other... and those w/o the loads of money suck wind....

I don't know how to change this .. and i invite anyone who has a VIABLE option to change it to PM me (for my edification - not any truely meaningful ability of change that i control...rofl) ... but as it stands.... the general public is stupid and doesn't check up on ANYTHING - not even on thier vote for the most "powerful position in american politics" - - let alone thier "lowly" state ballots... and some states make it EASY (read: Lazy) for people to "vote a pure republican line" or a "pure dem line"....instead of actually THINKING about thier vote.

Your VOTE means something - from local issues that HAPPEN throughout the year... (city/municipal etc votes.... ya know - votes you have to LOOK for instead of seeing on FOX/ABC/NBC/CBS.....) to senate/congressional votes... that are very nearly as little looked at as important votes....even tho THOSE are the PEOPLE that EFFECT .... YOU, as duly voted on and for the people by the people ... people... to represent YOU...

Mass was goo goo over kerry - massive votes for kerry... he won mass handily... (as Bush did in texas)... ever wonder if the Mass voters were just used to seeing his name... yes... people ARE this stupid.. (get the feeling i'm down on people???)

I guess all my lil novella is gonna really say is that in essense i know what you mean about the functions of your "not vote"... and what i'm saying is that the "not vote" accomplished nothing in the grand scheme of things, and vice versa.... my "yes vote" prolly only accomplished more of the same - LARGE changes in politics rarely happens... but it DOES happen - and since this is a gun board... i'll not be affraid to say that altho the gun issue was not nearly the ONLY issue i voted on.... it is important to me... in THAT sense.... there was only one candidate to chose. (there was a lot of other reasons i voted as i did... )

Some say ... lesser of two evils... i'd have a hard time believing either the rep or the dem would want this job for its "perks" ... i'd suggest that both feel strongly about what "they can do for this country". IN that sense... you would have to vote for the better of two goods... or... not.

J/Tharg!

tyme
November 3, 2004, 06:06 AM
"My vote didn't matter," is a poor argument for not casting a vote. You have both a right and a responsibility to vote: you failed.
Did he say his vote didn't matter? He said both candidates who were on the ballot made him sick. He said that the fact that his State was obviously going to Bush allowed him to avoid compromising his beliefs (one of the numerous third party candidates who weren't on his ballot).

Nobody should even have to think about compromising his or her beliefs. We need ballot access reform. We also need a different voting mechanism, like approval or condorcet voting, that would allow people to vote their true preferences without worrying that they'll be "wasting" their vote.

It's amusing that those who are complaining about Flyboy's "failure" to vote have nothing but quips to offer in response.

Tharg
November 3, 2004, 06:29 AM
A vote for a third-party candidate is not a vote for Kerry. A vote for Kerry boosts him by two votes relative to Bush, but a vote for a third party only boosts Kerry by one point relative to Bush. If the election is viewed as a two-party event, a third-party vote is equivalent to not voting at all.

sig line....

A vote for a third party group that has a chance is a vote for that party's nominee....

A vote for a third party group that had NO chance is a vote for whoever the person would have NOT leaned toward were he/she only offered 2 choices.

(assuming one could not just NOT vote...)

By your logic - a vote FOR kerry boosts by 2 - a vote NOT for kerry boosts him by 1 (and bush by one?)... funny - a vote is a vote... and 1 vote is 1 vote no matter how you look at it... a third party vote is only important in so much as if the person WANTED to vote no matter what... but couldn't stand bush... .... and din't particularly like kerry.... so they voted for mr. nochance....

effectively taking a vote away from kerry and or bush (depending on the VOTERS leanings) thus - if the voter hard line decided he/she was going to vote no matter what... and found both distastefull - he could avoid voting for either - and still cast a vote for basically ... nothing.

The dems argue that "most of these people" would have voted for kerry... (and i'm sure the rep's figure the opposite) but there is no proof one way or the other - only the proof of how those people voted, which obviously stands out in my mind as they don't support either of the main candidates...

still don't see how one gets the if ya voted for Kerry it carries a weighted value of 2....

J/Tharg!

tyme
November 3, 2004, 06:39 AM
I'm glad you quoted it. I just changed my sig now that the election's over.

A vote for a third party group that had NO chance is a vote for whoever the person would have NOT leaned toward were he/she only offered 2 choices.
Who determines whether a third party has "no chance"? You?

You seem to be missing what's implied... those statements are for Bush voters. I wasn't trying to convince non-Bush voters of anything. So many people were saying "a vote for a third party is a vote for Kerry" that I felt compelled to explain why that's not so -- and it's not. A vote for a third party narrows or widens the gap between Bush and Kerry by 1 vote rather than by 2 votes (which is what a vote for Kerry would do).

zpo
November 3, 2004, 06:41 AM
I was surprised there were only 2 on the ballot. Now I know why. Learn something new every day.

Lone_Gunman
November 3, 2004, 07:34 AM
Flyboy, I think you did OK, don't let the lap-dogs of the Republican Party who frequent this message board get you down. To them, if you vote for anyone other than a Republican, you made a mistake. These people long ago quit worrying about the message, and just decided to vote Republican no matter what.

I think Bush is terrible, the worst president we have had since I started voting in 1980. I really didn't want to vote for him either, but in the end when I was faced with the reality that it would either be him or Kerry, I caved in and voted for Bush anyway.

So I have now voted twice for the worst president in the last twenty year. I have voted for a president who has expanded federal welfare more than anyone since LBJ. He has expanded government bureaucracy and size more than any president in recent history. Heck, he even signs laws that he thinks are un-Constitutional, so I know he must not care much about his oath of office that requires him to protect the Constitution.

So here I sit, having voted for Bush yesterday, and feeling very unhappy about it... I know the worst from Bush is yet to come. It is a personal judgement what to do in the voting booth. I think you took a prinicipled stand.

Leatherneck
November 3, 2004, 07:44 AM
Somebody explain to this simple Jarhead how, exactly, a vote that is not cast affects the election? Wackos. :rolleyes:

TC
TFL Survivor

Browns Fan
November 3, 2004, 08:13 AM
Quote:
"I think Bush is terrible, the worst president we have had since I started voting in 1980."

