Voting for who?

[raderag]

Which demonstrates why I am not so worried about voting third party. The fact of the matter is when it comes time to put a justice in place, more than likely it will be a moderate. Someone that will appeal to the majority of voters. This is so that those involved in the process can keep their constituencies for the next election.

Either McCain or Obama is politics as usual, and if the appointee is either far left or far right, he will not make it through the process.

That's fine, and we can also say that one candidate or another will win from our state, so why vote. Well, we can also say that one vote doesn't count, but where does that lead us.

One question you have to ask when voting third party is, if this guy had a chance to win, would I still vote for him? If the answer is no, you are likely being irresponsible.

[Tallen]

That's fine, and we can also say that one candidate or another will win from our state, so why vote. Well, we can also say that one vote doesn't count, but where does that lead us.

One question you have to ask when voting third party is, if this guy had a chance to win, would I still vote for him? If the answer is no, you are likely being irresponsible.

I like all these stipulations and rules that folks come up with to restrict a person's voting.

Any vote that is cast, for whoever the one voting casts that vote, is not a "wasted" vote or a vote that must be according to the reasons that some one else gives it. All that is being done is scare and bully tactics to make someone vote the way others want him to vote. The simple fact of the matter is that there are thousands of reasons a person may vote for a candidate, all of them are legitimate reasons and justify the person voting. Even if the reason is that someone likes the color of the candidates eyes, or likes the way they comb their hair, they have a right to vote that way and it is not being irresponsible. They are simple voting according to their personal standard and conscience. A vote is the voice of the voter being expressed.

[raderag]

I like all these stipulations and rules that folks come up with to restrict a person's voting.

Any vote that is cast, for whoever the one voting casts that vote, is not a "wasted" vote or a vote that must be according to the reasons that some one else gives it. All that is being done is scare and bully tactics to make someone vote the way others want him to vote. The simple fact of the matter is that there are thousands of reasons a person may vote for a candidate, all of them are legitimate reasons and justify the person voting. Even if the reason is that someone likes the color of the candidates eyes, or likes the way they comb their hair, they have a right to vote that way and it is not being irresponsible. They are simple voting according to their personal standard and conscience. A vote is the voice of the voter being expressed.

Yah, you can vote for a guy for whatever reason you want to, but that doesn't make it the responsible choice.

[Tallen]

Yah, you can vote for a guy for whatever reason you want to, but that doesn't make it the responsible choice.

Isn't responsibility really a matter that is left up to the voter? Responsibility is relative and according to the purpose of the one voting. How can you impose your view of responsibility on another in a matter such as this?

For instance, I think that the military should be used to protect our borders and insure the tranquility of states. I consider "preemptive" war on foreign soil to be immoral and against the principals of our ideology of justice. I would much rather have a policy that secures our own borders and seeks out those that have come to the US illegally, which makes them criminals on our soil. If I were to consider responsibility, this is a higher responsibility to me than fighting abortion, as immoral wars have claimed far more victims and caused more suffering than abortion. Don't' take this wrong though, abortion is immoral and has murdered millions and is an extremely important issue.

[raderag]

Isn't responsibility really a matter that is left up to the voter? Responsibility is relative and according to the purpose of the one voting. How can you impose your view of responsibility on another in a matter such as this?

Ted, I hope I haven't left you the impression that I am judging your Christian faith because of your vote as I am certainly not. I'm not really trying to impose anything, but rather would like to convince you that you are wrong.



For instance, I think that the military should be used to protect our borders and insure the tranquility of states. I consider "preemptive" war on foreign soil to be immoral and against the principals of our ideology of justice. I would much rather have a policy that secures our own borders and seeks out those that have come to the US illegally, which makes them criminals on our soil. If I were to consider responsibility, this is a higher responsibility to me than fighting abortion, as immoral wars have claimed far more victims and caused more suffering than abortion. Don't' take this wrong though, abortion is immoral and has murdered millions and is an extremely important issue.

Ted, do you see the distinction between those killed during an action taken by a legitimate authority and innocent children slaughtered?

