Who are you voting for?
- Thread starter Kimshi42
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
forgivenWretch
New Member
(Kimshi42;37999)
Huckabee is probably out. Who does that leave us really?
We won't know for sure until he calls it quits, will we? I wonder? what would happen if we, as a country, were allowed to vote on the same day, and not let others decide for us who we should vote for? oh yea, that would mean we really lived in a democracy, sorry just dreaming.
Huckabee is probably out. Who does that leave us really?
We won't know for sure until he calls it quits, will we? I wonder? what would happen if we, as a country, were allowed to vote on the same day, and not let others decide for us who we should vote for? oh yea, that would mean we really lived in a democracy, sorry just dreaming.
Congressman Ron Paul is the only one I think any Christian should vote for, or any American for that matter. America is a mess right now and even who good Christians thought they should have voted for years ago proved a terrible tragedy - Yes, I’m speaking of Bush senior and son. If you don’t know about our government currently being hijacked by these fascist criminals I recommend you do a little investigating before assuming you have all two scoops of raisins in your bowl of cerial.Dr. Paul has upheld the constitution to the letter of the law while representing the state of Texas. Ron is known as the “no man” because he wont vote on anything that violates our constitution. Many candidates merely pay lip service to it, while their interest remians with the big money and far, far away from any concern of “we the people”. Ron still believes our constitution has merit, however, and worth fighting for at that - that our founding fathers established something worth fighting for - they gave their sacred honor for it. Ron will do the same. We need to wake up and do the same.On issues Ron is very pro-life all the way around. No unwarranted war and a big no on abortion. Doctor Paul wants congress to define that by definition life begins at conception and the term fetus implies human life, not merely just a piece of flesh. He is likewise against the war, and against a pre-emptive strike on Iran. Mr. Paul knows the truth of the war we now find ourselves in and the falsehoods that were sold us Americans for our approval. Congressman Paul will as well secure our currently open boarders, take away incentives to those here illegally, and even brave the frontier of actual deportation.Overall Ron Paul is clean and "free" to represent the people because he hasn’t been caught with his hand in the cookie jar so to speak. He takes no money from special interest or lobbyist. Hence he represents a threat to all the big money in America as well as a threat to the globalist that have currently infiltrated our capital. This is why Dr. Paul gets little media coverage even when he has pulled ahead and ranked higher then other main stream media candidates.For those of you who say voting for him is not worth it because he wont win against the odds. Anyone else you give your vote to is throwing it away. Just look to history. When Bush was going up against Kerry, few Americans realize even to this day that they both would have had the same agenda its just a different face behind the same concealed agenda. Their all working for the same people. Scary enough too Kerry and Bush are both Skull and Bones members and are both Bohemian Grove attenders as well.Elections are rigged. Ron however is clean. He’s got a clean history and he fight for freedom. If this rings def to some ears now...just give it a few years. America’s destruction is planed, and I hate to sound pessimistic but as far as I can tell few Americans will do anything to change this. Americans, myself included, have been had if we don’t start looking after things. This is why I will be voting for Ron Paul because he is the voice of freedom and he knows what’s going on.That’s my 10 cents.
Well heres the factsRon Paul is out, as in he's not going to catch up so that leaves us with Mcain, Obama, and Clinton.Now as christians we should automatically vote republican to have a chance at making abortion illegal. But Bust has done a good job at loading the supreme court with younger Republicans so thats not much of a worry.Which means we can vote for anyone. and thank God I'm 15 because I don't know who I would go for
I don't care about the godless media piece of junk... Ron Paul is what they should vote... although I believe I have no memory of it because I sometimes forget too easily...
JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
forgivenWretch
New Member
(setfree;38067)
I believe God can still work when the impossible seems to be- I am still for Huckabee!
AMEN!
I believe God can still work when the impossible seems to be- I am still for Huckabee!
AMEN!