Lone_Gunman,
After noticing your name and signature, LG, I have a hard time understanding your position. Maybe you should change both. Not a flame, just an observation.

Also, by this quote, are you also saying that you didnt like Reagan, either?

Daniel T
November 3, 2004, 08:38 AM
Leatherneck:

Somebody explain to this simple Jarhead how, exactly, a vote that is not cast affects the election? Wackos.

Sure, it's easy. It's the classic "If your not for us, you're against us" line of reasoning. Which is, of course, complete garbage.

Lone_Gunman
November 3, 2004, 08:56 AM
Browns Fan, not sure what your point of confusion is.

Reagan was an excellent president.

I stand by my opinion that Bush II is the worst since since 1980. In other words, compared to Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton, I think Bush has done a worse overall job. I am no fan of Clinton, don't get me wrong, but he did not get a lot done, since he was too busy chasing interns.

By "worst" I mean Bush has done more harm to the Constitution than anyone since 1980.

I voted for him knowing this, as Kerry would have even been worse than Bush.

Byron Quick
November 3, 2004, 10:06 AM
I held my nose, suppressed my rising gorge...and voted for the Shrub.

While Republican policies make me nauseous;Democratic policies invoke active vomiting.

Ballot access in Oklahoma is difficult. The Libertarian Party had to take the State of Georgia to federal court years ago to achieve it. The statutory requirements at the time required almost all of the registered voters in the state to sign a petition.

Our state courts said that was OK by them.

Having achieved ballot access the LP must garner a certain percentage of votes in at least one statewide election.

.333 Nitro Express
November 3, 2004, 10:35 AM
I have a lot more respect for those who decide not to vote than for those who vote as a matter of ritual without knowing what the heck they are voting for.

Along similar lines, to those who stayed home because they could not stomach either candidate, I say "good for you."

I voted for Bush because I agree with many of his ideas - although he is by no means perfect (his signing McCain Feingold was a travesty). And I am mighty happy that Kerry got his pompous butt kicked. I can't wait to see his long face get even longer as he delivers the concession speech... :evil:

Browns Fan
November 3, 2004, 12:31 PM
I still cannot understand why someone who owns guns, and would prefer to keep them, wouldnt ENTHUSIASTICALLY vote for Bush. He IS the pro-gun candidate. I guess it may because I agree with most of his positions.

mrming
November 3, 2004, 12:39 PM
Flyboy, you did fine. Better than many of us. Most of what you're getting is partasian BS because you didn't back their favorite horse.


In the end, everyone is issued one vote (supposedly). Vote your mind. Compromise is a byproduct of political parties and people pigeon-holing themselves. Abstaining is not a waste, or throwing it away, it is part of the process.

Destructo6
November 3, 2004, 02:22 PM
Did he say his vote didn't matter?
Sure did:
You don't list your location; if one lives in a state where his vote might have an effect on the outcome, he has some serious soul-searching to do.
Or did it need to be verbatim?

duck hunt
November 3, 2004, 02:41 PM
Oh, you can bet I'll complain. I'll probably complain louder than you. And I'll have every right.

Didn't play the game? Sir, I was involved. I donated financially to my candidate. I went out and donated my time, and my effort, busting hump to gather signatures to get my candidate on the ballot. How dare you presume to call me indifferent. You're right, I didn't "play the game." That's probably because I don't play games on these matters. I am a man of strong conviction, and I refuse to compromise my principles.

Flyboy, you are my hero.

And to the person who offered to let us wear his Super Bowl Ring, if that's the ring that takes away my right to reproductive freedom, decides that two people who love one another cannot be married, strips me of nearly all of my rights of the accused and invades countries that pose no threat to the US based on trumped-up accusations, well, you can keep your trinket, thanks. :fire:

tyme
November 3, 2004, 02:54 PM
Destructo, there's a difference between saying a vote won't change the outcome and that a vote doesn't matter. Believe it or not, pollsters do look at the percentage of voters who abstain from a particular race. Flyboy's refusal to vote for Bush also decreased the margin of victory in his state, which will make the Republicans nervous. They will try to figure out what they can do to increase that margin in the future, which might result in a concession on one or several important policy points.

Pollsters and academics in the ivory tower may not care a lot about poll statistics, but they do care. Half the work of future campaigns is already done -- they know that Flyboy is politically active and will probably show up to vote in 2008. All they have to do is convince Flyboy to vote for their candidate rather than "wasting" his vote.

1. It pays to make the election as close as possible, because doing so increases the chance that the winning party will change parts of its platform in the future.
2. Pollsters and political theorists care about voting statistics, particularly about NOTA (none of the above) presidential votes.

tyme
November 3, 2004, 03:12 PM
Flyboy, you can name 6 candidates? That's something to improve in the future. There were at least 5 significant third parties ;) The only reason I knew who they were was because I watched the four-party debate with Badnarik, Brown, Cobb, and Peroutka. And then there's Nader, of course.

http://www.politics1.com/p2004-ballots.htm

particularly amusing:
Note #2: Socialist Workers Party nominee Roger Calero is a naturalized US citizen who is constitutionally ineligible to be President. His ballot status below also includes the stand-in slate headed by substitute SWP nominee James Harris in those states where Calero was legally barred from ballot access.

docbones
November 4, 2004, 08:37 AM
For those intellectual giants that advocate abstention, let’s take your position to the fullest degree of possibility. If everyone assumed your position, that non-voting is acceptable, then no candidate would have been elected. How effective is any process when there is no participation? Or better yet, let’s all hold hands and not have a firm commitment to anything of true importance.

While your sitting in your fog of confusion, playing with your johnson when you should be using your mind, consider the following. Others, far more committed than you, will willingly support Presidential Candidate Leonard Peltier, a felonious murderer (Leavenworth will be the new Camp David), and his V.P. candidate Janice Jordan that will "call for socialist democracy…,” and the “unconditional release of Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu Jamal, Theresa Cruz, and H. Rap Brown.” Since Jordan has never met Peltier in person, but they have corresponded in writing over the years, we can be assured of a cohesive team.