[Tallen]

Ted, I hope I haven't left you the impression that I am judging your Christian faith because of your vote as I am certainly not. I'm not really trying to impose anything, but rather would like to convince you that you are wrong.

I know, I am just playing out some thoughts I have in response to yours.


Ted, do you see the distinction between those killed during an action taken by a legitimate authority and innocent children slaughtered?

To answer your question, yes. On the other hand, I also see that an unjust action such as preemptive war is not a legitimate use of authority. Killing potential terrorists and those that declare themselves our enemies is not a legitimate use of authority, either. War is waged against a soveriegn power, not against the selected citizens of those powers or those that are foreigners visiting those nations. If we are going to wage a war against the Taliban, for instance, either that war should take place on our soil or we should undertake actions against them through a legal process or through various means against the countries that are harboring them.

[raderag]

If we are going to wage a war against the Taliban, for instance, either that war should take place on our soil or we should undertake actions against them through a legal process or through various means against the countries that are harboring them.

So, they can attack us, retreat to another country, and expect no reprecussions? I don't think so.

Legal process?

If a country supports an attack on us, drop fliers and then bombs.

[Tallen]

So, they can attack us, retreat to another country, and expect no reprecussions? I don't think so.

Legal process?

If a country supports an attack on us, drop fliers and then bombs.

The Taliban is a collection of citizens from various countries. The majority of them will never set foot in America and never do anything to America other than volunteer to show how athletic they are by swinging on some monkey bars and crawling through a tench on some 6 o'clock stock news footage. They may be well armed and militant, but they are in no way any threat to America as it is built up in American news media and government propaganda. A group of them may murder an American citizen here and there, that doesn't justify war. Their threat to the US is more of propaganda hype than anything else. We have had American citizens that are just as much as a threat on American soil as they are, Tim McVey and friends for example.

If some of them murder an American on foreign soil, that is not cause for a war but justice in the courts, just as we would any other murderer or group of murderers. If they attack the US from within, then the death penalty is appropriate for that action if life is lost. If another country is harboring them, then sanctions against that country is appropriate. If that country declares war against America and attacks our interests or citizens, then military action is required. As it stands now, we are warring against a collection of people from various countries that are acting on their own. It is just a big terrorists group with no claim to any particular nationality. If we secure our borders and remove the illegals in America, we will greatly defeat their threat to us. Preemptive war on people that are acting on their own is not a reason to justify it. It is not Constitutional and assumes a new role for the US and it's agencies.

[raderag]

The Taliban is a collection of citizens from various countries. The majority of them will never set foot in America and never do anything to America other than volunteer to show how athletic they are by swinging on some monkey bars and crawling through a tench on some 6 o'clock stock news footage. They may be well armed and militant, but they are in no way any threat to America as it is built up in American news media and government propaganda. A group of them may murder an American citizen here and there, that doesn't justify war. Their threat to the US is more of propaganda hype than anything else. We have had American citizens that are just as much as a threat on American soil as they are, Tim McVey and friends for example.

If some of them murder an American on foreign soil, that is not cause for a war but justice in the courts, just as we would any other murderer or group of murderers. If they attack the US from within, then the death penalty is appropriate for that action if life is lost. If another country is harboring them, then sanctions against that country is appropriate. If that country declares war against America and attacks our interests or citizens, then military action is required. As it stands now, we are warring against a collection of people from various countries that are acting on their own. It is just a big terrorists group with no claim to any particular nationality. If we secure our borders and remove the illegals in America, we will greatly defeat their threat to us. Preemptive war on people that are acting on their own is not a reason to justify it. It is not Constitutional and assumes a new role for the US and it's agencies.

Ted, before I continue, I have a few questions? What do you think about our bombing of Germany and Japan in WWII? Do you agree that 911 was an act of war from the Al Queda?

[Tallen]

What do you think about our bombing of Germany and Japan in WWII?

WWII was a war against sovereign nations, Japan and Germany. They committed acts of war against either us or our allies. Then a war was declared by Congress and we acted in our interests. This is not the same thing as what is happening against Al Queda.