(Letsgofishing;38047)
Well heres the factsRon Paul is out, as in he's not going to catch up so that leaves us with Mcain, Obama, and Clinton.Now as christians we should automatically vote republican to have a chance at making abortion illegal. But Bust has done a good job at loading the supreme court with younger Republicans so thats not much of a worry.Which means we can vote for anyone. and thank God I'm 15 because I don't know who I would go for
Let's examine the logic of your argument. Claiming that all Christians should cast their vote based on making abortion illegal isn't lucid. Firstly, this attempts to establish a universal moral law (which, unless I'm mistaken, you do not have the authority to do) which states one is not a proper Christian if they cast their vote based on such issues as healthcare, foreign policy, immigration, etc... More accurately, however, voting based on a single issue is a completely irresponsible way of exercising one's democratic right to vote. One should base their decision not only on their beliefs about such issues as abortion, but also on the combination of the aforementioned issues. It will most likely turnout that while one candidate, let's say, Ron Paul or John McCain, supports your beliefs about abortion, they fail when it comes to the majority of the other issues. Specifically, Republicans tend to have horrific platforms in regards to foreign policy, healthcare, immigration, and any other issue which doesn't directly support the narrow, capitalistic view of those in power.Furthermore, to your brash statement that President Bush has secured the issue of abortion by creating a Republican Supreme Court, I would like to quote Thomas Paine, one of the most patriotic and influential Americans ever to live. In his work "Rights of Man," Paine writes "There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the "end of time," or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void. Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies."I apologize for the length of the quotation, however, it is entirely necessary to illustrate the absurdity of your confidence in the ethics of Bush's creation of a Republican Supreme Court to, essentially, rule in his stead. This is indeed the most insolent and ridiculous of all tyrannies. And though I am not naive enough to claim that the American political system doesn't invite such tyranny, I have not so ossified as to simply write injustice off as "The way things are."All I ask is that you think before you speak.
Well heres the factsRon Paul is out, as in he's not going to catch up so that leaves us with Mcain, Obama, and Clinton.Now as christians we should automatically vote republican to have a chance at making abortion illegal. But Bust has done a good job at loading the supreme court with younger Republicans so thats not much of a worry.Which means we can vote for anyone. and thank God I'm 15 because I don't know who I would go for
Let's examine the logic of your argument. Claiming that all Christians should cast their vote based on making abortion illegal isn't lucid. Firstly, this attempts to establish a universal moral law (which, unless I'm mistaken, you do not have the authority to do) which states one is not a proper Christian if they cast their vote based on such issues as healthcare, foreign policy, immigration, etc... More accurately, however, voting based on a single issue is a completely irresponsible way of exercising one's democratic right to vote. One should base their decision not only on their beliefs about such issues as abortion, but also on the combination of the aforementioned issues. It will most likely turnout that while one candidate, let's say, Ron Paul or John McCain, supports your beliefs about abortion, they fail when it comes to the majority of the other issues. Specifically, Republicans tend to have horrific platforms in regards to foreign policy, healthcare, immigration, and any other issue which doesn't directly support the narrow, capitalistic view of those in power.Furthermore, to your brash statement that President Bush has secured the issue of abortion by creating a Republican Supreme Court, I would like to quote Thomas Paine, one of the most patriotic and influential Americans ever to live. In his work "Rights of Man," Paine writes "There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the "end of time," or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void. Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies."I apologize for the length of the quotation, however, it is entirely necessary to illustrate the absurdity of your confidence in the ethics of Bush's creation of a Republican Supreme Court to, essentially, rule in his stead. This is indeed the most insolent and ridiculous of all tyrannies. And though I am not naive enough to claim that the American political system doesn't invite such tyranny, I have not so ossified as to simply write injustice off as "The way things are."All I ask is that you think before you speak.
The problem is that America doesn't want a God fearing person to run the country. What foolishness.
(Wakka;38148)
The problem is that America doesn't want a God fearing person to run the country. What foolishness.
Agreed!America is so Lukewarm. Oh Lord, please help us get through this.JagLovest ye in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
The problem is that America doesn't want a God fearing person to run the country. What foolishness.
Agreed!America is so Lukewarm. Oh Lord, please help us get through this.JagLovest ye in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
(Iscariot;38146)
Let's examine the logic of your argument. Claiming that all Christians should cast their vote based on making abortion illegal isn't lucid. Firstly, this attempts to establish a universal moral law (which, unless I'm mistaken, you do not have the authority to do) which states one is not a proper Christian if they cast their vote based on such issues as healthcare, foreign policy, immigration, etc... More accurately, however, voting based on a single issue is a completely irresponsible way of exercising one's democratic right to vote. One should base their decision not only on their beliefs about such issues as abortion, but also on the combination of the aforementioned issues. It will most likely turnout that while one candidate, let's say, Ron Paul or John McCain, supports your beliefs about abortion, they fail when it comes to the majority of the other issues. Specifically, Republicans tend to have horrific platforms in regards to foreign policy, healthcare, immigration, and any other issue which doesn't directly support the narrow, capitalistic view of those in power.Furthermore, to your brash statement that President Bush has secured the issue of abortion by creating a Republican Supreme Court, I would like to quote Thomas Paine, one of the most patriotic and influential Americans ever to live. In his work "Rights of Man," Paine writes "There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the "end of time," or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void. Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies."I apologize for the length of the quotation, however, it is entirely necessary to illustrate the absurdity of your confidence in the ethics of Bush's creation of a Republican Supreme Court to, essentially, rule in his stead. This is indeed the most insolent and ridiculous of all tyrannies. And though I am not naive enough to claim that the American political system doesn't invite such tyranny, I have not so ossified as to simply write injustice off as "The way things are."All I ask is that you think before you speak.