Or maybe, if we were lucky, everyone’s contrary inaction could bring Calero/Hawkins team of the Socialist Workers Party! Little issues such as non-conformance to the presidential requirements should concern one who has no position, right? Since they are Communist political organizers, they prefer you in a fog. Or if a more fun sort of government meets your acquiescing palate, let’s hope that Charles Jay of the Personal Choice Party is succeeded by his V.P. running mate, Marilyn Chambers the porn star. “During the period in which she left porn (before her return to the industry), Chambers owned and operated a gun shop.” Well, at least she likes guns and they won’t require us to wear wedding rings and be morally responsible. But, oh the fun!

It is an interesting commentary that the Socialist and Communist parties seem to share similar, if not identical, terms and ideology in their respective bios. Well, that is good though. If you worry about work, when your lack of participation gets one of them elected, you needn’t worry anymore. They have the neatest work camps, which are designed for maximum efficiency (read "Coming Out of the Ice" by Victor Herman (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0915031027/qid=1099574937/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-9294028-1396850?v=glance&s=books) ).

So light up a dooby, pull your three women and various bastard children around you, and embrace the coming change.

Docbones


p.s. Tyme, thanks for the link. Very informative

tyme
November 4, 2004, 12:00 PM
If everyone assumed your position, that that non-voting is acceptable, then no candidate would have been elected.
That's simply not true. I think non-voting is acceptable for someone who really doesn't like any of the candidates. I voted because Badnarik was on the ballot. If he hadn't been, I wouldn't have voted for any presidential candidate. There are lots of people who do like one of the candidates. As long as that's the case, there will never be zero votes.

docbones, that link is on the THR library page, and has been for quite a while. I encourage everyone to go to the library page and look through all the links. There's a lot of good stuff there.

Lone_Gunman
November 4, 2004, 02:17 PM
I still cannot understand why someone who owns guns, and would prefer to keep them, wouldnt ENTHUSIASTICALLY vote for Bush. He IS the pro-gun candidate. I guess it may because I agree with most of his positions.

Browns Fan,

I am not a one issue voter. I think Bush is more or less OK on gun rights, despite the fact that he supported AWB renewal for political purposes.

However he has done many other things that have been in frank contradiction to the Bill of Rights. I think many gun owners overlook these things he has done. As long as gun owners don't see new gun laws passed, many think he is pro-freedom, while his record does not really indicate that.

LoneStranger
November 4, 2004, 04:16 PM
Again we have the Republicrats and the Demopublicans trying to confuse the issue in regards to voting.

The only wasted vote is the one that is not excercised!! If you show up and vote the straight Demopublican/Republicrat ticket, vote for some third party, or refuse to vote on a particular issue/candidate you have excercised your vote and anyone who starts to rattle their chops over the relative value of that decision is only showing that they are just ticked that you didn't vote the way they wanted you to.

The reason we have so many varied and restrictive access rules to the ballot is that the Republicrats/Demopublicans are scared spitless that some third party might come out and challenge them and they have been doing this for over a hundred years.

So, come on all you Demopublicans/Republicrats are you still scared spitless of the citizens of this country or are you willing to open the ballot to other parties?
:scrutiny:

Gordon Fink
November 4, 2004, 05:04 PM
I still cannot understand why someone who owns guns, and would prefer to keep them, wouldnt ENTHUSIASTICALLY vote for Bush. He IS the pro-gun candidate. I guess it may because I agree with most of his positions.

Maybe it’s because he would ban “assault weapons” and close the gun-show “loophole.” Maybe it’s because “the pro-gun candidate” couldn’t even manage to properly arm airline pilots—AN ISSUE HE HAS COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER!

~G. Fink

griz
November 4, 2004, 05:41 PM
Some of you guys are amazing. If you were totally opposed to murder, and the canidates were Jeffery Dahmer or Ted Kosinski, you would still post about how "your" canidate is better because he didn't eat his victims!

Good on you Flyboy. Glad to hear of a principled None-Of-The-Above vote.

Flyboy
November 4, 2004, 07:25 PM
Others, far more committed than you, will willingly support Presidential Candidate Leonard Peltier, a felonious murderer
...
Or maybe, if we were lucky, everyone’s contrary inaction could bring Calero/Hawkins team of the Socialist Workers Party!

Except that these guys weren't on the ballot either. That's what started this whole thing: not distaste for Bush/Kerry, but utter disgust at the lack of other options. If we could get Peltier and Calero on the ballot, we could get a whole lot more; more parties would be a good thing, and would increase participation. Or, better yet, no parties, just individuals. I think the best argument for such a system was made by President Washington in his Farewell Address:


I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.


While I agree that eliminating political parties would be nigh unto impossible in the current political climate, I do think that we should at least strive to include as many parties as possible. A new voting system might be in order as well; that's beyond the scope of this discussion, and I'm not sufficiently informed on the matter to render an opinion anyway. In short, it's above my pay grade.

Nonetheless, we do have a problem here, and silently condoning the system by voting for "the lesser evil," with a vote that counts just the same an an enthusiastic supporter's, is not going to help. I fully understand the importance of not letting perfect become the enemy of good. In my case, it wasn't an issue. Somebody on this board, when presented with the fact that we deny trade to Cuba for human rights reasons, but trade freely with China in spite of abuses perhaps even more grievous, commented that you have to fight the battles you can. Fighting this battle in Ohio may have been a Pyrrhic victory at best; fighting it in Oklahoma gives little chance to win, but no chance to lose. Doesn't that make it a battle worth fighting?

mons meg
November 4, 2004, 07:27 PM
I am an Oklahoma voter, and I did the exact same thing that Flyboy did. I "undervoted". One other thing...my voter card has a big fat "I" on it. I have been scolded by everyone from my parents to the "little old lady" election board types who all inform me that I can't vote in the primary if I don't choose a party. Well, I figure that if everyone that felt the way I did picked one of the two big parties as a matter of political expediency, then NOONE WOULD EVER KNOW based on registration lists that there was anything but donkeys and elephants out there. No need to court Independents, or Libertarians, or "Constitutionals" or Greens, or the Ice Cream Party, or whatever else might be out there, because they don't exist, right?