Do you agree that 911 was an act of war from the Al Queda?

NO!!! It was an act of terrorism that amounted to mass murder and destruction of property. Those that committed that act were citizens of various countries. The appropriate response is to go after those that conspired to commit that act by legal means within the countries they are currently residing in. A military response is uncalled for, unless we have permission to go after the individuals that were responsible for that act via a military action.

Once again, wars are waged against nations, not against particular citizens of various nations. What is happening now is unprecedented in American history. We are waging a preemptive war against citizens of various countries.

[JBaker45]

Any votes at this point for anybody other than John McCain is a tacit endorsement of the destruction of our judicial system and it's need for a constructionist approach. If you know that the Obammunists are intent on putting an activist judiciary in place, then to aid them in that objective is to be complicit with their objectives.
On this point Trav, I am in 100% agreement with you.

[raderag]

WWII was a war against sovereign nations, Japan and Germany. They committed acts of war against either us or our allies. Then a war was declared by Congress and we acted in our interests. This is not the same thing as what is happening against Al Queda.

No, it isn't, but we killed over 1 Million civilians in Tokyo, and ruthlessly firebombed Germany. The point is that even the civilians were considered complicity in acts of war as they could not keep their government in check. How much more are governments complicit in not preventing attacks from its borders. A nation that cannot prevent attacks from its border is apt to loose its sovereignty (Iraq never had it though).





NO!!! It was an act of terrorism that amounted to mass murder and destruction of property. Those that committed that act were citizens of various countries. The appropriate response is to go after those that conspired to commit that act by legal means within the countries they are currently residing in. A military response is uncalled for, unless we have permission to go after the individuals that were responsible for that act via a military action.

Well, my point was that you agree it was not an "inside job". It looks like don't hold to that point of view, which is good. Anyway, a legal response is not possible. The problem is that almost all warfare now is not form a "sovereign nation", but rather performed in a guerrilla manner. If these fighters are supported by a nation, we bomb.




Once again, wars are waged against nations, not against particular citizens of various nations. What is happening now is unprecedented in American history. We are waging a preemptive war against citizens of various countries.

We are no longer waging war in Iraq my friend.

[Tallen]

No, it isn't, but we killed over 1 Million civilians in Tokyo, and ruthlessly firebombed Germany. The point is that even the civilians were considered complicity in acts of war as they could not keep their government in check. How much more are governments complicit in not preventing attacks from its borders. A nation that cannot prevent attacks from its border is apt to loose its sovereignty (Iraq never had it though).

Brett, your not getting it. Our war was with nations then, and we fought with allies against a common enemy. Those nations citizens were a part of the war and supported it's cause. They were not innocent by-standers, but a part of a sovereign nation which was waging a war against ther enemies.


Well, my point was that you agree it was not an "inside job". It looks like don't hold to that point of view, which is good. Anyway, a legal response is not possible. The problem is that almost all warfare now is not form a "sovereign nation", but rather performed in a guerrilla manner. If these fighters are supported by a nation, we bomb.

If an enemy is not threatening on our soil, we have no business of going into another country and fighting a guerrilla style war. Just because there are rebells training in another country to fight against us, it is a useless exercise if we don't go there and fight their war. We should concentrate on secure boarders to keep them out, and forgetting them in other countries. We waste our resources on such things and drive our nations debt to trillions of dollars.


We are no longer waging war in Iraq my friend.

We are waging a preemptive war against the Tali ban and Al Queda. We are still in Afghanistan and the current administration is trying to increase this war into new areas and on new fronts. None of which should concern us if we work on secure borders and getting the illegal aliens off of American soil.

Brett, we have no business doing what we are currently doing. it is not Constitutional.

[raderag]

Brett, we have no business doing what we are currently doing. it is not Constitutional.


Ted, lets just agree to disagree here. I don't want to argue with you anymore.

[Tallen]

Chapter and verse please.

The fact that it is not there makes it not Constitutional. Plain and simple. BTW, the Constitution restricts the use of government against the citizens, not give the government rights to use against other people in foreign lands.