Listen all I know is that thousands of people are dying in mothers wounds each day, and that needs to stop as soon as possible. 2nd- republican judges outnumber democrat judges 7-2, whcih means republican laws will be passed. and seeing as republicans believe in right to life.voting democrat doesn't mean your not christian, I'm just saying as christian its our duty to try to stop abortion.
Let's examine the logic of your argument. Claiming that all Christians should cast their vote based on making abortion illegal isn't lucid. Firstly, this attempts to establish a universal moral law (which, unless I'm mistaken, you do not have the authority to do) which states one is not a proper Christian if they cast their vote based on such issues as healthcare, foreign policy, immigration, etc... More accurately, however, voting based on a single issue is a completely irresponsible way of exercising one's democratic right to vote. One should base their decision not only on their beliefs about such issues as abortion, but also on the combination of the aforementioned issues. It will most likely turnout that while one candidate, let's say, Ron Paul or John McCain, supports your beliefs about abortion, they fail when it comes to the majority of the other issues. Specifically, Republicans tend to have horrific platforms in regards to foreign policy, healthcare, immigration, and any other issue which doesn't directly support the narrow, capitalistic view of those in power.Furthermore, to your brash statement that President Bush has secured the issue of abortion by creating a Republican Supreme Court, I would like to quote Thomas Paine, one of the most patriotic and influential Americans ever to live. In his work "Rights of Man," Paine writes "There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the "end of time," or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void. Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies."I apologize for the length of the quotation, however, it is entirely necessary to illustrate the absurdity of your confidence in the ethics of Bush's creation of a Republican Supreme Court to, essentially, rule in his stead. This is indeed the most insolent and ridiculous of all tyrannies. And though I am not naive enough to claim that the American political system doesn't invite such tyranny, I have not so ossified as to simply write injustice off as "The way things are."All I ask is that you think before you speak.
Listen all I know is that thousands of people are dying in mothers wounds each day, and that needs to stop as soon as possible. 2nd- republican judges outnumber democrat judges 7-2, whcih means republican laws will be passed. and seeing as republicans believe in right to life.voting democrat doesn't mean your not christian, I'm just saying as christian its our duty to try to stop abortion.
Another vote for Ron Paul here. For all the reasons stated in this thread by other people and elsewhere by me. And I intend to write his name on the ballot in November even if he does not get the nomination. Some interesting things to consider, however, about the nomination:Mitt Romney's son said this week that his father may re-enter the race. Huckabee is projected to do very well in Texas. I would say it's safe to assume that Ron Paul will do well in his home state as he is against the Nafta superhighway which is in its first phases of development in Texas. He is also the strongest candidate on immigration reform and these 2 issues are huge in Texas. Now, taking these things into account there is a good possibility for a brokered convention. We're hearing talk of the importance of delegates on the Democratic side, but the media seem to think the Republican nomination is wrapped up already. For those of us in states which have yet to vote we have an opportunity to change this. Let's wander down the road a bit further. Going into the convention no one has 1191 delegates. The first round of voting takes place. No one comes out with a clear majority. The delegates are now free to change allegiance. The convention is more like a caucus than a primary, so now the delegates will talk to each other. Maybe the delegates that go in are more conservative than McCain. Maybe they know that the Republican base in their home districts are vehemently pro-life, really do want to end the war, are tired of trade deals which leave Americans dependent on welfare. Maybe they know that parents want the federal government to have less say in what their kids do while they are in school and would like to see education return to the state and local level. Maybe the delegates are aware that our tax system is broken and our foreign policy is fatally flawed. Because most of the people I talk to, the conservatives, feel the same way I do about these things. They just don't feel like they have a choice anymore. Well, they do have a choice. They can attend their party meetings and party convention-- they can even become a delegate themselves! And not only do the delegates ultimately decide the nominee but the party platform is also decided this way. If there are enough delegates sympathetic to the Constitution, the platform can be modified. This happened on a state level this year in Alaska and it can happen in your state, too. Suffice it to say, I still agree with dunamite that the whole thing is already decided. McCain has been set up as the front runner because he is the weakest against the Democrats. But by the slim chance he does win the general election, he is "maverick" enough that he will be able to accomplish the agenda that the principalities and powers have for the next 4-8 years. Because I sincerely believe that our nation is being moved towards a socialistic one-world economy and government. The religion will come in time. Signs of this are already happening as I think many here are already aware-- Besides the activity towards a North American Union in terms of economy and trade go, on Feb. 14 the Canadian and US militaries have been set up to act within each other's nation if there is a threat of most any sort. Chuck Baldwin wrote an excellent editorial on this. Prophezine this week talks about a religious federation of nations which has been sanctioned by the pope.Because of all of these things I am still voting for Ron Paul. I can not look my kids in the eyes and say that I gave in because all hope was lost. How can I tell them that I voted for the Beast? By supporting any candidate with my vote who expressly goes against what I read in my Bible I truly feel that I am going against God. (And just because Mike Huckabee proclaims he's a Christian I cannot support his hypocrisy when it comes to clemency for repeat offenders, taking extravagant gifts and setting up a bridal registry before seeking the presidential nomination so he and his wife could continue to receive gifts. I'm sure he's great fun at a barbecue but he doesn't walk the talk.) At any rate I believe I was put here now for a purpose and what that purpose is I am still learning, but it's no accident that I am here with my big mouth in America while it is yet free. That's not to say that anything I do will ultimately change anything but one thing is certain, I will teach my kids what liberty is and the beautiful gift that our Father gave us when he endowed us with free will. It's how you use it that matters and I intend to use mine to glorify Him. And because I have faith in my savior I have the hope still that my family will come through it according to His will. 