So there. I knew that Bush would win OK hands down. So I made sure I voted for Coburn, Bode, DePue, and any other local official that I could help out. Most of them won. Now all y'all back off my boy flyboy! :D

Yooper
November 4, 2004, 08:41 PM
If he didn't like the two choices available, he did the right thing. We had six or seven choices for president in Michigan, some with party affiliations, some without. I assume that if third party choices were available, he would have voted for one of them, net result: neither Bush nor Kerry got his vote.

JerryM
November 4, 2004, 09:59 PM
To not vote means that one does not have a set of core moral values that he embraces. Certainly he does not embrace the values upon which this nation was founded and made the greatest nation in the history of the world. Those were the Judeo/Christian ethic.

If one has no core values that are important enough to understand that to do nothing is to renege on one's responsibility, then that person deserves whatever befalls him as a result of his doing nothing.

A good citizen does that which is best for his nation. In this election there were significant differences in any area that one could name. The issues included the security of the nation from foreign terrorists, and how the nation should function properly. It included the environment in which we can raise our children and future generations. One cannot be very perceptive and fail to know those things. Evidently it escapes some.

The most important were the moral issues. If one cannot identify those issues and stand for what is right, then he is not a good citizen. He is a foolish person who does not deserve the liberty which we have.

Jerry

Flyboy
November 4, 2004, 11:20 PM
To not vote means that one does not have a set of core moral values that he embraces.

Close: to not vote means that the candidates presented do not match my set of core moral values closely enough that I'm willing to lend my mandate to their causes. I didn't just stay home; I went to the polls, gave careful consideration to the options have, and selected the option most compatible with my strongly- and deeply-held beliefs. I've said several times that my biggest complaint is the lack of options, and I've said that I would have voted, and proudly, had the State deigned to allow other parties (in my case, Libertarian/Badnarik) on the ballot.

Certainly he does not embrace the values upon which this nation was founded and made the greatest nation in the history of the world.

Ah, but I do, and most heartily. This great nation was founded upon the ideal of freedom and due process, not warrantless searches and unlimited detention without charges. "The right to bear arms," not "the right to keep guns that don't look too scary, and then only if you're in the military." The right to free speech, not "the 'free speech zone' is in this chain-link-and-barbed-wire cage half a mile from the convention site." The right to travel freely, not "papers, please." And the right to vote for whomever I like, not one of two candidates pre-selected for me by the State.

Go back and read that last sentence again. Candidates selected by the State. Remember I mentioned Russia earlier? Does this sound just a bit familiar. Even pre-invasion, Iraq had elections. Yup, that's right, you could vote for anybody on the ballot for President of Iraq. 'Course, there was only one name on the ballot, but you could vote!

Those were the Judeo/Christian ethic.

Not so much as you might think. The Founding Fathers, by and large, were Deists.

If one has no core values that are important enough to understand that to do nothing is to renege on one's responsibility...

This sounds remarkably accusatory; I'm sure you meant it hypothetically, of course, as attacking the speaker has no place in any logical, mature debate. Please be careful with your wording; I'm sure you don't want this to start sounding like DU.

A good citizen does that which is best for his nation.

And, as I've said, it was my carefully considered opinion that neither candidate was best for the nation. They are both seriously problematic.

On one hand, we had a candidate who allowed spending increase after spending increase, including some of the largest discretionary, non-military budget increases ever. In fact, on that man's watch, we saw four of the five largest spending increases in history. We had a candidate who publicly expressed support for restricting our gun rights. We had a candidate who supported, and aided in passing, a bill to restrict your freedom of speech with regards to elections. We had a candidate who supported, and aided in passing, a law that gave the government broad-reaching powers of surveillance, even providing for searches and siezures without warrant, and kept secret, denying even the most basic judicial review.

On the other hand, we had the Democrat. And, as a senator, he voted for every one of the bills I just mentioned, and held all of the same positions.

Tell me again how either one of them is "best for the nation," given the above? Tell me again how you reconcile either candidate's position with the Constitution. Neither one of them gets it; I've heard both of them speak about the rights the government gives, or the Constitution gives. They're both statists!

The most important were the moral issues. If one cannot identify those issues and stand for what is right, then he is not a good citizen.

Again, with the accusatory tone. But, again, I'm sure it was a slip of the tongue (er, fingers). What, exactly, are the "moral issues" of which you speak? As near as I can tell, the biggest moral issue is the morality of government trying to interfere with the rights endowed me by my Creator (among which are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness). Which one of the candidates was working to reduce government intervention in my life; which one was trying to reduce the government's immoral and unconscionable interference with my inalienable rights?

If one cannot identify those issues and stand for what is right, then he is not a good citizen. He is a foolish person who does not deserve the liberty which we have.

Y'know, I think that's the first thing you've said with which I agree.

liliansdad
November 4, 2004, 11:20 PM
Im an Oklahoma voter, and I had no issues voting. I have no desire to see seven or eight candidates, when a vote for any but the main two is a waste of ink..it just confuses the less informed voters, and makes for a more complicated process. I dont care how much some folks want, there will never be a viable candidate for the presidency that isnt from the GOP or DNC, and thats just fine with me.

JerryM
November 4, 2004, 11:57 PM
Flyboy,

[Tell me again how you reconcile either candidate's position with the Constitution. Neither one of them gets it; I've heard both of them speak about the rights the government gives, or the Constitution gives. They're both statists!]

The Constitution gives the Congress the authority to tax and spend, and the president the authority to submit his requirements and to execute budgets and his programs. If they are against the Constitution, they why does someone not bring lawsuits that will go to the US SC? It is because the suit would be thrown out.
The actions of President Bush and the Congress have been well within the boundaries of the Constitution whether you think so or not.