Show chapter and verse where we are to wage war against particular citizens of foreign nations speard throughout various countries.

[raderag]

The fact that it is not there makes it not Constitutional. Plain and simple. BTW, the Constitution restricts the use of government against the citizens, not give the government rights to use against other people in foreign lands.

Show chapter and verse where we are to wage war against particular citizens of foreign nations speard throughout various countries.

Ted, this doesn't make any sense to me, but like I said, I don't want to argue with you anymore.

[Tallen]

Ted, this doesn't make any sense to me, but like I said, I don't want to argue with you anymore.

That's OK, blessings. :bigtup:

[travelah]

Which demonstrates why I am not so worried about voting third party. The fact of the matter is when it comes time to put a justice in place, more than likely it will be a moderate. Someone that will appeal to the majority of voters. This is so that those involved in the process can keep their constituencies for the next election.

Either McCain or Obama is politics as usual, and if the appointee is either far left or far right, he will not make it through the process.

Ted, Ginsberg made it through the process without an Obama-Pelosi-Reid leadership. I suspect she is considered moderate in Obama's eyes.

[travelah]

I like all these stipulations and rules that folks come up with to restrict a person's voting.

Any vote that is cast, for whoever the one voting casts that vote, is not a "wasted" vote or a vote that must be according to the reasons that some one else gives it. All that is being done is scare and bully tactics to make someone vote the way others want him to vote. The simple fact of the matter is that there are thousands of reasons a person may vote for a candidate, all of them are legitimate reasons and justify the person voting. Even if the reason is that someone likes the color of the candidates eyes, or likes the way they comb their hair, they have a right to vote that way and it is not being irresponsible. They are simple voting according to their personal standard and conscience. A vote is the voice of the voter being expressed.

Ted, that is great ideology but it has far reaching practical consequences, none of which benefit the nation or Christian principles. Obama is a moral enemy of the Christian compass.

[bartalonis]

Ted,

I am in general agreement with you.

At the time that we attacked Iraq there were clearly other nations that were more involved with terrorism, as well as Bin Laden.

Other means should have been persued and would have produced results. For example Congress could have used Letters Of Marque And Reprisal And Captures On Land And Water. A price of $1B could have been placed on the capture of Osama Bin Laden and on the capture of each of his leaders. If $1B didn't produce results then raise it to $2B or even $5B. There is a such a thing as greed and the love of money that goes with it. $1B is a lot of money and is not easily resisted by ample numbers of people in the world.

There are also private armies such as Blackwater that would have jumped at this sort of thing. On top of this add a little financial aid certain countries and creative diplomacy to certain governments and there you have it.

This would have been so much simpler than a declared war on terrorism that is totally open ended and Letters Of Marque And Reprisal And Captures On Land And Water is also constitutional.

bartalonis

[Tallen]

Ted, that is great ideology but it has far reaching practical consequences, none of which benefit the nation or Christian principles.

Greetings Trav, I think that it will make little difference if Obama is elected. There is little difference between Obama and McCain on many issues, and neither one will be able to do much more than a moderate agenda, that's just the way America is made up today. Obama is not the Antichrist, and the pendulum will swing left or right depending on the mood of the voters. He knows that he will not be able to offend his constituency and loose political ground, and he is set on making them happy for his own future survival.


Obama is a moral enemy of the Christian compass.

I wouldn't disagree. For me all of the lefts agenda is contrary to the moral compass of the committed Christian. But to be truthful, my faith is not in a political party of any stripe and I am confident that God will work to the benefit of those that love Him. It is far better to vote according to conscience, we answer to God not partisan policies, and trust Him to work to His end while we remain faithful to His law and word. I just can't get past that at this time.

[Tallen]

Other means should have been persued and would have produced results. For example Congress could have used Letters Of Marque And Reprisal And Captures On Land And Water. A price of $1B could have been placed on the capture of Osama Bin Laden and on the capture of each of his leaders. If $1B didn't produce results then raise it to $2B or even $5B. There is a such a thing as greed and the love of money that goes with it. $1B is a lot of money and is not easily resisted by ample numbers of people in the world.