ray3:
ray3:Ron Paul here too. I will write him in if he doesn't make the ballot.Also I think Letsgofishing was right with 95% of what he posted. All laws attempt to establish moral laws, that's what laws are supposed to be.
(For Life;38245)
Ron Paul here too. I will write him in if he doesn't make the ballot.Also I think Letsgofishing was right with 95% of what he posted. All laws attempt to establish moral laws, that's what laws are supposed to be.
ALL laws are not supposed to establish moral laws. St. Thomas Aquinas himself makes a strong distinction between three types of law, namely, Eternal Law, Natural Law, and Human Law. Eternal Law and Natural Law are related to morality, whereas Human Laws (i.e. what we do in government) are nothing more than "particular determinations" (Summa Theologica) of Natural and Eternal Laws via human reason. And human reason, as we all know, is prone to failure. In other words, human laws do not necessarily establish morality.Furthermore, only God has the power and authority to create a UNIVERSAL law. If humans could dictate universal moral laws, we wouldn't be too far away from God, now would we?
Ron Paul here too. I will write him in if he doesn't make the ballot.Also I think Letsgofishing was right with 95% of what he posted. All laws attempt to establish moral laws, that's what laws are supposed to be.
ALL laws are not supposed to establish moral laws. St. Thomas Aquinas himself makes a strong distinction between three types of law, namely, Eternal Law, Natural Law, and Human Law. Eternal Law and Natural Law are related to morality, whereas Human Laws (i.e. what we do in government) are nothing more than "particular determinations" (Summa Theologica) of Natural and Eternal Laws via human reason. And human reason, as we all know, is prone to failure. In other words, human laws do not necessarily establish morality.Furthermore, only God has the power and authority to create a UNIVERSAL law. If humans could dictate universal moral laws, we wouldn't be too far away from God, now would we?
I'm not sure if I agree with you or St. Aquinas but I will try to simplify this a little bit to make sure we are both agreeing.Just because A law is passed by a government doesn't mean that law is morally correct.And also just because a government has not forbidden an action does not make that action morally correct.Therefore, as a christian, you should support politicians and laws that are morally correct.And also not support politicians and laws that are morally incorrect.Maybe we are both saying the same thing? Not sure.
(For Life;38611)
I'm not sure if I agree with you or St. Aquinas but I will try to simplify this a little bit to make sure we are both agreeing.Just because A law is passed by a government doesn't mean that law is morally correct.And also just because a government has not forbidden an action does not make that action morally correct.Therefore, as a christian, you should support politicians and laws that are morally correct.And also not support politicians and laws that are morally incorrect.Maybe we are both saying the same thing? Not sure.
It sounds like you've changed your opinion of what law is from your first post...Or at least you are now articulating yourself more precisely, which I appreciate.Also, I completely agree with you in regards to the fact that government laws have nothing to do with whether something is moral. The question that now remains is what constitutes morality?Great Post! You give me hope
I'm not sure if I agree with you or St. Aquinas but I will try to simplify this a little bit to make sure we are both agreeing.Just because A law is passed by a government doesn't mean that law is morally correct.And also just because a government has not forbidden an action does not make that action morally correct.Therefore, as a christian, you should support politicians and laws that are morally correct.And also not support politicians and laws that are morally incorrect.Maybe we are both saying the same thing? Not sure.
It sounds like you've changed your opinion of what law is from your first post...Or at least you are now articulating yourself more precisely, which I appreciate.Also, I completely agree with you in regards to the fact that government laws have nothing to do with whether something is moral. The question that now remains is what constitutes morality?Great Post! You give me hope
The question that now remains is what constitutes morality?
Democracy 101, the majority's opinion.
Democracy 101, the majority's opinion.
Similar threads