[Again, with the accusatory tone. But, again, I'm sure it was a slip of the tongue (er, fingers). What, exactly, are the "moral issues" of which you speak? As near as I can tell, the biggest moral issue is the morality of government trying to interfere with the rights endowed me by my Creator (among which are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness). Which one of the candidates was working to reduce government intervention in my life; which one was trying to reduce the government's immoral and unconscionable interference with my inalienable rights?]

You show little understanding of moral absolutes. They are contained in the Bible. You have life, but there is not right to do as you please to pursue your idea of happiness. Libertarians seem unable to grasp that fact.
To be specific regarding the moral issues that I am primarily speaking of, they are homosexuality, which is an abominable sin, and abortion, which is the murder of the unborn.

Those moral issues, and there are others that the LP holds as rights, are symptoms of a nation that has departed from the moral laws of God, who created us. Once a nation departs from them it becomes a nation that in time loses its liberties, and finally collapses.
The lack of respect for life is manifested in the murders of all ages and by parents, their children, schoolmates or anyone who gets in the way of what they desire.

In this race it is clear that the Dems have reached a point of moral bankruptcy. Those who vote for them or those who do not oppose them are about the same. If the differences in the moral values of the two candidates is not clear to you, then you do not have the proper moral values that are needed to reverse the direction of this nation.

Not necessarily being accusatory, but if the shoe fits wear it.

Jerry

Flyboy
November 5, 2004, 12:03 AM
I have no desire to see seven or eight candidates, when a vote for any but the main two is a waste of ink..it just confuses the less informed voters, and makes for a more complicated process.

Ah, yes, let's make sure to make things simple for the poor voters. We wouldn't want to confuse them with, say, choices. Why, that might resemble freedom!

And if that doesn't give you the willies, think about it this way: you could simplify it further, to just one party. And nobody said that one party had to be the Republicans. Hint, hint.

Hmm, suddenly, a little complication sounds like it might be a good thing.

I dont care how much some folks want, there will never be a viable candidate for the presidency that isnt from the GOP or DNC...

Excuse me, allow me to rephrase that a bit, in historical context:

1788:
There will never be a viable candidate for the Presidency that isn't from the Federalist Party or the Anti-Federalist Party.

Since then, we've had presidents who were Whigs, Progressives (under the nickname of the Bull Elk Party, among others), Democratic-Republicans, and, in one case, no party affiliation at all. And those are just the ones who were elected; there were plenty of challengers from other parties, some serious. The point is, parties do change from time to time.

Furthermore, the other party (or non-party) candidates don't necessarily have to be viable to affect the election. Pat Buchanan may well have changed the result of the 2000 election, due to the mess in Florida. Certainly, you have to agree that Perot had a effect on policy as a result of his 1992 bid for the Presidency. And, as others have pointed out, both parties actively court undecideds and third-party candidates; those parties can bring change from outside, as the major parties try to appeal to their members.

It's been a long day; I think I'm going to retire for the evening. Good night, all; I'm really enjoying this opportunity to discuss and debate the situation.

tyme
November 5, 2004, 12:03 AM
The most important were the moral issues. If one cannot identify those issues and stand for what is right, then he is not a good citizen. He is a foolish person who does not deserve the liberty which we have.
JerryM, in any group of two people, do you think one is always morally right? If not, your claim that Bush is morally right is just an opinion. I personally don't think someone is obviously morally right when that person:
- Signs a bill (probably many) that he thinks is probably unconstitutional
- Increases the budget and increases the national debt by over $1.5 trillion in 4 years. Sure, we're at (undeclared) war, but we haven't spent $1.5 trillion on it.
(http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm)

There are some others I'm sure, but the only others I can think of right now are religious in nature, and I think the above two are serious enough to make the point.

Certainly he does not embrace the values upon which this nation was founded and made the greatest nation in the history of the world. Those were the Judeo/Christian ethic.
You are aware that many of the founding fathers, while religious, were deists? You are aware that deism is not christianity? You are aware that the person who runs this server is muslim/islamic? You are aware that continuation of this intolerant Judeo-Christian talk will probably kindle a fire and get this thread locked?

Clean97GTI
November 5, 2004, 02:24 AM
I'll make my post short and concise.

First, the original poster gets a pat on the back and a brew of his choosing from me. It is your right to vote the way you want to and no one can tell you that you are wrong. If you voted for Kerry, I'd still give you a pat on the back (you'd buy your own beer though ;) )

Next, a vote for Bush is a vote for the same system that has let down countless Americans year after year. Many of them excercise their disgust by not voting. I considered it, but decided to vote mainly because of local issues. I voted for Badnarik because he best suits my beliefs. Some may compromise and vote for Bush. While it is your right to do so, and I support your actions, I cannot support your logic and I will not compromise.
Bush is the man who instituted the Patriot Act, toppled two sovreign nations in three years, has lined his own pockets with government money and said we would extend the AWB if it reached his desk. This man is truly a bad president. On the other hand we have Kerry. Kerry may go on about how bad Bush is screwing up, but he supports the same things. He voted FOR the Patriot Act. To his credit, he said it is too broad, but he never said it is a violation of privacy. Kerry's anti-gun behavior is well known and his stances on the invasion of sovreign nations are right there with Bush. Kerry said Bush should have had a better plan...but he still supported the wars we have waged.

Times are in desparate need of changin'
I'll be there to change them, you can continue to vote for the lesser of two evils. :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :fire:

Gordon Fink
November 5, 2004, 01:33 PM
… To be specific regarding the moral issues that I am primarily speaking of, they are homosexuality, which is an abominable sin, and abortion, which is the murder of the unborn.

The morality of abortion aside, why should you know what goes on inside a woman’s body? The morality of homosexuality aside, why should you know what kind of sexual activity goes on inside of someone else’s bedroom?

~G. Fink

Flyboy
November 5, 2004, 02:17 PM
This thread is rapidly departing politics for religion, but I'll try to keep it relevant.

To be specific regarding the moral issues that I am primarily speaking of, they are homosexuality, which is an abominable sin

Says who?