There are also private armies such as Blackwater that would have jumped at this sort of thing. On top of this add a little financial aid certain countries and creative diplomacy to certain governments and there you have it.

I agree with this Charles. There are many options that were overlooked. I don't think that it would be out of the question to have an elite team that would pursue terrorist through many means. Including financial rewards to governments and organizations willing to pursue them and using satellite signals to broadcast those incentives to people who may be willing to take action and collect the reward.

Although I am extremely grateful to our military and those that serve this country. I am also very concerned about sending them into places that they would have to fight guerrilla warfare and encounter civilian populations that are willing to turn on them and kill them. Ben Laden is a civilian and does not represent any country, he is nothing more than a criminal running an organization much like the gangs that exist in many countries and carry out terrorists acts against civilian populations. We would be much better off making it worthwhile for governments to pursue criminals on the soil than sending our troops there to fight their battles for them. Our military should be used to protect our soil and the American population.

[Tallen]

Ted, Ginsberg made it through the process without an Obama-Pelosi-Reid leadership. I suspect she is considered moderate in Obama's eyes.

And she was appointed by a political mirror image of Obama. Clinton would have liked to appoint someone further to the left if he could've.

Personally I think that Obama has a much tougher row to hoe than Clinton did. There are those in his own party that would not stand for someone that would be a radical leftist, any more than they would stand for a radical rightist. It is too dangerous and political suicide. The majority of voters are moderates and are collected around a core of issues either leaning right or left. The reality is that we end up with very similar actions being taken by either party. This has been proved by Bush's Presidency, we have gotten bigger government, increased national debt, and radical ideas of how to interpret the Constitution. He has also been creative in how his office is to function and increased the roles of his cabinet and Vice President beyond any other that has preceded him. McCain is cut from the same clothe.

[tking]

Something that's been really bothering me lately is the "deep pockets" of Obama. I find it odd that, with our economy in the shape it's in, part of both platforms being about this terrible situation, and the ideas both have about correcting it, that there isn't some kind of outrage from even Obama's defenders about the money being spent on his campaign. His ads on TV, his 30 minute infomercial, and the fact that he DOES have deep pockets has been mentioned on the news every morning for the last several mornings. Shouldn't this be showing those who are Obama fans the depth of his lack of understanding of what "middle America" is REALLY facing?

It's like watching a rock star or something. I don't understand how someone can stand behind a candidate who doesn't seem to hesitate to spend tons of money on promoting himself (and that really IS what he's promoting rather than solutions) when in the same breath he talks about how he's going to make it better for those in need.

Maybe it's just me, but that seems like blatant hypocrisy.

[Tallen]

Maybe it's just me, but that seems like blatant hypocrisy.

It is. And when he is elected he is going to take tax payers money and do the same thing.

[bartalonis]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

McCain's biggest contributors:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00006424&cycle=2008

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Obama's biggest contributors:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Banks and big corporations have a lot of power - you know it?

bartalonis

[Tallen]

Geeesshhh..., many of these corporations are the folks that just got the big bail out money. And they are on both of the lists. :bigthink:

[tking]

It is. And when he is elected he is going to take tax payers money and do the same thing.

I've also noticed he's backing down on some things he built his campaign on. I'm wondering if he didn't think he'd get this far, but now that he has, he's having to backpedal on some "I will"s to "I'll try." So far he's done that on removing the troops from Iraq and his statements about understanding all of middle America and what they need. Those are a couple of biggies really considering the foundation of his platform addresses these two particular things heavily.

Granted, most of us know that what is said during campaign and the reality of what the Pres will do are two completely different things. But still, this seems like bait was used to draw people in and now the bait is being slowly withdrawn with a lot of fish on the hook.

[Tallen]

Yeah, I have noticed that as well. I think his "change" will, in fact, be another Clinton type of Presidency. It will have more controversy than change.

Partisan politics: Say and promise what you think the people want to hear in order to get elected, and once elected go back to the same party, do nothing, that has been the norm.