Some sects of Christianity feel that way, yes. Some don't. The Episcopalians have gone so far as to induct homosexuals into positions of authority within their church; their faith seems able to accept people as they were Created.

Incidentally, the Episcopalians have given us more presidents than any other faith, including none other than George Washington.

But, as I said, this isn't about religion, this is about politics. You're arguing that these laws are necessary because you believe that a given behavior is wrong, based on religious canon. In effect, you're saying that we should pass these laws, because the Bible says so. There are two problems with that theory.

First, making it impossible to sin also makes it impossible to be virtuous. The Creator imbued us with free will, with the intent that we would choose His way. If He had wanted mindless sycophants, He could easily have created them. He didn't. There's an old philosophical question that asks if you can have light without the darkness, or good without evil. If you do the right thing (assuming there's only one interpretation, which there isn't), but you have no other options, what have you done? It's neither right nor wrong; it merely is. Without choice, without options, without the capability to do wrong, there is no morality, just existence.

Second, and more importantly: you argue for laws with religious justification. There's a term for such things. That term is "theocracy." You don't want one. It is all well and good to argue for morality, and for individuals to comport themselves along the path of Right; the government, however, should not be in the business of determining what is Right. You can argue for laws against murder, or rape, or theft, on secular grounds: those actions infringe upon the rights of the victim. The actions of consenting adults cannot justly be regulated by a government that exists only to protect the rights of individuals. When you get into the business of saying "you can't do that, because it's bad," you establish a precedent that will ultimately extend to you. Think about it: what if, instead of a Christian, we had Muslims in office. Do you want to live under Islamic law (I am not, of course, disparaging that religion; rather, I'm pointing out that different religions have different beliefs, and that no single faith would satisfy everybody)? Even staying within Christianity, which branch? The Catholics say that any form of contraception is a sin. The Nazarenes believe that consumption of alcohol is a sin. Some branches of Mormon believe that polygamy is acceptable, or even encouraged. Yet they all fall under the general umbrella of Christianity. Which one do we use?

Even more troubling is the fact that the Church can, in fact, be wrong; we're only human, after all. To wit: it was only recently (1997, IIRC) that the Catholic church pardoned Galileo for his heresy in suggesting that (get this!) the Earth orbits the Sun! Can you imagine that? And here we've known for centuries that the Earth is the center of the universe! What a nutcas...er, what? You mean he was right? Oh, well, scratch that. What were we saying? Oh, yeah, something about the Church, being run as it is by men, who are (nearly by definition) fallible, making mistakes.

Furthermore, don't you think that the Creator can handle enforcing his own laws? If He really thinks something is a problem, don't you think that He can take care of the problem? Isn't there a line in the Bible somewhere about not judging other people, lest ye be judged?

The point to all of this is that a theocracy, in whatever form, is a bad form of government. I'm not saying that religion, or morality, is bad, but rather that it's not the legitimate function of government to define what we believe. The most basic premise of our government is that it exists to protect our rights. To wit:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Governments are instituted to secure these rights. Notice it says nothing about morality, or enforcing Biblical law. Leave religion to the church, and politics to the government.

JerryM
November 5, 2004, 03:28 PM
Hi Flyboy, Tyme, and Gordon,

I’ll see how many of your points that I can address in the “space allotted.”

Let me quote George Washington a couple of times. However, when it comes to moral absolutes no man is the authority, but only God. He has spoken in His Word, the Bible.

“I am sure that never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs, than those in the United States; and I would be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our Revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is alone able to protect them.”

‘It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

[JerryM, in any group of two people, do you think one is always morally right? If not, your claim that Bush is morally right is just an opinion. I personally don't think someone is obviously morally right when that person:
- Signs a bill (probably many) that he thinks is probably unconstitutional
- Increases the budget and increases the national debt by over $1.5 trillion in 4 years. Sure, we're at (undeclared) war, but we haven't spent $1.5 trillion on it.]

One is only right, morally, if he agrees with the moral absolutes which God has established. It is easy to have 100 people and they all be wrong if they are at odds with what God has said.
The issues of the budget are not moral issues as such. It does not mean that they are not exceedingly important, but they are not moral in nature. They are not unconstitutional, but may not be the best things to do at a particular time. Reagan was criticized for deficits, but he did what was necessary to cause the Soviet Union to collapse. We are a safer nation and world, and more people are free. It was worth it.

GWB has had to deal with terrorism. It is easy to be critical of what is being done, but I do not hear any viable plan to do it better. Most plans I hear are not specific, and simply make statements that a grade schooler could see is too general to be put into practice.

I have not agreed with either party on the “job export” issues, but that has been approved by both parties.

But the moral issues are clearly homosexuality and abortion. The Bible is clear on those issues. We can disagree about the budget, what we do about social security, or how the war is fought. We might reach compromises on such issues, and I think we will. But there can be no compromise on an issue which God has said is an abomination to Him, or the murder of the unborn. Those are not negotiable.

[You are aware that many of the founding fathers, while religious, were deists? You are aware that deism is not christianity? You are aware that the person who runs this server is muslim/islamic? You are aware that continuation of this intolerant Judeo-Christian talk will probably kindle a fire and get this thread locked.]

I think the quotes by George Washington make my point, and the posting of the Ten Commandments, manger scenes, and many other signs which confirm the Judeo/Christian ethic of the founders.

What anyone here is does not change the truth, and the truth of the election. This is basically a Christian nation in its beliefs and laws. We have freedom of religion here, but that does not make all religions equal. They are not and I do not intend to try to accommodate anyone to try to indicate that they are all equal. There is only one way to God, and that is through His Son, Jesus Christ. There is no other way. Does tolerance mean that I accept all religions as equal? If so, then I am not tolerant, and have no intention of becoming tolerant regardless of the consequences.

[The morality of abortion aside, why should you know what goes on inside a woman’s body? The morality of homosexuality aside, why should you know what kind of sexual activity goes on inside of someone else’s bedroom?]

Because it is detrimental to all the nation when one group is considered not worth preserving, and permitted to be murdered.
In some sense a nation is considered a whole, instead of individuals without the whole. The old saying that “No man is an island” makes that point. What individuals do impacts all in many instances. A nation that permits the murder of the unborn is a nation that will suffer God’s judgment in time.

A nation that approves homosexuality is a nation ripe for His judgment. God said this about such.
“Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
25. And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.”

“Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.”

I do not desire to see my nation deteriorate to the degree that we suffer judgment, although we deserve it.

Flyboy,
[Says who?
Some sects of Christianity feel that way, yes. Some don't. The Episcopalians have gone so far as to induct homosexuals into positions of authority within their church; their faith seems able to accept people as they were Created.
Incidentally, the Episcopalians have given us more presidents than any other faith, including none other than George Washington.]

It is not so important what any sect of Christianity feels, but it is important what God has said. Most denomination, including The Episcopalians, have departed from the faith. They are no longer following Christianity. George Washington, and the old time Episcopalians would be appalled at what that denomination has fallen to.
People are now born with fallen natures. They have all sorts of immoral desires and propensities. Some are inclined to violence, or wanting every member of the opposite sex they see, or sex with children, or stealing, or lying, or homosexuality. But we do not excuse those, except homosexuality, and say that since they were born with those desires it is OK for them to practice them. However, some make an exception for homosexuality. It is the same as other sinful lusts, and should be treated as such.

Although this is about politics, what a nation does and the laws it passes reflects the moral values of that nation. Ours is departing from those values that stood us in good stead for 200 years. No, we were not perfect, but we were a far better nation 50 years ago than now. That issue was a major part of the election, and was responsible for Bush being elected instead of Kerry.

Now those who do not vote do not shape the nation, but are at the mercy of those who do. If Kerry had been elected you and others who voted third party or none, would whine about loss of gun rights. But you ignored the fact that there will be Supreme Court justices, and many federal judges appointed the next four years. You decided that you would leave that to the luck of the draw, and if Kerry had been elected you might imagine the anti-gun type liberals he would have appointed, if he could. You would soon be jailed for hate speech for stating your views.

Jerry

Obiwan
November 5, 2004, 03:36 PM
Personally, I think not voting at all is positively unamerican.

It is a shame so many decide not to. They deserve whatever they get.

Actually voting, but not for President is a little like taking your ball and going home.

Life is one big compromise...you rarely get it your way.

There are times when you simply have to choose between 2 less than perfect (to you) options.

Or, you can decide " I can't have it my way, so I don't want to play this game"

Both leaders and followers will vote...the rest are just along for the ride!

Gordon Fink
November 5, 2004, 03:48 PM
But the moral issues are clearly homosexuality and abortion. The Bible is clear on those issues.…

Jerry, did God write the Bible? I submit that He did not and suggest that you not presume to speak for Him.

~G. Fink

TamThompson
November 5, 2004, 03:52 PM
Would you (the original poster) settle for a neighbor with a clear conscience? Here in Texas, we had Michael Badnarik (a.k.a. "the Libertarian guy") on the ballot. He got my vote.

I'm a moderate, and the consistency to my votes is freedom.

I wish the Republicans would not gloat, and that the Democrats would get over it, quit moping, and get their act together. We need a system of at least two strong parties--preferably more--to keep each other honest.

JerryM:
I find your remarks offensive.
I am an Episcopalian woman who is a moderate Libertarian. I was not born with a 'fallen nature' (as if you'd know--you don't know me), nor would I *whine* about a Kerry victory--I take action! If you want to preach, go start your own church and take your prejudices elsewhere. :fire:

Best to all,

JerryM
November 5, 2004, 03:59 PM
Gordon,

[Jerry, did God write the Bible? I submit that He did not and suggest that you presume not to speak for Him.]

God inspired the authors of the various books of the Bible to write the things they wrote. He did it so that His Word would be correct and given to mankind to reveal much about His nature, mankind, the requirements that would have to be met to be acceptable to Him, and His plan of redemption for mankind in Christ.

I can only speak for Him when I state what He has said. I did not, and could not, originate the message, but just carry it.

It is a ploy to deny that God inspired the Bible, and that it is an accurate book of what He has said. If it was just a bunch of men, then it has no authority, and your view is as good as mine. However, since it is divinely inspired, it is authoritative, and one disobeys at his peril, and ultimate judgment. When I say what He has said, I am just stating His word.

Jerry

Gordon Fink
November 5, 2004, 04:07 PM
Jerry, I think that God did inspire the Bible, but I also think that the men who wrote it were human and fallible and probably let their own social and political agendas color their interpretations of God’s inspiration.

Either way, by law, the United States is not a Christian republic.

~G. Fink

Flyboy
November 5, 2004, 04:08 PM
It is a ploy to deny that God inspired the Bible, and that it is an accurate book of what He has said.

Inspired, yes; wrote, no. And, even if he did write it, how many times has it been transcribed, and translated, by flawed--"fallen"--men? Ever played "telephone?"

Unless, of course, you're reading the original copies. How is your Ancient Aramaic, anyway?

duck hunt
November 5, 2004, 04:09 PM
God inspired the authors of the various books of the Bible to write the things they wrote.

God also inspired the authors of the Koran, the Torah, the Sacred Writings of Baha'u'llah (Bahai Faith) and the Book of Mormon, among others. How the messengers interpreted and wrote it is another thing entirely.

JerryM
November 5, 2004, 04:16 PM
TamThompson ,

[JerryM:
I find your remarks offensive.
I am an Episcopalian woman who is a moderate Libertarian. I was not born with a 'fallen nature' (as if you'd know--you don't know me), nor would I *whine* about a Kerry victory--I take action! If you want to preach, go start your own church and take your prejudices elsewhere. ]

Tam, while it was not my intention to offend, it is a fact that the truth of God’s Word offends those who are disobedient to it.
If you do not understand that you were born with a fallen nature, then you know almost nothing about the Bible, and mankind. The Bible makes it clear that ALL mankind is born with a fallen nature. Have you never read the Bible? Why do you think that you need to be saved/born again to become acceptable to God? Yet the Episcopalians, among other denominations, evidently do not teach or recognize that fact, and think that they are saved when they are not truly born again. Their eternal future is in the balance. Please realize that you are a fallen sinner and need to be saved to have eternal life. The Bible says that there is none good, no not one. That means you and me, but Jesus can make us righteous and does when we come to Him recognizing our fallen condition, repenting, and asking Him for salvation.

I have the responsibility to carry the truth of Gospel to all who I can reach. Christ commanded it. Part of that responsibility is to be a good citizen and seek to have my nation and it laws and practices a nation of righteousness. That is my intent.

I am not sure what you mean by prejudices as such. If you mean that I believe, honor, and obey as well as I can, the Word of God, and do not try to distort what He has said to be popular or make people feel good, then I plead guilty.
God has said that some particular things are sin, and He is clear on that. I want my nation to reflect the godly attitudes that were the basis of this nation in the beginning.

If you find that attitude and the things that I have posted in regard to that offensive, then so be it. If you will study the Bible and have a desire to be obedient to God, then you will not be offended, but will join me in the quest to improve this nation through acceptance of correct moral values. Our nation’s future is at stake.

Jerry

JerryM
November 5, 2004, 04:27 PM
God inspired the Bible, and has preserved it so that mankind can know and understand what He requires, and Who He is. He has not left it to chance that we could get it right, because we could not. He has preserved His Word, and it is the ultimate authority. He did not permit the authors of the Bible to write anything they desired in their human understanding, but required that they write what He desired. They did so and it is still protected and preserved. In fact they did not completely understand some of the things that they wrote. But they wrote as God inspired them.

Folks, do not tell me that you believe it and then try to explain it away by saying that men wrote it and said what they desired, and it was not what God said. If you believe that then you do not believe the Bible, and there is no ultimate authority for you to live by. That permits you a wide latitude of moral interpretation, and when the Bible does not suit you then you say it is not accurate. That is nonsense.

No, the Koran, Book of Mormon, and other writings, were not inspired by God. He has said that Jesus is the only way to salvation, and there is not other way. The other writings that were mentioned are not God’s Word.

Jerry

duck hunt
November 5, 2004, 04:29 PM
No, the Koran, Book of Mormon, and other writings, were not inspired by God.

Yes, they were, every bit as much as the Bible was.

JerryM
November 5, 2004, 04:49 PM
Duck hunt,
You can believe that if you desire, but common sense tells you that it cannot be true.
God does not contradict Himself. If He did then one could not know what He has said, and what is expected of mankind. His Word says that He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, and that He changes not.

Those other books contradict the Bible, and so cannot be inspired by God. Impossible. The Bible tells us that there is only one way of salvation, and that way is Jesus and Him alone, which is disputed by the other books. It further tells us that Jesus is God, and that there is only one God. It tells us that God is one, He is eternal, and that there is not nor have been any other gods.

Mormonism disputes that. Joseph Smith said that God the Father had a father, and Jesus had a grandfather.

Jerry

duck hunt
November 5, 2004, 04:55 PM
But Jerry, Islam says the only way to salvation is to accept that there is only one true God and Mohammed is his prophet. So one could say that the Bible contradicts that and therefore could not be true.

Common sense tells me that all of these books were written by people -- simple humans -- who felt that they were inspired by God and wrote down what they felt he was saying to them as best they could.

Common sense also tells me as humans they are fallible.

Common sense then allows me to conclude that they are all very valuable and interesting works of historical fiction inspired by faith.

JerryM
November 5, 2004, 05:29 PM
duck hunt,

You are simply wrong. Your common sense is that of a fallen human who is at enmity with God. You cannot understand the things of God, and accordingly make assumptions based upon that lack of understanding.

You may believe as you will, but in the end you will learn the truth too late, usless you change.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

A couple of things demonstrate that man cannot make correct determinations regarding spiritual things.
1. Man could never conceive of the way of salvation. Mankind is taught that he must earn what he gets. While it is true in the professional world, the Bible tells us that we cannot earn our salvation. The Ten Commandments show us that we can never meet the standards of God. There is no tolerance, and no person ever has or can obey them perfectly, which is the requirement. Only Jesus could and did. It does not make sense that He, who died 2000 + years ago, could pay that price for my sins. But He did. Man would never think of that or accept it on his own.

2. The Jew has survived in spite of many nations and rulers attempts to wipe them from the face of the earth. God said thay were His chosen nation and He would preserve them. No other nation in history has been scattered and then become a nation again.

3 I must add that the prophecies of the Bible have come to pass exactly as the prophets said hundreds of years before they were fulfilled.

You are simply incorrect in your thinking. Consider the following.

Proverbs 1:7 ¶The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

Jerry

duck hunt
November 5, 2004, 05:32 PM
Jerry --

You are not going to change my mind on this, so let's call it a day.

For future reference, though, using Scripture in an argument over whether or not the Bible is the word of God is a failing of basic debate logic. You can't use your conclusion as evidence when trying to prove your point.

Flyboy
November 5, 2004, 05:34 PM
...but I've reached my limit. We've drifted well off the original topic of politics, and are now coming perilously close to arguing which religion is correct. Rather than stray (further) from the High Road, I think it's time for us to call it a thread, and accept that we're not going to convince each other either way. I'll keep reading as long as the thread stays active, but I won't be posting any more unless it's related to the original (political) topic. Thanks to everybody for providing me a spirited, well-argued debate; these sorts are discussions are truly one of the joys of this place, providing as they do the chance to compare viewpoints without devolving into a shouting match. I've really enjoyed this thread.

Art Eatman
November 5, 2004, 05:44 PM
Yeah, this has gone far enough.

The problem about discussions of religions is that the beliefs can be very, very strong for some. This usually leads to dogmatic statements of belief; somebody else disagrees, and tempers start rising. Bummer.

Which is why we try to keep religious discussions out of THR. Flame-fests ain't fun for anybody...

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "I Just Couldn't Do It" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!